wow so ...long. so who is the aj here?
Originally posted by shade343:orry, but I have to correct your bigotry here. What you just typed are a whole lot of bullshit. Let me address some of your bigotry here
1) "leadership is compatible with homosexuality"
The basis of leadership lies in the traits of one's personal character and mindset. It has nothing to do with one's orientation. One's orientation merely defines the preferred type of sex and has no impact on one's leadership abilities.
2) "
In any case, most gays I know loathe the army, much more going to OCS. a lot of them fancy themselves to be fun, artistic, and enjoy unmoderated and extreme concepts of 'freedom', 'creativity', many are hard party animals, and many engage in recreational drugs in clubs, and have traits that are in complete opposites to what is required of leadership (especially military leadership) like discipline, rigors, self-starter, far sightedness and big picture view - traits that are tied closely to army leadership, which commands the largest number of men under each unit among the three services."
One vocal minority is definately not representative of the majority. Just because you socialise with a few gays who dislike the military does not equate to the entire homosexual population of Singapore disliking the SAF. It is grossly incorrect to say "the majority of gays" dislike the army.Although I would say you are correct that most gays are liberal and forward thinking. They, however, do not all engage in recreational drug use. In fact, your above statement easily applies to heterosexual males and females as well.
3) Generally, its safe to say that all males loathe the military for taking away 2 years of their prime time.
4) Heterosexuals friends I know store more than just cuffs and whips in their closet. They play with peppermint nipples, candle wax, sex dolls and fake boobs too. So what are you trying to insinuate when you say your gay friend has cuffs and whips in his closet?
To conclude, gays are equally good with their straight counterparts when it comes to possessing military discipline and leadership. In fact I would argue that histroy has proven that an army of gays would be more effective than an army of straight man.
This was proven in ancient greece where the Sacred Band of Thebes managed to defeat armies 3 times their size.
In fact I know so many regulars(CPTs and MAJ/1WO) that didnt declare their orientation- especially warrant officers. They possess more passion in doing their job as they genuinely like the environment and the job. Sadly, they came from a time where 302 was a taboo in society.
Many of these gay/bisexuals officers command a far greater respect from me as compared to those straight officers who think they are very man just by signing on.
Sorry for the delay, i've been busy. In one sec, after a quick perusal, i can see what you're putting across. Unfortunately, all i can say is that it has failed, and also has nothing to do with what I said. It doesn't address what I said at all.
To put it all into simple mathematics, you're saying orientation of a guy = refers only to his preferred sex partner and hence orientation of a guy =/= his leadership abilities.
What I said and which I will say for the last time. There are inherent characteristics that define fitness for leadership. WHY do you think there are so many wannabes who wish to go to OCS, position themselves so hard during BMT, profess their desire to their commanders to go, but do not get to go?! it is because they were deemed to be unsuitable. We can agree that it is character and personality traits that determine fitness for leadership, and I have highlighted above, the general character and personality types of gays.
Of course, there are some gays who are the exception, but this applies generally. You yourself said that they are " liberal and forward thinking", more so than straight men, hence there is a higher proportion of them who dabble in recreational drugs and other devious activities. The fact that u can admit that they're "liberal and forward thinking" means that you're admitting that there is a stereotype of character traits for gays.
Originally posted by shade343:I know alot of gays who ABOLUTELY LOVES the Army. The love to see sweaty hunky young guys exercising daily- and would love to indulge in those activities with them. They love the thrill of bathing naked with them. They are excited at the prospect of staying in camp overnight with a group of random good looking males confined to a small bunk.
yes, I can imagine and think it plausible for gay guys to enjoy the army for the above reasons you highlight in such lurid details.. "love to see sweaty hunky young guys exercising daily- and would love to indulge in those activities with them. They love the thrill of bathing naked with them. They are excited at the prospect of staying in camp overnight with a group of random good looking males confined to a small bunk".
In fact i had highlighted this earlier in page 1, if you had noticed, that a gay guy in the army, is akin to a fatso in a buffet, and hence the concept of allowing gay sex predators in the officer hierarchy of SAF is unacceptable since it allows them to have a visual and sensory feast everyday. In fact, it's not farfetched a notion if some of them signed on for this purpose. Is this the kind of officers you want in the force??
I see you are feverishly supporting the idea of gay officers, and yet you admit that you know "lots of gays who LOVE the army" because of those gross activities that go on in their minds when they are in camp, as they mentally jerk off to the image of their platoon mates working out or during baths. Which you seem to not only condone and even support and think its super justified.. How nice..
I still disagree with the notion that homosexuals have traits that don't go in line with leadership in SAF. It's just overgeneralisation of a stereotype perpetrated by the media and by society's misconceptions.
It's as good as saying most heterosexuals have SAF-worthy leadership traits. We have to acknowledge that just as there are different kinds of heterosexuals, there are different kinds of homosexuals.
Whether this group present the majority does not matter, they should be given an equal opportunity just like everyone else. It's too extreme to say that we should not allow gay officers just because they might do something, rather than something which they had not done.
Originally posted by redwiner:I still disagree with the notion that homosexuals have traits that don't go in line with leadership in SAF. It's just overgeneralisation of a stereotype perpetrated by the media and by society's misconceptions.
It's as good as saying most heterosexuals have SAF-worthy leadership traits. We have to acknowledge that just as there are different kinds of heterosexuals, there are different kinds of homosexuals.
Whether this group present the majority does not matter, they should be given an equal opportunity just like everyone else. It's too extreme to say that we should not allow gay officers just because they might do something, rather than something which they had not done.
since they are a small minority group, and the cons (gross harm to the innocent boys and blatant and unacceptable abuse of military hierarchal authority) outweigh the pros (equality), it is prudent decision.
Yes, being a leader involves making (sometimes difficult) decisions, that require a big-picture view and weighing the pros and cons and seeing how it pans out. And the guts to make the tough call, when sometimes it involves the so-called 'sacrifices' of a few, for the greater good.
Originally posted by insidestory:since they are a small minority group, and the cons (gross harm to the innocent boys and blatant and unacceptable abuse of military hierarchal authority) outweigh the pros (equality), it is prudent decision.
Yes, being a leader involves making (sometimes difficult) decisions, that require a big-picture view and weighing the pros and cons and seeing how it pans out. And the guts to make the tough call, when sometimes it involves the so-called 'sacrifices' of a few, for the greater good.
Well, i can argue that the pros outweighs the cons too but it's pointless judging by your response.
All i can say is that there aren't many instances whereby homosexual SAF officers abuse their authority and sexually harrass young boys. Just because we hear of a few cases does not determine that all homosexuals will act the same way.
It's as good as saying just because a NS men died during his service, NS should be abolish all together. Yes, precautions can and should be taken, but to completely disregard a homosexual's right, it's just blatent discrimination and unnecessary.
And your whole speech about being a leader is really inspiring but totally misguided in this context. Yes, a leader may be forced to make a decision but it's not as though not allowing homosexuals to be officers or high ranking is the only way out. You say it's "for the greater good" but have you considered the fact that homosexuals may be as good or even better at leading than heterosexuals. And to take away their position and give it to someone less worthy "for the greater good".
This whole argument reminds me of the "myth" that Malays in Singapore have barriers that hinders them from excelling in SAF. I understand the underlying motive or fear that the government has but i'm glad that this trend has gradually been shifting, with more malays being able to enter leadership positions in SAF.
Originally posted by redwiner:Well, i can argue that the pros outweighs the cons too but it's pointless judging by your response.
All i can say is that there aren't many instances whereby homosexual SAF officers abuse their authority and sexually harrass young boys. Just because we hear of a few cases does not determine that all homosexuals will act the same way.
It's as good as saying just because a NS men died during his service, NS should be abolish all together. Yes, precautions can and should be taken, but to completely disregard a homosexual's right, it's just blatent discrimination and unnecessary.
And your whole speech about being a leader is really inspiring but totally misguided in this context. Yes, a leader may be forced to make a decision but it's not as though not allowing homosexuals to be officers or high ranking is the only way out. You say it's "for the greater good" but have you considered the fact that homosexuals may be as good or even better at leading than heterosexuals. And to take away their position and give it to someone less worthy "for the greater good".
This whole argument reminds me of the "myth" that Malays in Singapore have barriers that hinders them from excelling in SAF. I understand the underlying motive or fear that the government has but i'm glad that this trend has gradually been shifting, with more malays being able to enter leadership positions in SAF.
No, I don't think homosexuals make able commanders in the armed forces, especially in the army. Much worse so in army than navy and air force.
BTW, leadership in the three services are completely different, if you didn't know. In the navy and more so, in the air force, officers operate more like a silo. Pilots do not lead troops out in the field or command 800 men.
In any case, the armed forces is a male environment, period. The mostly heterosexual males would feel most uncomfortable around gays.
And for your info, there was a malay SAFOS about 3 years ago. And from army, no less. When there are those who are good enough, they will naturally be there. If there isn't, its cos there weren't any good enough.
Originally posted by insidestory:No, I don't think homosexuals make able commanders in the armed forces, especially in the army. Much worse so in army than navy and air force.
BTW, leadership in the three services are completely different, if you didn't know. In the navy and more so, in the air force, officers operate more like a silo. Pilots do not lead troops out in the field or command 800 men.
In any case, the armed forces is a male environment, period. The mostly heterosexual males would feel most uncomfortable around gays.
And for your info, there was a malay SAFOS about 3 years ago. And from army, no less. When there are those who are good enough, they will naturally be there. If there isn't, its cos there weren't any good enough.
Well, like i said, your stereotype of homosexuals are so strong that it's pointless for anyone to argue otherwise. I just hope you realise that the person leading beside you (as you claim to be a commander) may turn out very well to be a homosexual. As argued earlier, there are many regulars in SAF who are homosexuals but just cannot declare due to the stigma against them. Maybe when you get to know one personally, you will understand what we are talking about.
I do understand your fear that homosexuals may abuse their authority, but it's unfair to discriminate against the entire group just because of a few incidents.
I did acknowlege that there has been a gradual shift in recent years. And in case you haven't realise, as much as Malays are slowly being accepted into SAF (Wasn't there a case recently whereby a malay officer or something made it to a high rank and it was all over the news?), it is still prevalent that many of them end up going to civil defence or the police force for NS. And wow, ONE malay SAFOS. And i have not seen a case whereby Malays are accepted into Commandoes or NDU. Is it because they aren't good enough? I doubt so.
As i mentioned, the government may have realistic underlying motives for doing things this way, but it is a hindrance to those who genuinely have an interest in SAF and wants to persue a career in it.
Originally posted by redwiner:Well, like i said, your stereotype of homosexuals are so strong that it's pointless for anyone to argue otherwise. I just hope you realise that the person leading beside you (as you claim to be a commander) may turn out very well to be a homosexual. As argued earlier, there are many regulars in SAF who are homosexuals but just cannot declare due to the stigma against them. Maybe when you get to know one personally, you will understand what we are talking about.
I do understand your fear that homosexuals may abuse their authority, but it's unfair to discriminate against the entire group just because of a few incidents.
I did acknowlege that there has been a gradual shift in recent years. And in case you haven't realise, as much as Malays are slowly being accepted into SAF (Wasn't there a case recently whereby a malay officer or something made it to a high rank and it was all over the news?), it is still prevalent that many of them end up going to civil defence or the police force for NS. And wow, ONE malay SAFOS. And i have not seen a case whereby Malays are accepted into Commandoes or NDU. Is it because they aren't good enough? I doubt so.
As i mentioned, the government may have realistic underlying motives for doing things this way, but it is a hindrance to those who genuinely have an interest in SAF and wants to persue a career in it.
I am one of 2 NS commanders. The other 2 are regulars, and both are married to women. The other NS commander is attached to his poly sweetheart (who's female).
Its obvious that you're vehemently and stubbornly defending gays because of your best friend. Obviously, your personal emotions are clouding your objectivity but it's no excuse. Afterall, we're talking about the welfare of enlisted men. Like so many of you like to say all the time, a lot of the men aren't there willingly. They're there out of duty and (at times, reluctant) obligation to their citizenship. The least we could do is to protect them.
So what if many malays are sent to police and SCDF? how do you know its not because they're more suited? and 1 malay SAFOS proves that the system doesn't stop a malay from rising to the top if he proves his worth and deservingness.It so happens that it happened once. How do you know its particular to the armed forces? how about the OMS (recognised as the SAFOS counterpart for civilians as it's part of the 3 top PSC scholarships) who are in the ministries? How do you know if they are well or equal (by percentage) represented among the OMS scholars in order to prove your allegation of ceiling against them in the SAF?
The whole thing is a myth (by today's standards), and a legacy of the past when SG first gained independence. SAF has been admitting many malay regulars for the past 20 years. We see many enciks and officers around who are malays no?!
Originally posted by insidestory:I am one of 2 NS commanders. The other 2 are regulars, and both are married to women. The other NS commander is attached to his poly sweetheart (who's female).
Its obvious that you're vehemently and stubbornly defending gays because of your best friend. Obviously, your personal emotions are clouding your objectivity but it's no excuse. Afterall, we're talking about the welfare of enlisted men. Like so many of you like to say all the time, a lot of the men aren't there willingly. They're there out of duty and (at times, reluctant) obligation to their citizenship. The least we could do is to protect them.
So what if many malays are sent to police and SCDF? how do you know its not because they're more suited? and 1 malay SAFOS proves that the system doesn't stop a malay from rising to the top if he proves his worth and deservingness.It so happens that it happened once. How do you know its particular to the armed forces? how about the OMS (recognised as the SAFOS counterpart for civilians as it's part of the 3 top PSC scholarships) who are in the ministries? How do you know if they are well or equal (by percentage) represented among the OMS scholars in order to prove your allegation of ceiling against them in the SAF?
The whole thing was a myth (by today's standards), and the legacy of the past when SG first gained independence. SAF has been admitting many malay regulars for the past 20 years. We see many enciks and officers around who are malays no?!
How many times must i say it. I do acknowledge that there's a shifting trend which is great. But it is still prevalent that no malays are admitted into NDU or commandoes. They do not even get to attend the VA at the very get-go. And it is a fact that most malays get sent to civil defense and police force for NS rather than go to Tekong. This is even before their capability is being judged.
And yes, i may be vehemently fighting for this because of my best friend. But that does not mean i don't have the brain to consider things. I happen to be passionate about minorities rights as i do have an interest in this area and wish to pursue it as a career in the future. Instead of attacking my judgement, perhaps you can do a better job tackling my arguments.
And you kept on harping on about welfare of enlisted men, but there are other means to ensuring that their welfare is well taken care of other than denying minorities of their rights.
On another note, i find it quite funny you mentioned your fellow commanders. What i said about you may realise that your fellow commander is a homosexual wasn't meant to be taken so literally. haha
Originally posted by redwiner:How many times must i say it. I do acknowledge that there's a shifting trend which is great. But it is still prevalent that no malays are admitted into NDU or commandoes. They do not even get to attend the VA at the very get-go. And it is a fact that most malays get sent to civil defense and police force for NS rather than go to Tekong. This is even before their capability is being judged.
And yes, i may be vehemently fighting for this because of my best friend. But that does not mean i don't have the brain to consider things. I happen to be passionate about minorities rights as i do have an interest in this area and wish to pursue it as a career in the future. Instead of attacking my judgement, perhaps you can do a better job tackling my arguments.
And you kept on harping on about welfare of enlisted men, but there are other means to ensuring that their welfare is well taken care of other than denying minorities of their rights.
On another note, i find it quite funny you mentioned your fellow commanders. What i said about you may realise that your fellow commander is a homosexual wasn't meant to be taken so literally. haha
Why should it not be? You were basically claiming that there are MANY more homosexuals than is known, so many that we won't even know if the commanders around us were all gay.You're basically coming up with unproven allegations to justify your agenda.
Originally posted by insidestory:Why should it not be? You were basically claiming that there are MANY more homosexuals than is known, so many that we won't even know if the commanders around us were all gay.You're basically coming up with unproven allegations to justify your agenda.
I never claimed that there are MANY more or claim that the commanders around us were ALL gay. I just said that there are more than is known. You never know if the person next to you could be homosexual and that's what my statement was meant to be. That's why i found it funny you took it so literally.
Originally posted by redwiner:I never claimed that there are MANY more or claim that the commanders around us were ALL gay. I just said that there are more than is known. You never know if the person next to you could be homosexual and that's what my statement was meant to be. That's why i found it funny you took it so literally.
You insinuated that there were many more than is known, hence you said we never know if the person next to blah blah. Oh puh lease.
And I'm glad you find it funny that so few gay people are deluded and think that they have the masculine traits for commanding, I think you must have forgotten your past posts about gays making as great officers as any..what BS. It was too bad you didn't get my subtext.
Originally posted by insidestory:You insinuated that there were many more than is known, hence you said we never know if the person next to blah blah. Oh puh lease.
And I'm glad you find it funny that so few gay people are deluded and think that they have the masculine traits for commanding, I think you must have forgotten your past posts about gays making as great officers as any..what BS. It was too bad you didn't get my subtext.
I've never said anything about gay people being deluded and thinking that they have the masculine traits for commanding. It's just such a misconception that homosexuals are feminine and that's what i've been trying to say all along.
It's too bad you didn't get my subtext as well.
is your best friend more masculine or feminine? you are obviously 'fighting' this because of your clouded emotions. do you know that homosexuality can be treated?
I had learnt in the US that homosexuality can be effectively treated, if the person is sincere about correcting it. http://www.narth.com/docs/byrd.html
You can find out more for your best friend.
Originally posted by insidestory:is your best friend more masculine or feminine? you are obviously 'fighting' this because of your clouded emotions. do you know that homosexuality can be treated?
I had learnt in the US that homosexuality can be effectively treated, if the person is sincere about correcting it. http://www.narth.com/docs/byrd.html
You can find out more for your best friend.
Ok. Your bigotry really disgusts me.
Bye.
Anyway, there are evidence that homosexuality can be caused by genetics coupled with social environment so most of those change 'treatment' rarely will work well since it cannot remove the genetic component of the problem though i won't deny some people can force themselves to change. However an external change and an internal change are different and whether such changes are enduring and stable is still questionable.
This is becoming a personal attack and no longer a discussion so i'm going to end this once and for all...