Heard on the news today that President Obama intends to scrap the US Military rule (law?) of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
I'll assume everyone knows what this involves, so I'll skip that bit.
So, how do you feel about this? Me, I'm a definite advocate of equal rights for homosexuals. I don't buy into the Religious view that it's wrong or unnatural. You fancy who you fancy, and there is precious little anyone can do about it. Nor do I feel it should be a source of shame.
HOWEVER......I am also very much against the Homosexual Community using it as an identity, or something that defines them for the very reason I believe in the equal rights. I have never met a straight person who felt the need to tell everyone, but I have met homosexuals (mainly male) who seemed to be itching to tell me. So to a degree, I found 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to be a perfectly sensible policy, though the practice of discharging a Soldier just because he's 'out' is to me inexcusable.
So where does scrapping the rule (law?) take us? Fundamentally, I like to think it won't change anything. For the same reason I wouldn't go into a 'Black' club, I don't see gay and lesbian service people making things known. The military (from what I've been told, including on Dakka) can be a pretty homophobic environment.
So the sentiment behind Obama's thinking (nobody should be forced to live a lie) I totally get, but I do worry that we'll see all sorts of shenanigans and pressure from Gay Lobby groups advocating Servicepeople outing themselves.
I also don't get why gay and lesbian people feel the need to 'come out'. I mean, I've been known to do a little switch hitting now and then, but never really felt the need to identify myself to anyone with regards to my preference of sexual partner.
How do you feel about this? A good thing, bad thing, neutral thing, political showboating?
All Obama has to do is get Congress to change the UCMJ. That shouldn't be to hard. As CiC he has the power to do many things regarding the military; changing the Uniform Code needs an act of Congress though. If I recall correctly.
As far as what do I think? I think changing the culture of the military is difficult and that you can't legislate away prejudice. It might shake it up for a little while but eventually the military will get over it and move on. Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.
Well exactly. However, I think this move goes some way to encouraging a more liberal view of a persons sexual predelictions.
As such, I think you can legisilate away prejudice, to a degree. All the time 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is in operation, it's arguably endorsing negative stereotypes. Take it away, and you 'demistify' the thing suffering the prejudice. Equally of course, it will take play from both sides. After all, you cannot claim any sort of equality when one side, however much non-prejudice is advocated, keeps on playing it's card, you have an inequality.
I think that makes sense....well, it does to me, but I might have fudged it a little.
Don't ask don't tell helps stop snooping.
It gives the ability for someone of indeterminate rank to ask in reply:
"Are you asking, Sir?"
Which is a nice option for someone of lower rank.
Higher ranks are just getting over the fact that people with a vagina can kill people just as well as people without.
I doubt they are ready to openly accept queers into their ranks.
Being out is gives support to the members of the queer community that are not out.
I'm not talking about -In the media- human fiasco out.
I'm talking about feeling safe talking about your boyfriend/girlfriend to an acquaintance in a public place without punitive social action.
When people stop feeling uncomfortable about 'out' people is when people won't need to come 'out'.
Basically, when the majority of the population can understand why it was necessary to come out, then people won't need to (come out).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As such, I think you can legislate away prejudice, to a degree.
I don't think you can legislate the prejudice of an individual, but you can legislate prejudice out of government policy.
If that policy is lending credence to the prejudices of individuals, then I suppose you're - if not legislating their prejudice away - legislating away something that adds to their prejudice. Really, people should be able to think what they want, but a government that represents everyone, takes money from everyone, etc, should need a good reason to be splitting those people up.
jp400 wrote:All I can say is that you can get rid of the policy, but all the unwritten policies are still going to stay in.
Yes, like the ones about sexually assaulting servicewomen. Remember Tailhook?
Homophobic and misogynistic members of the armed forces are not immune to the law. They can expect to be prosecuted if caught gay-bashing.
On other aspects of the topic, religious strictures about sexuality are completely irrelevant to the armed forces of a republic with a strict separation between state and religion. Anyone who thinks differently should consider emigrating to Iran.
The reason why some gay people feel a need to affirm their identity is because it is different to heterosexuals' identities. The reason why heterosexuals do not feel the same need to affirm their identities is because it is the default setting and needs no affirmation.
A soldier who would prefer to be in a foxhole next to a hetero pantywaist rather than a homo Sgt Audie Murphy ought to get their head examined.
To be fair, Women in the Military is a slightly different Kettle of Fish, as they are liable to different treatment should they be taken Prisoner....
And with regard to the coming out thing, I think it's a 50/50 deal. All the time people come out, they are identifying themselves as notably different, which creates the prejudice, as at it's heart prejudice is a fear of the different.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As such, I think you can legislate away prejudice, to a degree.
I don't think you can legislate the prejudice of an individual, but you can legislate prejudice out of government policy.
If that policy is lending credence to the prejudices of individuals, then I suppose you're - if not legislating their prejudice away - legislating away something that adds to their prejudice. Really, people should be able to think what they want, but a government that represents everyone, takes money from everyone, etc, should need a good reason to be splitting those people up.
Very well said sir! Better than my attempt at the same sentiment.
Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.
.....
Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.
That may be some uniformed homophobic's concern, but the ones that actually are making the decisions aren't. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale. They aren't worried about the shower staring, they are worried about the ignorant people that think that gay people can't control themselves and go around staring at people in the shower. What were the main concerns for integration, in a nutshell? Unit cohesion and morale.
Of course the truth is that people already serve with gay people. The difference between now and if they change the law is you can't create cognitive dissonance. If you are worried about some guy noticing your penis you may as well quit now because it has probably already happened. Did you know that even if you are not gay your eye still work so that when you put a bunch of people in an enclosed area they will notice each other. It is what eyes do, they see things.
Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.
.....
Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.
That may be some uniformed homophobic's concern, but the ones that actually are making the decisions aren't. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale. They aren't worried about the shower staring, they are worried about the ignorant people that think that gay people can't control themselves and go around staring at people in the shower. What were the main concerns for integration, in a nutshell? Unit cohesion and morale.
Of course the truth is that people already serve with gay people. The difference between now and if they change the law is you can't create cognitive dissonance. If you are worried about some guy noticing your penis you may as well quit now because it has probably already happened. Did you know that even if you are not gay your eye still work so that when you put a bunch of people in an enclosed area they will notice each other. It is what eyes do, they see things.
Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.
And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.
jp400 wrote:Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit
Apparently you don't. You confuse experience with knowledge. If I wanted to know about fighting in your area of Afghanistan than I would ask you. If I want to make major legal, social, and political changes, that experience doesn't help me at all. Just being in the military doesn't make one an expert nor does it necessarily make them that knowledgeable. Being in the military doesn't give one magical insight. You get conflicting stories and experiences from veterans. Why? Because at the end of the day they are people and like all people some are smart and some are not. Some are kind and some are not. No individual can speak for the entirety of the military. You can speak for yourself and you are scared of gay people. Ok, we get that. That doesn't mean your opinion is that of every military personnel. Your concerns are not the same as others. Are you a Colonel or a General? Do you make administrative decisions that effect the military as a whole in the present and looking for into the future? Do you have to liaison on a regular basis with political arm of the country? If not, you problems are micro whereas their problems are macro.
Ahtman wrote: Most of the arguments against homosexuals serving are the same against blacks and that worked out fine.
.....
Right, cause everyone in a combat unit is worried about catching Mr. T eyeballing your junk while takeing a shower.
That may be some uniformed homophobic's concern, but the ones that actually are making the decisions aren't. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale. They aren't worried about the shower staring, they are worried about the ignorant people that think that gay people can't control themselves and go around staring at people in the shower. What were the main concerns for integration, in a nutshell? Unit cohesion and morale.
Of course the truth is that people already serve with gay people. The difference between now and if they change the law is you can't create cognitive dissonance. If you are worried about some guy noticing your penis you may as well quit now because it has probably already happened. Did you know that even if you are not gay your eye still work so that when you put a bunch of people in an enclosed area they will notice each other. It is what eyes do, they see things.
I may be wrong in my interpitation,but I belive what jp400 may have been getting at was the posiability of "sexaul desire" in the "eyeballing of junk",and,in a way I understand where he's coming from,in so much as,males and females in the military don't shower together,as the "norm" would be to asume this would on some leval cause,at least for some,"sexaul desire/arousal",thus,having homosexaul men (who are by their nature atracted to men) showering with straight men,would in fact be a simalar situation.
I love this idea that gay people can't control themselves so we should be worried. So should women in the military be scared because some male might be attracted to them? Is there some gene I don't know about that make gay men unable to control themselves? Were the ones people already served with and didn't have a problem with a freak occurrence? Once it is ok to be open it is going to be a sodomy marathon all of a sudden? I mean really?
Thay are already there. We aren't going to integrate them. We are going to allow them to not be scared that who they are will stop them from doing the job they already have.
I don't see the difference between being in the army, going on patrol, then taking a shower and a gay man looking at your knob, and being in a large software company, going to the gym, then taking a shower and a gay man looking at your knob.
In either case it is somewhat rude.
The only way it could make any difference is if gay men were no good at being soldiers. Which has been proved such complete nonsense over the millenia that no-one should think once about it, yet alone twice.
TBH I would feel slightly uncomfortable if any man was eyeing my knob in the shower whether he was gay or not. Come to think of it, if he was gay, at least he's got a legitimate reason to be eyeing it up.
More importantly, he is assuming that he's going to be a subject of their lust.
Chances are they won't fancy you, just like the vast majority of women don't all fancy a particular person. He might well prefer the more effeminate male to the muscle mary from the army.
No Ahtman,don't get me wrong,it's not that I belive that gay people can't control themselves,nor was I insinuating that some orgy of sodomy and interior decorating would errupt.
I was simply stating that since it is improper for male and female military members to have co-ed showers,due to the obvious concerns of it creating sexaul tensions,dose not the straight/gay shower situation create the same situation.
Informed that they should put in for a transfer out of my unit. Yes.
Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.
And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.
bye then,
I was simply stating that since it is improper for male and female military members to have co-ed showers,due to the obvious concerns of it creating sexaul tensions,dose not the straight/gay shower situation create the same situation.
No, it doesn't. Frankly, if you can't control yourself to not jump on a naked girl in order to rape her without some kind of law to stop you, it's your fethin problem. That the military sees the need to point this out says a lot about the people they recruit.
Well indeed. I've seen plenty of my girly friends in the nuddy without anything happening, and when I wear my Kilt pretty much everyone gets to see my meat and two veg. And yet barring a couple of girlies, people manage to refrain from putting said twig and berries somewhere other than back under the Kilt.
Remember people, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. So Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals. It's your call whether you wish to assosciate with them or not. But if it's a paranoia that they all want to bum you vigorously, I suggest you consider growing up sometime soon.
As I am all for separating one's personal life from their professional life, I actually approve of DADT. Why is there a problem with this? It enables gays and lesbians to serve and it keeps what they do in their private life separate, as it should be. At your normal workplace you don't go around letting people how gay you are, or if you are at all, you do your job, get paid and go home. Why shouldn't the professionalism that lets work be work and personal be personal not also apply to the military? Bill Clinton's institution of this policy was a stroke of genius and a valuable compromise to both sides of the debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Remember people, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. So Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals. It's your call whether you wish to associate with them or not. But if it's a paranoia that they all want to bum you vigorously, I suggest you consider growing up sometime soon.
Are you implying that all people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle are homophobic?
Ok yet again I feel the point of what I was saying is being missed,my point wasn't about homosexauls lack of control over their actions,nor was it about fear of people comiting rape in showers.
It was simply about people who are sexauly atracted to the people they are showering with as being improper in a military enviorment.
Men/Women=sexauly atracted to one another,hence they are not allowed to shower with each other.
Homosexaul=atracted to same sex,yet shower with same sex.
I'm not questioning self control,I'm questioning propriority.
I think it's more the 'we find out and you're out on your arse' that's the problem. As I said in my original post, I actually back the sentiment of Don't Ask Don't Tell for precisely the reasons you just gave.
As for the second bit where you quoted me, quite the opposite. If you just find homosexuals not to your liking, then ok, avoid them all you like. But if you're view is coloured by expecting them all to jump you first chance they get, then you are being homphobic. I find some of the Gay men I have met to be highly irritating, as thats all they are to the world. Gay. They allow it to define them, and everything they do is conforming to a stereotype. Thus, I try not to assosciate with them wherever possible. Although it's their behavour linked to their sexuality I find objectionable, it's not their sexuality I'm objecting to. Just their behaviour.
Hope that makes sense. Nasty habit of confusing the hell out of people me.
Reading through this thread, I began to get the distinct feeling of a fear of showers... hmmm... at what point did all showers become places of rape on all occasion. Walk into the showers, to wash up you know, and I... well... I just had too . Now, I can freely say that I would have a hard time (in more ways than one ) showering with a group of women... wait, let me daydream about this for a minute.
Both sides have a pretty rational argument if you ask me. There is nothing creepier... NOTHING, worse that being hit on by some gay dude in the shower. NOT. THE. TIME. DUDE. Like, well hey there buddy, nice penis you got there... yeeaaahhhh... okay then. Don't get me wrong, I would probably die laughing if someone actually said those exact words to me, so all in all, I wouldn't have to worry about the rape part. One thing that I need to work on is accuracy with my soap defense. Take the bottle, aim at their eyes, and fire, pretty simple really.
Am I worried about actually being raped? Well, I don't worry about pigs flying all that often... sooooo. The math behind this is really quite simple, my fist, your balls. Now we can get back to the shower and the naked chicks, which is clearly not a situation involving rape. If you could actually manage to do that without giving the ole one eyed salute, you sir, are a master of space and time...
Clearly I think that this whole rape thing is very silly, but it is obvious that there is some reasoning for keeping things the way they are. As long as no one brings lube and a dildo to a fox-hole, Wrex doesn't care.
It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.
If you haven't been in the military, knowingly serving with homsexuals, then really you don't have much basis for an opinion about how it is handled in the military at all, do you? Oh, you can certainly HAVE an opinion, and welcome to it, but if you haven't been there and seen how things work then you have an uninformed opinion at best. Which is pretty well worthless to those who have.
I can understand why some people would be uncomfortable, but I simply cannot imagine flamer-pants Mcweiner making it all that far in the army. Another thing is that the army is not meant (as far as I know) to be a place to hook up. Like most other jobs/careers, sex is simply not part of the contract...
endless wrote:@jeb, so why does it need to be a compromise? There isn't another side to the debate, prejudice is prejudice.
Just because one disagrees with homosexuals and their lifestyle doesn't mean its prejudice.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it's more the 'we find out and you're out on your arse' that's the problem. As I said in my original post, I actually back the sentiment of Don't Ask Don't Tell for precisely the reasons you just gave.
As for the second bit where you quoted me, quite the opposite. If you just find homosexuals not to your liking, then ok, avoid them all you like. But if you're view is coloured by expecting them all to jump you first chance they get, then you are being homophobic.
Agreed
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I find some of the Gay men I have met to be highly irritating, as that's all they are to the world. Gay. They allow it to define them, and everything they do is conforming to a stereotype. Thus, I try not to associate with them wherever possible. Although it's their behavior linked to their sexuality I find objectionable, it's not their sexuality I'm objecting to. Just their behaviour.
Hope that makes sense. Nasty habit of confusing the hell out of people me.
I agree with most of what you say, but for religious reasons I also disagree with their sexuality. That doesn't stop me from having gay friends though...
Wrexasaur wrote:I can understand why some people would be uncomfortable, but I simply cannot imagine flamer-pants Mcweiner making it all that far in the army. Another thing is that the army is not meant (as far as I know) to be a place to hook up. Like most other jobs/careers, sex is simply not part of the contract...
Good point Wrex, and that is why I support DADT...at least that is one reason...
jp400 wrote:
Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.
You know, now that I think of it, it was strange to see Steve masturbate every time we showered after football...
You're describing unit cohesion, and morale. Whether or not you know that is simply a function of your own intelligence. There's a reason for the barrier between the enlisted, and the commissioned.
jp400 wrote:
And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.
In neither case do I consider it a good substitute for homosexual. It's like using "literally" to just denote emphasis. ("I'm literally really happy!" No, that's not how you're supposed to use the word.)
Thought you were having a pop/messing around with me. All is good!
Quick question as an addendum to the subject. With Don't Ask Don't Tell, does anyone know if Service People have been blackmailed through this? As in they're on the other Bus, someone finds out, and demands money to keep schtum?
DADT was a step in the direction of not banning gays from the military, but it was still illegal to be gay and if outed in whatever way, you got discharged.
Obama is saying it should be legal to be gay and a soldier. That doesn't mean all the gay soldiers will parade wearing a pink tutu from tomorrow morning. It just means if someone finds out a soldier is gay, they won't get sacked just for being gay.
This is a change which has gradually been coming to the rest of society, along with rights for black people, women, the disabled, and so on. It is only logical progression that the military should do the same. Being naturally conservative, it just takes them longer.
Kilkrazy wrote:This is a change which has gradually been coming to the rest of society, along with rights for black people, women, the disabled, and so on.
I am not angry or anything, but please don't associate the homosexual movement to racial discrimination in this country. I find it very offensive because I think it demeans what many of my family had to go through, and I know many others who feel the same way. And yes, I am being dead serious...
Homosexuals do not share the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals, simply because a proportion of soceity says they shouldn't. How is this diferent to the segregation of blacks and whites in spirit?
Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.
IF anything, the only difference is that you can generally hide/mask your sexuality. Kind of hard to do that with skin colour/distinguishing racial features.
Any discrimination is bad, and I support equality on all levels. For me at least, I feel that people will discriminate no matter what. Pick something, and someone out there hates it for no reason at all. On the other side of the coin, there are things that should not be socially acceptable, but those are very clear; being gay is simply not one of these things though... at all.
If someone is gay and perverted... they are gay and perverted, not perverted because they are gay.
I would like to note again, that people have been murdered for an awful lot of things, and it is simply in poor taste to play with statistics in this manner. It does seem like people feel they benefit (if only morally or w/e) from discrimination, and in some cases that can be true in a few ways. When it comes to any job, there is a bit of evolution going on. After all, if you can't get a job for reason A.) B.) C.), but not because you are not the best person for that job (theoretically at least); that is an act of evolution. I am not saying that this is good, by any means, but it is clear that "job security" does translate into a form of evolution.
I doubt there will be a day when we are all gray or something, but there sure as hell will be a day when people just don't have a "reason" to discriminate. BTW, how do other countries such as the U.K. treat this same issue? That is, if it is even considered an issue.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Homosexuals do not share the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals, simply because a proportion of soceity says they shouldn't. How is this diferent to the segregation of blacks and whites in spirit?
That depends on the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. Granted it can't be a choice in the same sense as choosing between rum and vodka, but it certainly carries many of the same issues as alcoholism, and other such 'diseases' insofar as choice is considered.
Society is coming to grips with ramification of scientific determinism, and its going to be a very bumpy, social Darwinist ride.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.
IF anything, the only difference is that you can generally hide/mask your sexuality. Kind of hard to do that with skin colour/distinguishing racial features.
Is you predilection for a given type of food comparable to race?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But it's an accurate comparisson.
No it isn't.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Homosexuals do not share the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals, simply because a proportion of society says they shouldn't. How is this different to the segregation of blacks and whites in spirit
Uh, what? Do they not have the right to vote? Do they not have the right to assemble? What rights are they denied? As far as I can tell they have all the rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.
I am not talking about being murdered for whatever reason. I already despise hate laws because of their basic flaw. The flaw being that the intent behind a murder makes it worse then any other murder. Murder is murder is murder, it shouldn't matter why any person did it. That creates a different form of discrimination, and yes it is sanctioned by the government. I think the creators of South Park are right on the money in this regard. Gays aren't segregated in to different schools, neighborhoods, denied voting rights, etc. To me that already creates enough of a difference to eliminate mutual alignment.
This pedantic, but I feel like it needs to be said.
We all discriminate, and we aren't all bad. I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet. I also discriminate when I choose to sleep with girl X instead of girl Y. Neither of these choices is bad in the colloquial sense.
In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.
Homosexuals are not allowed to Marry. They therefore do not share many of the possible tax benefits commited heterosexual couples have on offer.
Therefore, they do not have equality.
And all because somebody decided they shouldn't. And no, saying that 'they can marry the opposite sex' is not an equal right. Blacks were allowed to ride the Bus after all, as long as they sat where they were told to.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Homosexuals are not allowed to Marry. They therefore do not share many of the possible tax benefits commited heterosexual couples have on offer.
Marriage isn't a right.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Therefore, they do not have equality.
They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they please. They have the same rights as anyone else. Homosexuality isn't necessarily a legitimate category.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And all because somebody decided they shouldn't. And no, saying that 'they can marry the opposite sex' is not an equal right. Blacks were allowed to ride the Bus after all, as long as they sat where they were told to.
This pedantic, but I feel like it needs to be said.
We all discriminate, and we aren't all bad. I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet. I also discriminate when I choose to sleep with girl X instead of girl Y. Neither of these choices is bad in the colloquial sense.
In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.
I am of the frame of mind that humans are naturally nasty little creatures (at least on the most basic of levels), and this is not to say that I hate humanity at all.
I dislike humanity, and wish our social evolution would move a bit faster, but you are clearly right in saying that discrimination does not inherently "mean" bad. My disdain or what have you, is a form of discrimination as well, and in that sense a function of social evolution.
The difference here is that when I go out to get some mustard, I may comment on how I hate this mustard, or I love that mustard; but none of that mustard is hurt in the process... unless I am just that angry at the mustard, in which case, the mustard should probably be armed.
In all honesty, I could care less what people think, as long as they don't enact their ideals in negative ways. The main part of this involves real education about the issues. It could all be summarized very neatly in a mandatory civil rights class, in middle school most likely. When I hear about what passes for an -ism these days, I do get a bit peeved. When there is an issue, it needs to be addressed (and has been as history shows overall), but getting up in arms about what someone said is over the top for me. It matters, but ignoring that ignorance, while confronting the real obstacles in our societies is extremely important.
dogma wrote: I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet.
Actually that is just called good taste....
dogma wrote:In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.
Maybe, but that might require the acceptance of some religious values once you consider how religious the US is. Would you be prepared to accept that?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Homosexuals are not allowed to Marry. They therefore do not share many of the possible tax benefits committed heterosexual couples have on offer.
Same as unmarried hetero couples...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Therefore, they do not have equality.
And all because somebody decided they shouldn't.
Well since marriage isn't a right, they haven't lost any rights. Marriage is a privilege, and most states allow some sort of civil union that does confer the tax benefits to a joined gay couple. And let us not forget that marriage was first and still primarily is a religious institution, which is overwhelmingly at odds with the homosexual lifestyle...
This pedantic, but I feel like it needs to be said.
We all discriminate, and we aren't all bad. I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet. I also discriminate when I choose to sleep with girl X instead of girl Y. Neither of these choices is bad in the colloquial sense.
In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.
I'd call that 'making a choice'.
Discrimination would only come into it if say, you picked Ketchup A over Ketchup B, because you once had a Jelly made by the manufacturers of Ketchup B that you didn't enjoy. Ultimately, the Jelly being rubbish has nothing to do with the Ketchups, but it has coloured your decision making process none the less. Thus you are basing your choice on largely illogical conclusions.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Maybe, but that might require the acceptance of some religious values once you consider how religious the US is. Would you be prepared to accept that?
No, but I don't think its necessary. Bad can simply refer to that which requires additional justification. For example, killing is bad, but occasionally necessary. You can't do it without reason, but with good reason the 'badness' is offset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd call that 'making a choice'.
Discrimination would only come into it if say, you picked Ketchup A over Ketchup B, because you once had a Jelly made by the manufacturers of Ketchup B that you didn't enjoy. Ultimately, the Jelly being rubbish has nothing to do with the Ketchups, but it has coloured your decision making process none the less. Thus you are basing your choice on largely illogical conclusions.
grizgrin wrote:It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.
If you haven't been in the military, knowingly serving with homsexuals, then really you don't have much basis for an opinion about how it is handled in the military at all, do you? Oh, you can certainly HAVE an opinion, and welcome to it, but if you haven't been there and seen how things work then you have an uninformed opinion at best. Which is pretty well worthless to those who have.
grizgrin wrote:It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.
And it is always nice to see over-zealous militants who think that if they served some time they know everything. Especially ones that assume the person they are arguing with never served either. It is great to assume knowledge.
Ahtman wrote:
And it is always nice to see over-zealous militants who think that if they served some time they know everything. Especially ones that assume the person they are arguing with never served either. It is great to assume knowledge.
So he is an Over-Zealous Militant cause he doesnt want to serve while wondering why Kent is eyeballing his balls?
dogma: ya lost me. smaller words, fewer syllables for us knuckledraggers if ye please. yes, there is irony inherent there, I know, now on with the elaboration.
A while back I read a very interesting book titled "An Unpopular War" which was a collection of first hand accounts of South African conscripts. (prior to 1994 all White male citizens of the Republic of South Africa had to do a brief stint in the Defence Forces much akin to the national service of many European countries) One of the men interviewed was a homosexual. It turns out that officially the SADF banned homosexuals from serving, but to prevent feigning homosexuality becoming an easy way to dodge conscription the rules were not enforced. The result was that the SADF found that open homosexuals serving in a unit were actually harmful to the moral and cohesion of the unit. This was so much so that open homosexuals had to be housed in their own barracks and assigned to non-combat arms units were the effect of their pressence would not have such a life and death effect.
Apparently some of the negative reactions were not just the adversion of the normal soldiers, in some cases the homosexuals would go out of their way to cause trouble to amuse themselves or gain some effect they wanted. For example the soldier interviewed related how he and some of his homsexual friends would get the showers all to themselves by prancing into the showers, cavorting around in a "flaming" manner, and overtly "checking out" the other men. Needless to say the normal soldiers would leave in a hurry and allow the homosexuals a private shower, which was the desired effect.
I'm not certain that open homosexuality in the US military would have such a dramatic effect, but I'm not willing to risk it. Military effectiveness trumps any social engineering experimentation in my mind.
Ahtman wrote:
And it is always nice to see over-zealous militants who think that if they served some time they know everything. Especially ones that assume the person they are arguing with never served either. It is great to assume knowledge.
So he is an Over-Zealous Militant cause he doesnt want to serve while wondering why Kent is eyeballing his balls?
He's no more an over-zealous militant than I am an armchair general.
Unit cohesion in open policy militaries have not historically been an issue. They are not an issue with the militaries that our men and women serve with, and they are not an issue when our soldiers serve with them. Any issue that could arise doesn't suddenly become "ok" with open gays in the military. If they are creating issues they will be removed, it's no different than any other form of unacceptable behavior.
So no, I don't have much of a problem with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A while back I read a very interesting book titled "An Unpopular War" which was a collection of first hand accounts of South African conscripts. (prior to 1994 all White male citizens of the Republic of South Africa had to do a brief stint in the Defence Forces much akin to the national service of many European countries) One of the men interviewed was a homosexual. It turns out that officially the SADF banned homosexuals from serving, but to prevent feigning homosexuality becoming an easy way to dodge conscription the rules were not enforced. The result was that the SADF found that open homosexuals serving in a unit were actually harmful to the moral and cohesion of the unit. This was so much so that open homosexuals had to be housed in their own barracks and assigned to non-combat arms units were the effect of their pressence would not have such a life and death effect.
Apparently some of the negative reactions were not just the adversion of the normal soldiers, in some cases the homosexuals would go out of their way to cause trouble to amuse themselves or gain some effect they wanted. For example the soldier interviewed related how he and some of his homsexual friends would get the showers all to themselves by prancing into the showers, cavorting around in a "flaming" manner, and overtly "checking out" the other men. Needless to say the normal soldiers would leave in a hurry and allow the homosexuals a private shower, which was the desired effect.
I'm not certain that open homosexuality in the US military would have such a dramatic effect, but I'm not willing to risk it. Military effectiveness trumps any social engineering experimentation in my mind.
Now find similar stories about soldiers serving in european nations being openly gay. They don't have these same problems. South africa is hardly the posternation for functionality and moderate levelheadedness. Issues with homosexuals are in every way simply a by product of the social tensions of the time. South Africa is not particularly accepting of open homosexuality in any walk of life. The greeks didn't have a problem with it and their military was a hell of a lot more harsh than ours. This is in every way similar to the addition of black troops to our forces, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept or idea, but the national attitude of the time created a storm in a teacup. After time it stopped being an issue, just as de-segregation (in most places) came out pretty well.
You have to take the first step to change peoples perceptions, and all don't ask don't tell ever did was reinforce them.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I think it demeans what many of my family had to go through...
Get over yourself. My family never got their 40 acres or the mule either. Man up and stop being a victim.
DADT is a fair doctrine when its applied to all gender preferences. Do your job, keep your brothers and sisters alive, get everyone home if you can. Its a simple principle. Whether or not a person enjoys one particular sex act has no relevance on their combat ability or their loyalty to their brethren. Bedroom proclivities are simply not something that everyone around you needs to know about.
Its not that challenging to tell someone "I'm just not interested in you in that way." Sharing the same shower facilities is not going to spread 'the gay' as if it was some form of athlete's foot. Homosexuality isn't some sort of zombie movie where you can get infected, and spread being gay like a disease.
I don't usually agree with Al Sharpton but "That's like saying you give blacks, or whites, or Latinos the right to shack up -- but not get married...It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or white marriage... The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings."
But lets leave Marriage out of it because that gets extra touchy. The lynchpin of the quote is whether or not being homosexual makes you human. If sexual orientation changes the intrinsic state of being human then I could accept the presumption that homosexuality precludes the ability to serve in our military.
If we replace 'homosexual' with religion, or smoking, eating meat, not eating meat, or any particular flavor of consensual fetish and the utter ridiculousness of the argument comes to the fore. A person who eats meat walks into a shower with other people who are made of meat...and just can't help but carve off a slice?
South africa is hardly the posternation for functionality and moderate levelheadedness
The SADF was (prior to '94 mind you...they are a bad joke now) an extremely effective and formidable fighting force within their "league". Many experts regarded them as one of the best militaries outside of the great powers....certainly the best on the African continent. Certainly harsh experience forced them to become one of the most skilled "COIN" forces in history.
So yes, I would regard the SADF as a excellent poster child for functionality in military affairs. I would contrast them most favorably to the small and mostly ineffective armies that allow open homosexuality. (most, but not all...there are exceptions of course) Certainly the SADF and it's experience is far more relivant to today's world that of the classical Greeks?
I say again that I'm not willing to risk the effectivness of my military for a "feel good" policy that will only really have an impact up a tiny minority (less than 2% by most realistic estimations) of the population.
South africa is hardly the posternation for functionality and moderate levelheadedness
The SADF was (prior to '94 mind you...they are a bad joke now) an extremely effective and formidable fighting force within their "league". Many experts regarded them as one of the best militaries outside of the great powers....certainly the best on the African continent. Certainly harsh experience forced them to become one of the most skilled "COIN" forces in history.
So yes, I would regard the SADF as a excellent poster child for functionality in military affairs. I would contrast them most favorably to the small and mostly ineffective armies that allow open homosexuality. (most, but not all...there are exceptions of course) Certainly the SADF and it's experience is far more relivant to today's world that of the classical Greeks?
I say again that I'm not willing to risk the effectivness of my military for a "feel good" policy that will only really have an impact up a tiny minority (less than 2% by most realistic estimations) of the population.
TR
You misunderstood my sentiment. It wasn't a jab at the effectiveness of the military itself, the allowance of gays logically doesn't have much effect on that. However it can. In south africa, and in most of africa in general homosexuality is far from socially accepted. It's a taboo. Serving in close proximity to another human committing a social taboo constantly can very easily have a negative effect on moral, even if that activity is little more than simple existence. Militaries have historically had issues with mixing religions, races, heritage's, social classes, and many other things. There is a direct correlation between the level of acceptance of an activity/race/creed/religion/anything else and unit cohesion between men forced to interact for long periods of time. It's a simple effect of human psychology. There is nothing inherently dangerous about gays in the military, they will not begin raping their squad mates, they will not go out of their way to make them feel uncomfortable or confused, and it's little different than the effect of allowing women and blacks into the military. Their existence is only a problem because the collective American society viewed it as a taboo. It is an incorrect view of reality, but its a self fulfilling prophecy. The only way to truly combat this is to do what we have done twice before. Give them equality, and people can just shut the hell up. Eventually people will no longer have an issue with it.
I like to think that America can handle it better than south africa. I could be wrong, but I somehow doubt I am. Having lived under the brunswick naval air base for 22 years I have found that the only servicemen that have an issue with gays in the military are the ones that have an issue with gays in every day life. You don't defeat ignorance by giving in to it, that just lets it flourish.
Oldgrue wrote:Get over yourself. My family never got their 40 acres or the mule either. Man up and stop being a victim.
Funny how you assume I am black....What gives you the right to say something like that? I am not a victocrat in any sense of the word, but you, in all of the radiant glory that is your own ignorance, are trying to make this into something that I never claimed. I don't cry over the past, nor do I expect anything from it, but I will not let anyone compare the pitiful excuses of gay "oppression" to any type of racial problems this country has had. Is it a brilliant political ploy to try and get their way? Yes. Is it accurate? Not in the slightest. My family endured what they did, and I am proud of the way they conducted themselves at all times: with humility and graciousness; some of us could better learn from their example before making ridiculous statements...
Oldgrue wrote:DADT is a fair doctrine when its applied to all gender preferences. Do your job, keep your brothers and sisters alive, get everyone home if you can. Its a simple principle. Whether or not a person enjoys one particular sex act has no relevance on their combat ability or their loyalty to their brethren. Bedroom proclivities are simply not something that everyone around you needs to know about.
Its not that challenging to tell someone "I'm just not interested in you in that way."
You have missed what most of us have said is the real point: the workplace is no place for this sort of behavior at all.
Oldgrue wrote:Sharing the same shower facilities is not going to spread 'the gay' as if it was some form of athlete's foot. Homosexuality isn't some sort of zombie movie where you can get infected, and spread being gay like a disease.
No one here has said anything remotely similar to that, and no one I know has ever once said anything remotely like that. You should be able to shower without fear of sexual harassment or advances. If you think otherwise then your ideas are baffling.
Oldgrue wrote:I don't usually agree with Al Sharpton but "That's like saying you give blacks, or whites, or Latinos the right to shack up -- but not get married...It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or white marriage... The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings."
Wrong. Sharpton=comparison fail....
Oldgrue wrote:The lynchpin of the quote is whether or not being homosexual makes you human. If sexual orientation changes the intrinsic state of being human then I could accept the presumption that homosexuality precludes the ability to serve in our military.
No it isn't. Its whether it is socially acceptable or not. We have already hashed through much of this. Read the thread please.
Oldgrue wrote:If we replace 'homosexual' with religion, or smoking, eating meat, not eating meat, or any particular flavor of consensual fetish and the utter ridiculousness of the argument comes to the fore. A person who eats meat walks into a shower with other people who are made of meat...and just can't help but carve off a slice?
I am having flashbacks from that thread about "rights" a while back.
Wrex has a right he wants enacted... A goddam cheeseburger right, every day, and without any delay. I want to be able to walk outside and not have to leave my front yard every time I want a goddam cheeseburger. I also want my goddam fries you bastard, and I want them right the feth now.
grizgrin wrote:dogma: ya lost me. smaller words, fewer syllables for us knuckledraggers if ye please. yes, there is irony inherent there, I know, now on with the elaboration.
I was trying to get at the notion of intent. If someone eyeballs your manly bits it doesn't seem like it should matter why he eyeballs your manly bits.
The ogling comment was meant to get at that irrelevance. I've not met many women who are particularly unsettled buy the fact that they are being examined sexually. Rather, it seems as though the examination itself is unsettling, sex be damned.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You should be able to shower without fear of sexual harassment or advances.
Funny how you assume I am black....What gives you the right to say something like that? I am not a victocrat in any sense of the word, but you, in all of the radiant glory that is your own ignorance, are trying to make this into something that I never claimed. I don't cry over the past, nor do I expect anything from it, but I will not let anyone compare the pitiful excuses of gay "oppression" to any type of racial problems this country has had. Is it a brilliant political ploy to try and get their way? Yes. Is it accurate? Not in the slightest. My family endured what they did, and I am proud of the way they conducted themselves at all times: with humility and graciousness; some of us could better learn from their example before making ridiculous statements...
While the levels of oppression are not even in the same league, it's still an apt comparison insofar as military recruitment and cohesion issues go. The belief that "negros" would be detrimental to military morale and functionality was clearly false. Well, kind of, it actually did have an effect, but over time it lessoned to nothing due to the fact that it was an effect brought on by social taboo rather than actual substantive problems.
The same issues arise now. There is nothing inherently problematic with gays serving within the military. They can do nothing special to disrupt the conduct and cohesion of a unit without it being a disciplinary infraction as it is. However it is still a social issue with many Americans taking false and ignorant issue with the self fulfilling prophecy of dealing with social taboo. Look at JP400, he doesn't want some dude looking at his junk. Thats not really a sensible or rational fear, nor it is a sensical ideal on which to enact a law that disenfranchises and demoralizes while conflicting with the founding principles of the nation. But he is in our military, he serves (presumably) as well as any other. And when he is bothered, that military is effected.
It's a pretty apt comparison between this and previous bouts of military discrimination based on race.
You should be able to shower without fear of sexual harassment or advances. If you think otherwise then your ideas are baffling.
You should be able to shower without fear of spiders either. That doesn't make it rational to enact a policy removing all spiders from all barracks on sight. It's a waste of time, effort, and manpower, and it's based on the ignorant crying of the immature. If you're terrified of some gay dude raping you in the fething shower then I don't want you on the fething field of battle fighting for America. Clearly you're a coward. The military has codes of conduct, sexual violations are violations none the less. It's just a strawman to keep gays out so that straight homophobes can feel more comfortable.
What constitutes "being examined sexually"? I have found myself being a bit overt in my examinations (), but I can't say I have ever been enraged by a compliment from a chick. HOW DARE YOU!!! But... thank you anyway.
Sounds like a interesting story though... continue .
JEB_Stuart wrote:As I am all for separating one's personal life from their professional life, I actually approve of DADT. Why is there a problem with this? It enables gays and lesbians to serve and it keeps what they do in their private life separate, as it should be.
Which is all fine, if 'don't tell' was restricted to extreme demonstrations of sexuality, but it isn't.
At your normal workplace you don't go around letting people how gay you are, or if you are at all, you do your job, get paid and go home. Why shouldn't the professionalism that lets work be work and personal be personal not also apply to the military?
Let's say there's a guy, he's gay and also a hard working professional. He never mentions his sexuality while at work. He gets week of leave, and one night goes out on the town and into a gay bar. He is seen entering the bar by work colleagues.
If he's a notary clerk, mechanic, or in any other civilian profession he'll be fine. If he is in the army, this meets the 'don't tell' criteria and he will soon be out of a job.
The situations are not the same. If you think they should be, you should support the repeal of DADT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trench-Raider wrote:I'm not certain that open homosexuality in the US military would have such a dramatic effect, but I'm not willing to risk it. Military effectiveness trumps any social engineering experimentation in my mind.
Yeah, if your example of why it won't work relies on the levels of tolerance and understanding in apartheid South Africa, you're on the express train to fail. Do you have similar stories from countries that didn't have openly racist policies at the time? Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Israel, Germany? The Dutch have allowed openly gay men in the army since the 70s, and Spain even extends the right to the transgendered. Do you have any stories from these countries, or is South Africa the only useful point of comparison?
Your statement about social engineering experimentation is a very poor contrivance. Extending equal rights is not social engineering. It isn't experimentation when many countries have already done it.
By the way, I love how in the minds of people who are opposed to soldiers in the army, showers have become such a massive obstacle. If the idea that a gay man might look at your peepee is such a horrendous thing that it will destroy unit morale, it isn't exactly rocket science to solve the problem. Showers will seperate cubicles, seperate shower times, explicit rules on conduct... but no, these things cannot be considered.
...in apartheid South Africa, you're on the express train to fail...
WHEEEEEEEE!!! Had to be represented properly.
You're like green bow fly, but replace +1 with quips and pictures. Would you like to add something to the topic at hand? For rizzirizzirizzireals, while sometimes entertaining I'm pretty sure thats a form of spamming.
Gak! Trying to put together a trukk and respond at the same time is not easy!
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:You should be able to shower without fear of sexual harassment or advances.
Why?
Because in any situation where there is unwanted sexual advances or sexual harassment, it is grounds for a lawsuit...
ShumaGorath wrote:
While the levels of oppression are not even in the same league, it's still an apt comparison insofar as military recruitment and cohesion issues go. The belief that "Negros" would be detrimental to military morale and functionality was clearly false. Well, kind of, it actually did have an effect, but over time it lessened to nothing due to the fact that it was an effect brought on by social taboo rather than actual substantive problems.
The comparisons were not limited to the military, it was directed to the movements within the scope of our entire society. They are not comparable.
ShumaGorath wrote:You should be able to shower without fear of spiders either. That doesn't make it rational to enact a policy removing all spiders from all barracks on sight. It's a waste of time, effort, and manpower, and it's based on the ignorant crying of the immature. If you're terrified of some gay dude raping you in the fething shower then I don't want you on the fething field of battle fighting for America. Clearly you're a coward. The military has codes of conduct, sexual violations are violations none the less. It's just a strawman to keep gays out so that straight homophobes can feel more comfortable.
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexual lifestyles is a homophobe.
sebster wrote:
Which is all fine, if 'don't tell' was restricted to extreme demonstrations of sexuality, but it isn't.
I'd say any direct attempts at flaunting or declaring your sexuality while in the workplace are pretty extreme. Not that this has happened, but that is what I think.
sebster wrote:Let's say there's a guy, he's gay and also a hard working professional. He never mentions his sexuality while at work. He gets week of leave, and one night goes out on the town and into a gay bar. He is seen entering the bar by work colleagues.
If he's a notary clerk, mechanic, or in any other civilian profession he'll be fine. If he is in the army, this meets the 'don't tell' criteria and he will soon be out of a job.
To me this isn't part of his professional work, so it shouldn't matter. The soldiers opening their mouths shouldn't, as I see it as violating the "Don't Tell" policy. I don't care what he does on his personal time, but during "work" hours they shouldn't be able to tell what is going on at all.
sebster wrote:The Dutch have allowed openly gay men in the army since the 70s, and Spain even extends the right to the transgendered. Do you have any stories from these countries, or is South Africa the only useful point of comparison?
Ah yes, both rallying points of military genius in modern warfare....
sebster wrote:Your statement about social engineering experimentation is a very poor contrivance. Extending equal rights is not social engineering. It isn't experimentation when many countries have already done it.
It is experimentation when it involves pushing something on our own culture that isn't thought of as acceptable, or normal, behavior by the majority of the population.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If you're terrified of some gay dude raping you in the fething shower then I don't want you on the fething field of battle fighting for America. Clearly you're a coward..
If bending over and getting taken to brown town is what it takes to be brave in your book Shuma, then ill gladly be a coward any day of the week in your book.
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexual lifestyles is a homophobe.
But those that would discriminate based on them are. Refusing to accept the rightness of an act is one thing, acting and believing in a method that serves to discriminate based on such an act, when that act is that of mere existence, is.
Perhaps you would prefer the term intolerant used. Or just jackass. There are any number of ways to describe someone that discriminates in a method that does harm to another supposed equal. While there is certainly a level of selection required when putting together a military it destroys the value of such selection when those selections are arbitrary and illogical, as it is here.
It is experimentation when it involves pushing something on our own culture that isn't thought of as acceptable, or normal, behavior by the majority of the population.
Pushing? Pushing what? Are we gaying the military? What the hell is this even supposed to mean?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If bending over and getting taken to brown town is what it takes to be brave in your book Shuma, then ill gladly be a coward any day of the week in your book.
Really, you dude. The above comment is so over the top its sad.
Actually, thats not what I said. Being afraid of that for no fething reason makes you a coward. When you protect yourself from NOTHING by discriminating against others you're a coward. You shouldn't be afraid of the dark, and I shouldn't have to put up with your whining when the adults want to take your nightlight away. Not from a soldier. You're supposed to be the best of us, you're supposed to exemplify the ideals of courage, freedom, loyalty, and bravery. You can't fight intolerance and extremism abroad when you're willing to keep you're own countrymen down just so that you don't have to worry about you're squadmates thinking you've got nice junk. It's immature.
No reason? That would be true if nobody was a fanny bandit in the military. I have a chest full of Ribbons for Bravery and valor for combat in a warzone that speak for me... What do you have on yours? Cookie crumbs?
You speak of something that you have absolutly no first hand knowledge about, and that is what makes you an "Armchair General" in this case. Unless of course you are a homosexual in the military, in which case I might listen to what you have to say. However I doubt very much that you are.
Freedom? Courage? Hate to break the 1900's romantic views of warfare and the military but guess what? Those fancy terms dont exist anymore in much the same way that you dont see people going to the movies in suits and ties anymore.
And lastly if you honestly think that were overseas fighting against intolerance and extremism and peace on earth and goodwill toward men then you are so sadly out of touch with reality that nobody is going to be able to bring you back down to earth. You can go out to the fanny bar on the weekends and get packed and I dont give a damn.. its when Im forced to listen to you prance around going Sparkle Sparkle and stareing at my BA Eleven Sierras that I draw the god damn line.
None of what you have to say really matters though, cause you can cry about whatever all you want... and at the end of the day when the lights go out in the barracks... your going to regret flaunting your homosexual ways onto others earlier.
How many flamers actually make it into the military though?
I do have to mention that I simply cannot imagine you condoning the vigilante justice you support when it comes to heterosexuals doing the exact same thing. I won't go so far as to say that I know this to be true of course, but you are most definitely leaving a very threatening wake behind you...
If one of your buddies was just messing around and made stupid kissy faces at you, wouldn't (rather shouldn't) you be angry about that as well? More often than not, attitudes like yours stem from personal experiences. You are also assuming that you are going to be raped or something... but how many straight men have raped other in jail? Seems like a common enough occurrence to me, to establish a pattern of psychological and physical dominance, which is basically what I think you fear. More of them than you can handle mentality, like a flock of birds in your brain or something.
No reason? That would be true if nobody was a fanny bandit in the military. I have a chest full of Ribbons for Bravery and valor for combat in a warzone that speak for me... What do you have on yours? Cookie crumbs?
Well when I go to the gym I'm not worried about getting raped. I don't have any ribbons though for it. I think they just expect it of me as an adult.
You speak of something that you have absolutly no first hand knowledge about, and that is what makes you an "Armchair General" in this case. Unless of course you are a homosexual in the military, in which case I might listen to what you have to say. However I doubt very much that you are.
Nope, and when I want the opinion of a serving member of the military more worried about the advances of his comrades than the bullets of his enemies then I'll come to you.
Freedom? Courage? Hate to break the 1900's romantic views of warfare and the military but guess what? Those fancy terms dont exist anymore in much the same way that you dont see people going to the movies in suits and ties anymore.
1900's? In world war one we didn't even let the black dudes into the fight, and the biggest concern was getting home to the woman in the kitchen. I hardly idealize the past, I idealize what this country is supposed to be.
And lastly if you honestly think that were overseas fighting against intolerance and extremism and peace on earth and goodwill toward men then you are so sadly out of touch with reality that nobody is going to be able to bring you back down to earth. You can go out to the fanny bar on the weekends and get packed and I dont give a damn.. its when Im forced to listen to you prance around going Sparkle Sparkle and stareing at my BA Eleven Sierras that I draw the god damn line.
Well, I guess you have the right to contradict your own generals and government as to why we are in afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure it's not about liberation from extremism or oppression. We're just grabbing their oil? setting up the democratic dominos to crush the commies? Spending all this money so that we can have a strategic base in afghanistan? We have better and more secure bases already, there are no commies, afghanistan has no oil infrastructure, and we're letting the Iraqis keep theirs.
Who knows why we're there, it's certainly not to defeat the taliban/al-queda/sharia law/terrorist drug sales/etc, I mean, really, thats defeating violent extremism, and a 5 year veteran told me we weren't doing that. I wonder who it was? WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY TOLD ME THAT?
None of what you have to say really matters though, cause you can cry about whatever all you want... and at the end of the day when the lights go out in the barracks... your going to regret flaunting your homosexual ways onto others earlier.
When the gaypack rapes me? I can take care of myself, and that involves keeping myself from getting touched in the no no spots by other dudes. Are you for real? You're like some sort of caricature of the crazy armyman who wants his red steak and no gays.
ShumaGorath wrote:When the gaypack rapes me? I can take care of myself, and that involves keeping myself from getting touched in the no no spots by other dudes. Are you for real? You're like some sort of caricature of the crazy armyman who wants his red steak and no gays.
Teamwork is a very strange thing, and more often than not, the decisions are actually left to a few individuals that can make, what I consider to be, sometimes rash decisions. I mean, fair enough, you beat the crap out of the flamer; then what? Dude either moves on, which is the appropriate thing to do, or he goes ape-fething-snap... and the leaders of vigilante movements make extremely good targets.
Hazing (or whatever you would consider this type of violence) has very little to offer to a team, and the closet guy, that you may think is your best straight buddy, after seeing how little regard you had for a person on your team because of something that they have in common for that person; will be much more likely to throw you liberally under the bus. Fantastic team work... golf clap.
ShumaGorath wrote:When the gaypack rapes me? I can take care of myself, and that involves keeping myself from getting touched in the no no spots by other dudes. Are you for real? You're like some sort of caricature of the crazy armyman who wants his red steak and no gays.
Teamwork is a very strange thing, and more often than not, the decisions are actually left to a few individuals that can make, what I consider to be, sometimes rash decisions. I mean, fair enough, you beat the crap out of the flamer; then what? Dude either moves on, which is the appropriate thing to do, or he goes ape-fething-snap... and the leaders of vigilante movements make extremely good targets.
Hazing (or whatever you would consider this type of violence) has very little to offer to a team, and the closet guy, that you may think is your best straight buddy, after seeing how little regard you had for a person on your team because of something that they have in common for that person; will be much more likely to throw you liberally under the bus. Fantastic team work... golf clap.
I'm confused, when did this become not about DADT and become about beating gays as a vigilante avenging rape? I'm really lost now. You quoted me, which is even more perplexing since I said nothing of the sort. Whats going on?
I was not accusing you of anything, but I suppose that was a bit confusing. Just adding to your comment really, and I am getting a bit irritated by some of the comments JP400 is laying out.
Not too sure what he means by that beating thing, but it definitely has something to do with DADT. At what point does a person "get" to assume that one of their squad is gay, and furthermore, hitting on them, or otherwise sexually harassing them. Does cracking a joke make someone gay? Does DADT cover sexual wisecracks? They can most definitely be perceived as sexual harassment.
Just to be clear, here is an example.
You see your buddy walking around at breakfast and he looks terrible. Lack of sleep, need of caffeine, no more smokes, etc... You walk up and say, "Hey baby, your looking awfully sexy today... wanna grab a cup of joe? ". If you have a "good" relationship with that person, you would probably just laugh, but as a team, I would expect the unit to be cohesive enough to shoulder such remarks, and take them as jokes, not personal attacks.
To be honest, I don't know how it is now, but when I was in, nobody liked the thought of being around homosexuals in close quarters.
It's just the way it was. There were those that objected on religios grounds and those that objected on principle. It would have taken a lot of the meaning out of being a Marine for most of the guys I was in with if there were open homosexuals in the company.
Not stating an opinion here before anyone gets pissed at me, just saying the way it was.
Relapse wrote:To be honest, I don't know how it is now, but when I was in, nobody liked the thought of being around homosexuals in close quarters. It's just the way it was. There were those that objected on religios grounds and those that objected on principle. It would have taken a lot of the meaning out of being a Marine for most of the guys I was in with if there were open homosexuals in the company.
Not stating an opinion here before anyone gets pissed at me, just saying the way it was.
Yeah, thats sort of the crux of DADT. It sort of assumes that the military isn't "ready" for gays. Do you think that over time, through their introduction, that that would change? I don't mean to keep going back to the blacks in the military thing, but it really is tremendously similar, and what you have said here was said back then.
Realistically though, do you think that it's something that could be changed simply through interaction with a gay military populace?
Relapse wrote:To be honest, I don't know how it is now, but when I was in, nobody liked the thought of being around homosexuals in close quarters.
It's just the way it was. There were those that objected on religios grounds and those that objected on principle. It would have taken a lot of the meaning out of being a Marine for most of the guys I was in with if there were open homosexuals in the company.
Not stating an opinion here before anyone gets pissed at me, just saying the way it was.
That is something that is interesting to me, mainly because it sounds like pack mentality, which can honestly be a very good thing for a team. When people agree on most things, they can usually work very well together, not always the case, usually it is though. The homophobia could be a social bonding agent that would be used for unit cohesion.
ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically though, do you think that it's something that could be changed simply through interaction with a gay military populace?
Education sounds like the best route, and that does not automatically mean classes on the subject. Integration is a form of education, and groups where people can talk (a bit mind you, nothing over the top and sappy) how and why they feel this or that way on DADT. Seeing a cross section of opinions from people in all places military wise would be interesting. How would the opinion of a Captain or what have you, be different than a standard soldier? How would that difference interact with the effectiveness of the team?
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, thats sort of the crux of DADT. It sort of assumes that the military isn't "ready" for gays. Do you think that over time, through their introduction, that that would change? I don't mean to keep going back to the blacks in the military thing, but it really is tremendously similar, and what you have said here was said back then.
Realistically though, do you think that it's something that could be changed simply through interaction with a gay military populace?
To be honest, I don't know because I was in back in '83. Someone on these boards that has been in more recently could probably give you a better answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:That is something that is interesting to me, mainly because it sounds like pack mentality, which can honestly be a very good thing for a team. When people agree on most things, they can usually work very well together, not always the case, usually it is though. The homophobia could be a social bonding agent that would be used for unit cohesion.
The desire to stay alive in combat is an even better agent of bonding.
To be honest, I don't know because I was in back in '83. Someone on these boards that has been in more recently could probably give you a better answer.
True, but right now thats JP400, and I don't think I want to believe that he's representative of the military in his views. Something about " and at the end of the day when the lights go out in the barracks... your going to regret flaunting your homosexual ways onto others earlier." makes me question it.
If the desire to stay alive was enough, I would think that a lack of understanding (read, need of integration) is the only reason they have not worked on DADT sooner.
If there was a squad of new recruits, and out of this squad of, say 50 people, there happened to be a very skilled person who was clearly the best pick; at what point would the fact that a person is (or could be) gay, even a significant factor at all? If you care about getting the job done, and work well with the team, I can think of no other reason besides envy that you would not want that individual working with you. And please note, that I made no mention of inherent lube and dildos in that example... so that would be a moot point .
Automatically Appended Next Post: That is strange... can anyone else see my last post? I am looking at an empty page five right now.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Because in any situation where there is unwanted sexual advances or sexual harassment, it is grounds for a lawsuit...
Looking is now a sexual advance? Damn. I should start wearing black glasses at the gym.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jp400 wrote:its when Im forced to listen to you prance around going Sparkle Sparkle and stareing at my BA Eleven Sierras that I draw the god damn line.
Would you be upset if an unattractive woman looked at your penis?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:, afghanistan has no oil infrastructure,
Natural gas.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Who knows why we're there, it's certainly not to defeat the taliban/al-queda/sharia law/terrorist drug sales/etc, I mean, really, thats defeating violent extremism, and a 5 year veteran told me we weren't doing that. I wonder who it was? WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY TOLD ME THAT?
A rabbi?
We're helping Pakistan. Its a conflict of ancillary interests.
ShumaGorath wrote:
When the gaypack rapes me? I can take care of myself, and that involves keeping myself from getting touched in the no no spots by other dudes. Are you for real? You're like some sort of caricature of the crazy armyman who wants his red steak and no gays.
JEB_Stuart wrote:To me this isn't part of his professional work, so it shouldn't matter. The soldiers opening their mouths shouldn't, as I see it as violating the "Don't Tell" policy. I don't care what he does on his personal time, but during "work" hours they shouldn't be able to tell what is going on at all.
But according to DADT it does matter, and is sufficient grounds for discharge. You're taking 'don't tell' as the truth of the policy, and ignoring what is the army really means by 'don't tell'. The code doesn't apply to purely to flaunting your sexuality. If you're seen miles from base, on your own time, that's enough to be considered 'telling'.
You keep saying you don't care what people do on their own time, and I'm saying you must therefore oppose DADT in its current form.
Ah yes, both rallying points of military genius in modern warfare....
You cut out the Australians, UK and Germans. Are you saying any of these countries has had their military effectiveness cut by having having gay soldiers? So far the only example we've had of it being bad was from apartheid South Africa...
It is experimentation when it involves pushing something on our own culture that isn't thought of as acceptable, or normal, behavior by the majority of the population.
Hang on, so is democracy now the primary determinant of being correct?
I'm just going to throw it out there... to prove how fair DADT is... How many people have been kicked out of the armed forces when it was found out they were in a straight relationship?
You can't fight intolerance and extremism abroad when you're willing to keep you're own countrymen down just so that you don't have to worry about you're squadmates thinking you've got nice junk. It's immature.
Well said. I'm not a serviceman personally - but I do have several close friends and family-members who have served in recent conflicts, including one who is preparing to. Not to make a sweeping generalisation, but the general consensus seems to be (and I appreciate that the military culture of the UK is probably different to that of the USA) that whatever a person does in their own bedroom is their business. Be openly gay, fine, but don't make people uncomfortable with it - doing so would make you a 'crap bloke', and THAT would be unforgivable. I don't openly stare at a woman's breasts - that would make me a bit of a tit, somewhat ironically - I assume the same levels of decency can be found in the Gay community.
And I don't believe homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice', rather a sexual alignment. I am straight - I couldn't CHOOSE to be gay, even if I wanted to!
Something's gone wrong with this thread. I can't see anything on page 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, it's come back now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Ministry of Defence said
You know what is expected of you
This is what you can expect of us
The promotion of Equality and Diversity in the British Army is a key ingredient in the generation of operational effectiveness. It balances the rights of the individual with the needs of the team and therefore the Army.
It values the inherent qualities in every individual, respects their differences and enables them to make the selfless commitment that the Army demands, irrespective of race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation and religion or belief.
The British Army would like:
* everyone to be treated fairly
* to stop unlawful discrimination, bullying and harassment on the grounds of gender, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation.
This inclusiveness creates trust and teamwork, which keeps our organisation running smoothly and effectively.
Bullying, harassment and discrimination on any grounds undermines that trust and has a negative effect on team morale.
I'm going to add one more thing to this discussion before bowing out. (the real world calls for most of today..)
I find it amusing how some people in this thread are falling back on the comparison of not permitting homosexuals in the military to the old policy of segregating black soldiers into their own units. It's a faulty comparison. Race is a genetic factor that a person has no control over. Homosexuality on the other hand is behavioral. While homosexuality is probably in most cases something you are born with and also have no control over, the desision to act upon those impulses is always a choice. Thus the comparison of race to homosexuality is apples and oranges.
Oh yes, and homosexuals do have equal rights in the US. They have for some time now. The call for homosexuals in the military and homosexual "marriage" is not about equality. It's about gaining a special right that no one else has as well as trying to force the general public into accepting them as "normal". The modern homosexual rights movement has become much like the modern black rights movement in that it's really no longer about achieving eqaulity as much as it is gaining special privilages and advantages for it's particular group. (or in the case of the "black rights" movement, get back at mean 'ol Whitey...but that's a whole other topic..)
That's the main reason why I oppose these causes. The goverment should not be in the business of granting special rights to a minority of a small minority of people.
Long overdue and this is coming from an injured Marine. Won't necessarily be a smooth change since from E-1 to O-10 you've got a bunch of backwards thinkers in place but unlike the civilian world; military justice is a swift kick in the *** for any d-bags who hate on their fellow soldier/Marine/airman/sailor.
Amazing how even after the civil rights movement et al; people still openly discriminate against others with hatespeech through using words like f*****...hell people use the word gay as a synonym for something bad - we really haven't come that far along as a society.
Who to blame? ****ing idiotic right wingers/Christians/etc - same kind of people that protested against the civil rights movements are the same numbnuts who are still looking for people to put down for the sake of their own deluded bull****.
Trench-Raider wrote:The call for homosexuals in the military and homosexual "marriage" is not about equality. It's about gaining a special right that no one else has as well as trying to force the general public into accepting them as "normal".
What special right? The ability to marry someone of the same sex? What would stop a heterosexual person from doing the same thing?
Also, how does legislation force you to view anything as acceptable?
Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.
And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.
Same here im not a gay basher and i dont care what others do. just dont do it next to me and that goes for staight and homosexuals i dont need to know your business. as i find man/man or female/female nasty. but that is for each one to decide.
It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.
If you haven't been in the military, knowingly serving with homsexuals, then really you don't have much basis for an opinion about how it is handled in the military at all, do you? Oh, you can certainly HAVE an opinion, and welcome to it, but if you haven't been there and seen how things work then you have an uninformed opinion at best. Which is pretty well worthless to those who have.
ive been in and i have known, now whats it to me well it aint much just keep it to yourself and do your job and dont let me get killed and i will do likewise for you.
I can understand why some people would be uncomfortable, but I simply cannot imagine flamer-pants Mcweiner making it all that far in the army. Another thing is that the army is not meant (as far as I know) to be a place to hook up. Like most other jobs/careers, sex is simply not part of the contract...
amen
You know, now that I think of it, it was strange to see Steve masturbate every time we showered after football...
lol you know now it all makes sense.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.
I am not talking about being murdered for whatever reason. I already despise hate laws because of their basic flaw. The flaw being that the intent behind a murder makes it worse then any other murder. Murder is murder is murder, it shouldn't matter why any person did it. That creates a different form of discrimination, and yes it is sanctioned by the government. I think the creators of South Park are right on the money in this regard. Gays aren't segregated in to different schools, neighborhoods, denied voting rights, etc. To me that already creates enough of a difference to eliminate mutual alignment.
and this is the main point we are not a commie country. we dont need to make levels of a crime that has the same result.
now to wrap this all up in a nice little tight package....... its a job, do it and go home, stop fussing about this right or that right. i can solve all this by putting both sides in a field and shooting at them. in the end the will form together and do what it takes to save their hides, and that means working to kill the guy with the gun.
end tread.
I fear we have veered somewhat from the original sentiment of this thread, which was to discuss the impact of the change to Don't Ask Don't Tell, rather than the merits of the existing legislation. As far as I can see, all that is changing is a Homosexual soldier will no longer face a compulsory discharge should their sexuality be revealed (no matter the method).
jp400, a question for yourself. If you found out that an old comrade was in fact Gay, and you were still serving together, who would it be damaging the morale of the unit? The freshly 'outed' Gay soldier, or the homophobe who suddenly has the problem?
Ahtman: Why do people think that not having to deny you are gay is the same as being flamboyant and/or predatory?
My guess, it's a threat to their ability to be predatory.
I wouldn't trust most homophobes if they were drunk and alone with some of my female friends.
Maybe it comes from a silent understanding of their own character and they're just warning the rest of us.
Wrexasaur wrote:
That is something that is interesting to me, mainly because it sounds like pack mentality, which can honestly be a very good thing for a team. When people agree on most things, they can usually work very well together, not always the case, usually it is though. The homophobia could be a social bonding agent that would be used for unit cohesion.
I've seen the uglier side of pack mentality in action when I had to break up an attempted beating of a Marine in infantry school by about 10 others on a bus. The object of the attack had a bad leg that made his getting through boot camp a miracle. The thing was that the training had gotten rougher and he couldn't keep up, causing tension in the platoon.
I saw what was getting ready to happen and jumped into the aisle between him and the oncoming group figuring I'd only have to face one at a time and give him a chance to get away. Another Marine saw what was happening and jumped into the crew from behind and between us gave the attack victim the time he needed to get away.
From this I learned that setting someone up in the unit up as someone to hate is not good for morale or cohesion. We ended up with two camps in the platoon even though the guy ended up being discharged for being too crippled to be in the Marines. For myself, I thought of the guys attempting the beating as a band of cowardly sons of whores that I wanted as little to do with as possible, and I let them know that.
A couple of them ended up getting into trouble in relation to a blanket party on a guy that was stealing .
People can do both amazing and cruel things when they work together, pack mentality is most definitely, a two-edged sword. You don't need a person to hate in the pack to have that mentality, more often than not, it will backfire to take such actions. Like well then... I think this arm right here... well, this arm has to go. On a soccer team, let's get rid of the goalie, no questions asked .
Those guys sound like downright cretins really, good to hear the positive won out in that situation though.
Wrexasaur wrote:People can do both amazing and cruel things when they work together, pack mentality is most definitely, a two-edged sword. You don't need a person to hate in the pack to have that mentality, more often than not, it will backfire to take such actions. Like well then... I think this arm right here... well, this arm has to go. On a soccer team, let's get rid of the goalie, no questions asked .
Those guys sound like downright cretins really, good to hear the positive won out in that situation though.
With people in the same group against each other, it's a case of a house divided against itself.
You have it right, none of that crew was in danger of the honor role.
I hate to break the news to the pro-pervert crowd, but there is no unconditional right to serve in the US military. People are excluded all the time. Some are excluded by various medical and mental defects during the induction physical. Others wash out of basic training. Some dumb stumps even flunk out of the notoriously simple ASVAB test. If a universal right to serve existed, all these folks would have a legal case in regards to descrimination. But there is not, thus they don't. The good of the service trumps individual rights in these cases.
The same can be said about homosexuality.
Finally, allow me to expand on something I said earlier.
The best estimate is that about 2% or less of the population suffers from homosexuality. Of these about 50% are probably male. So that's about 1% or less of the population. Now overall about 25% of adult males in the US served in some branch of the military at some time in their life . Now a case could be made that a lower number of homosexuals would serve given the chance. But to keep things simple we'll assume that the percentage remains the same amongst homosexuals. So that leaves us with no more than one quarter of one percent of the male population that is in any way effected by "don't ask don't tell" and similar rules. (I left out the numbes of women in my estimate, but as women serve in lower number than do men, the percentage is not going to change too much.) So someone explain to me again why "feel good" social engineering should trump something as all important as the effectiveness of the military? Since when should the goverment be in the business of writing special laws to cater to whims of such a small percentage of the population?
But I actually hope Obama pushes a repeal of DADT....espcially after the first of the year were it can become an issue in the mid-term elections. The sooner that Obama finds himself saddled with a hostile congress as was Clinton during most of his time in office the better.
Trench-Raider wrote: If a universal right to serve existed, all these folks would have a legal case in regards to descrimination.
Its not a matter of universal rights. Its a matter of what can be considered as a valid constraint with respect to service.
Trench-Raider wrote:
Finally, allow me to expand on something I said earlier.
The best estimate is that about 2% or less of the population suffers from homosexuality.
Trench-Raider wrote:
Now overall about 25% of adult males in the US served in some branch of the military at some time in their life.
Its more like 15-18%. About 26 million people are either now serving, or have served. 23.7 million of them are male, and roughly 150 million of all US citizens are also male; leaving us with roughly 1 in 6 as veterans.
Trench-Raider wrote:
So someone explain to me again why "feel good" social engineering should trump something as all important as the effectiveness of the military?
Social engineering? How is this social engineering? What's more, how is this more invasive in that context than DADT?
Trench-Raider wrote:
Since when should the goverment be in the business of writing special laws to cater to whims of such a small percentage of the population?
How would the removal of homosexuality as legitimate grounds for dismissal act as a special law? If anything the presence of the regulation to that effect is a special law.
You don't seem capable of grasping the distinction between positive, and negative regulatory concepts.
Well, I stand corrected. But if that's the case then the numbers of those negatively effected by DADT is even lower than I estimated.
Social engineering? How is this social engineering?
Because it's pushing a "progressive" change to tradtional social and moral values. It certainly is social engineering...for no good purpose.
What's more, how is this more invasive in that context than DADT?
DADT is not actually invasive at all. In fact it is an avenue by which homosexuals can current serve should they chose to. The problem is that the minority of homosexuals that wish to serve in the military are not interested in following existing rules. Instead they want them to be re-written to cater to their laughably tiny demographic.
You don't seem capable of grasping the distinction between positive, and negative regulatory concepts.
Actually I do. The point of contention is that you disagree with my claim that open homosexuals in the military is likely to negatively effect that most important of institutions.
I ask again, why do whims of a tiny minority of a tiny minority trump the needs of the military? If there is any posibility that open homosexuality in the military will have a negative effect upon that institution, then why is it even being considered?
As soon as you can cite more relevant information to support your claim, I am sure that more of us will take your assessment into consideration.
I cannot help but feel you are just trying to establish a pattern of "normality" that can be used to justify your own perceptions. If homosexuals cannot say anything about their sexual orientation (and this is an awfully vague line to draw quite honestly); at what point do you just tell everyone that you cannot, under any circumstances, talk or bring any information that would suggest your sexual orientation, into or around the military?
The point here is not really about a minority vs. a majority, it is about being realistic, and addressing a situation that has obviously caused many problems for some of our soldiers. Whether or not this change is going to be a good one, or whether it will (perhaps intentionally, or artificially) become a disaster. In which event, all those happy heterosexual soldiers, can come back home, and deservedly so.
I am going to have to ask you what it is you mean by this right here, because I feel that it signifies what you are talking about with relative clarity.
Trench-Raider wrote:The sooner that Obama finds himself saddled with a hostile congress as was Clinton during most of his time in office the better.
Meaning, as long as the current administration suffers, and in doing so, effects numerous aspects of many peoples lives in detrimental ways? That is a good thing? Do your ideals always hold up so well under scrutiny? .
Because it's pushing a "progressive" change to tradtional social and moral values. It certainly is social engineering...for no good purpose.
I am sorry, but can you phrase these two parts in a way that does not make you look like a no-holds barred pundit?
Ahtman wrote:Why do people think that not having to deny you are gay is the same as being flamboyant and/or predatory?
It has become unacceptable to say 'I don't like queers and will make their lives difficult out of spite', so the people who don't like gay people invent other issues.
So when military service comes up suddenly communal showering becomes a key, unchangeable part of service. Never a thought given to seperate cubicles, or policies of conduct, or anything like. And suddenly gays become these flaming, predatory stereotypes, so that these people oppose homosexuality, it's that they don't want to be exposed to the flaming, predatory gay man that they just invented in order to complain about him.
I really wish they'd come out and say 'I don't like gay people and will make their lives more difficult out of spite', things would be so much easier.
"I hate to break the news to the pro-pervert crowd..."
Oops, there it is. Thanks for being more honest, Trench-Raider.
Finally, allow me to expand on something I said earlier. The best estimate is that about 2% or less of the population suffers from homosexuality. Of these about 50% are probably male. So that's about 1% or less of the population.
You live in your own world, and it nothing to do with this one. I thought you quit this topic?
Actually, given statistics it drifts between 4% and 6% as homosexual in the united states, though worldwide that number shifts up and down considerably depending on the level of social stigma attached to the concept, and the surveys in question are always typically lower than actual realistic percentages given the hidden nature of the topic at hand.
As for "suffer" from it? I've known gay people who would probably break your jaw for saying something like that casually.
So someone explain to me again why "feel good" social engineering should trump something as all important as the effectiveness of the military? Since when should the goverment be in the business of writing special laws to cater to whims of such a small percentage of the population?
Because social progress trumps militaristic effectiveness in a representative democratic society? I mean, what you say would probably make a hell of a lot of sense in North Korea. In fact, a lot of the things you've been saying seem to line up a lot more with the idea of a police state.
Since when should the goverment be in the business of writing special laws to cater to whims of such a small percentage of the population?
Well, technically the LAW that prohibits it is catering to the homophobe minority in america. The idea would be the repealing of the law. Enforcing equal treatment, not granting special treatment.
You seem to have this whole thing logically backwards, and it's painful to read.
The problem is that the minority of homosexuals that wish to serve in the military are not interested in following existing rules. Instead they want them to be re-written to cater to their laughably tiny demographic.
How do you not have a broken nose already? Do you say things like this in public? The homosexual population is roughly three times the jewish population in the country. Do you have a problem with the jewish serving? There is historically a level of anti semitism present in america, does that cause issues with unit cohesion? Do you want to go back to christian only chaplains? You don't have to make special allowances when you're simply enforcing equality.
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think homosexual people should have the right to serve in the US armed forces?
IMHO people are people. That said anyone that can cut it in the field should be allowed to serve. i have seen pansies waist solders that needed to be kicked out and i really care less about their sexually oration. all i care about is can that person save me in a fire fight. because damn it i will do the same for them. their blood is my blood and it all spills if we cant work together. peoples personally lives is for back home not on the job. i know i have said it, but 2nd times a charm, i dont care if you got tits, balls,or what you do with them. all i care about is that we all come home in the end. nuff said.
Sebster-
Actually I neither hate nor fear homosexuals. God knows as a career corrections professional I would be in for a load of trouble if I had some morbid fear of homosexuals. ("homophobe" is a meanigless term anyway...but that's another subject) If I feel any particular emotion toward homosexuals it would be pity, just as I pity anyone who lives with the pain of an untreated mental disorder.
What I do resent is the effort by the homosexual lobby and their allies in the political left to "normalize" what most people (at least those who have not been brainwashed by PC idiocy) instinctively realise is an abnormality. Dito for the efforts to grant them special rights based upon a behavior pattern.
Wrexasaur-
Meaning, as long as the current administration suffers, and in doing so, effects numerous aspects of many peoples lives in detrimental ways? That is a good thing?
Actually you have it backward. The admin is in the process of doing harm. A sucessful mid-term election would force it, as occured with Clinton, to have to temper it's actions and move to the Right (that is to say more in alignment with the center-right majority of the country) to get anything acomplished. The DADK issue is a polarizing one that might help to push the voters to do the right thing.
Finally...
ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?
Trench-Raider wrote:
Well, I stand corrected. But if that's the case then the numbers of those negatively effected by DADT is even lower than I estimated.
It also follows that the potential affect on the ability of the military to function would be correspondingly small.
Trench-Raider wrote:
Because it's pushing a "progressive" change to tradtional social and moral values. It certainly is social engineering...for no good purpose.
Its doing no such thing. You can continue feeling apprehensive about homosexuality at your leisure. You are under no obligation to derive your personal moral code from the law, or statutory codes of the organizations to which you belong.
Trench-Raider wrote:
DADT is not actually invasive at all. In fact it is an avenue by which homosexuals can current serve should they chose to. The problem is that the minority of homosexuals that wish to serve in the military are not interested in following existing rules. Instead they want them to be re-written to cater to their laughably tiny demographic.
No, they want a rule which is specifically tailored to their demographic to be altered such that it no longer allows discrimination against that demographic on an institutional level. This isn't terribly complicated. If you do away with DADT you're essentially saying that any given person who is discovered to be a homosexual cannot be dismissed as a result of that alone. They could still be dismissed for any incident of sexual harassment, which is really what people here seem to think is the primary threat to military functionality.
Trench-Raider wrote:
Actually I do. The point of contention is that you disagree with my claim that open homosexuals in the military is likely to negatively effect that most important of institutions.
I made no such claim. You're imagining that. I simply called into question the notion that any change to DADT is either the legislation of morality, or an invasive 'special' rule.
Trench-Raider wrote:
I ask again, why do whims of a tiny minority of a tiny minority trump the needs of the military? If there is any posibility that open homosexuality in the military will have a negative effect upon that institution, then why is it even being considered?
Because we frequently make choices that damage the ability of the military to function in the interests of political, and social pressure. That's the nature of living within a modern nation-state. This is not a junta, and even if it were the situation would not be especially different.
Trench-Raider wrote:
What I do resent is the effort by the homosexual lobby and their allies in the political left to "normalize" what most people (at least those who have not been brainwashed by PC idiocy) instinctively realise is an abnormality.
You are, of course, aware that abnormal is not tacit to bad. Genius is also abnormal, though you would be hard pressed to describe at as negative.
Trench-Raider wrote:
Dito for the efforts to grant them special rights based upon a behavior pattern.
ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?
Bigger than you tex. Why don't you quit the thread again? I mean really, you can't seem to avoid running away when in the presence of reality.
If you go back and look you will note that I "quit the thread" because I was going to bed...something I'm about to do again.
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality". Go back to trolling /b/ (or whatever they call it) , because your pretty substandard at it here.
Trench-Raider wrote:If I feel any particular emotion toward homosexuals it would be pity, just as I pity anyone who lives with the pain of an untreated mental disorder.
What I do resent is the effort by the homosexual lobby and their allies in the political left to "normalize" what most people (at least those who have not been brainwashed by PC idiocy) instinctively realise is an abnormality. Dito for the efforts to grant them special rights based upon a behavior pattern.
Being very good with trigger words, I have officially lost track of any intent you had from the beginning of this. Wait... OMFG A TRAIN!!!
just as I pity anyone who lives with the pain of an untreated mental disorder.
I pity the fool too... but that is not what you are talking about at all... so what exactly are you talking about? "Gays are bad" is still what I have drawn for your perceptional summary. You have an apple, an orange, and a... umm... is that a jar of peanut butter?
Mr. T is an icon better left to promoting fruits and veggies... and milk too, DRINK THE MILK DAMMIT!!!
ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?
Bigger than you tex. Why don't you quit the thread again? I mean really, you can't seem to avoid running away when in the presence of reality.
If you go back and look you will note that I "quit the thread" because I was going to bed...something I'm about to do again.
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality". Go back to trolling /b/ (or whatever they call it) , because your pretty substandard at it here.
TR
Umm. Then go back to the clan parade, you jingoistic north korean moon demon? I mean if we're drawing incredibly vague connections from previous statements then I think I have a hell of a lot more ammo then you do. A quick lookup of you're posts in the search engine presents a cavalcade of ridiculously childish ignorance and outright racist/intolerant/homophobic sentiment.
Trench-Raider wrote:
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality".
Amusingly, you're both coming at this from the same foolish direction, but with opposing, ideological intent. He's invoking reality, you're invoking normalcy and majority. Its all really quite amusing to watch.
Trench-Raider wrote: Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality".
Amusingly, you're both coming at this from the same foolish direction, but with opposing, ideological intent. He's invoking reality, you're invoking normalcy and majority. Its all really quite amusing to watch.
One of us stopped being particularly serious in post refutations a few posts ago. I'll let you make up your mind as to who it is.
Seriously, your titles by tirade are probably my favorite component of your posts.
I'm glad you enjoy them as much as I enjoy coming up with them. Every time I do one of those I worry that fraz is going to ban me though.
Doesn't this debate kind of ignore the fact that there are a lot of homosexuals in the military already? I've heard from friends in Iraq that it's not exactly a huge secret which way different people swing. Here's an article on the same thing:
The punchline seems to be: if you're a good soldier, and do your job, and you're useful, the Army is in no hurry to push you out. It's at least anecdotal evidence that much of the worry about combat effectiveness might be over inflated.
As sebster alluded to in his excellent post, I think there's more going on here than simply worries about the military. I think there's a big chunk of the population that really still sees homosexuality as a very bad thing that should not be condoned or endorsed by society or the government. So, gay marriage bans aren't about tradition or values, but simply because being gay is wrong and the government shouldn't support it. If you're gay, it's like being a felon or drug addict, and you can't serve in the armed forces.
The real genius behind this movements (and the laws preventing gay adoption) are that they create a paradox for homosexuals. The accusation is that homosexuality is a harmful and decadent lifestyle, and those that engage in it are doomed to moral failings. Opponents can point out and say "they're not married, they're not raising families, they're not serving our country. They're bad people." My point being, how can you tell a decorated veteran that's been married for 10 years to his gay partner with whom he's raising kids that what he's doing is wrong? It's simply harder than if the same guy was booted from the army, and is living with another guy.
) showering with a group of women... wait, let me daydream about this for a minute.
