Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does it matter?

Are you afraid of being raped?

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.

Late to thread, but I'll throw this out.

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.

TR

jp400 wrote:

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?

Just seems like irrational fear to me.

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

Trench-Raider wrote:

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?

Just seems like irrational fear to me.

Another comparison fail...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Are you afraid of being raped?

Who isn't?

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.

Ahem... but I digress.

I should write a book... .

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.

Why?

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

...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.

I am sorry... you can continue your conversation in peace... I'll just sit here.

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.

The above comment is so over the top its sad.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.