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.

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.

Here is an interesting clip, this page is still not showing though.

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?

I'm just saying.

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.

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/terms/15703.aspx

dogma wrote: Damn. I should start wearing black glasses at the gym.

Darling, not with your thighs !

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.

Phew, not just me then.

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.

TR

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****.

The right of serving in the armed forces is denied to homosexuals.

That is obviously not equal rights.

Why are homosexuals denied that right?

Shouldn't make a difference. Anyone with a prejudice overly against or overly for will have it regardless of what the "rules" are.

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.

Do you think homosexual people should have the right to serve in the US armed forces?

Why do people think that not having to deny you are gay is the same as being flamboyant and/or predatory?

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.

Oh, and my thanks and respect to all participants in this thread for preventing heated debate igniting into flames.

Carry on!

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.

TR

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.

That depends on the survey you choose to consult.

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.

Edit: Bad math on my part.

Being the one who wears the pants is indeed.... a very tricky proposition.



No... these are my pants, you cannot have them, no way, no how, not. gunna. happen. buddy.

Its more like 15-18%.

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?

TR

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.