NationStates Jolt Archive

Who else thinks the don't ask dont tell law is crap and that we should allow decent gay guys that want to go to the armed forces to serve their country or to better themselfs juts like straight people, I mean its the 21st century and I can't believe its still this way...look at Canada, England, France and Holland they all allow gays in the military and they are fine. Why should gay guys lie about who they are or be afraid to answer truthfully to questions when asked, from fellow soldiers for example. Who else thinks its time to change this old law that really does not work.

There is no law, gays are aloud in the army, but some of the right wing soldiers might pick on them.

"Anyone dumb enough to serve in the military should be allowed in. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many pushups you can do. Put on this helmet, go wait in that foxhole. We'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody." -- Bill Hicks

last time I checked they still had the don't ask don't tell law in the US for the military what are you talking about?

There is no law, gays are aloud in the army, but some of the right wing soldiers might pick on them.

Hydesland, if your an american, my advice to you is to look up the UCMJ. There is an article in regards to homosexuality/sodomy.

Hydesland, if your an american, my advice to you is to look up the UCMJ. There is an article in regards to homosexuality/sodomy.

And what would that article be, exactly? I can't wait to hear this one.

Hydesland, if your an american, my advice to you is to look up the UCMJ. There is an article in regards to homosexuality/sodomy.

Too bad, im British :p I was never aware of this law, this astounds me.

I think it should be a non issue, I.E. You shouldn't make an issue of your sexuality if you want to join the military.
If you come out and say "I'm gay so I can't go to war", they'll send you off to war quicker than usual.
There's plenty of homosexuals in the military, they just keep it to themselves and it's a nonissue.

And what would that article be, exactly? I can't wait to hear this one.
Subchapter X, "Punitive Articles," is the subchapter that details offenses under the uniform code:
...
§925, Article 125. Sodomy
I think Article 134 might also be used, as it includes "fraternization".

Hydesland, if your an american, my advice to you is to look up the UCMJ. There is an article in regards to homosexuality/sodomy.
Homosexuals and homosexual conduct are TWO WAY DIFFERENT THINGS.

My opinion is that if gays want equal rights on marriage, adoption, and things like that, they should also have the right to fight in the armed forces. Show them a bit of gratitude, they are defending the country just the same as any straight man. We should be grateful for the amount of people willing to vollenteer for our armed forces, gays, bi, or straight. There is nothing wrong with them, just so long as they don't expect special treatment. But once again, that's just me talking.

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

God, I love the US Military. What a completely stupid rule. What the fuck does it matter if one is a homosexual or engages in homosexual encounters if one is a soldier? Do the officers think those soldiers are going to scream that bullets are messing up their hair styles when in battle, or start wimping out for some reason?

Damn fools. Being homosexual is not wrong, and doesn't make a ha'penny's worth of difference when fighting. I mean, how can it? Homosexuals can still run, fight, kill, pull a trigger, give orders.

EDIT: Yes, I know it says with any sex or animal. That's also ridiculous. I'm just looking at the homosexual pretext here.

Homosexuals and homosexual conduct are TWO WAY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Homosexuals often indulge in homosexual conduct. And rightly so.

And what would that article be, exactly? I can't wait to hear this one.

Rticlce 125-Sodomy

Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

This is the text of Article 125. Now punishment varies depending on circumstances.

Homosexuals can still run, fight, kill, pull a trigger, give orders.
Yeah, but they're gay...

It's the whole bullshit military morale thing. Having gays will disrupt the good order of the men. Just like happened when they broke down segregated units, and allowed women to join...oh, wait, it didn't.

I don't like it... teach gays to use guns and they will form a giant underground militia which will be used to force America to bow to the demands of the militant gay agenda.

Just wait till the democrats are back in power in 2008, at least we can hope for the law to be changed then. Everyone hates Bush and the republicans now anyways.

Just wait till the democrats are back in power in 2008, at least we can hope for the law to be changed then. Everyone hates Bush and the republicans now anyways.

How do you think we got the "don't ask don't tell" policy we have today? It was done by Bill Clinton.

Just wait till the democrats are back in power in 2008, at least we can hope for the law to be changed then. Everyone hates Bush and the republicans now anyways.
The Democrats introduced DADT.

Just wait till the democrats are back in power in 2008, at least we can hope for the law to be changed then. Everyone hates Bush and the republicans now anyways.


The Dems will do no such thing. They know they have a vast majority of the gay votes locked because Republicans wouldn't shed a tear to see us all brainwashed or burned at the stake.

There's no rational reason for Dems to take the political beating for proposing such a thing.

Yeah, but they're gay...

It's the whole bullshit military morale thing. Having gays will disrupt the good order of the men. Just like happened when they broke down segregated units, and allowed women to join...oh, wait, it didn't.
Maybe they're afraid teh evil gay will rape/abuse the other, nice straight men in the batallion. Because we know all gays are perverted sex maniacs who like to rape innocent straight boys. :rolleyes:

Oh, wait, if they're in the military already, why haven't they started the mass corruption of the other soldiers?

The Democrats introduced DADT.

What happened before that?

I don't like it... teach gays to use guns and they will form a giant underground militia which will be used to force America to bow to the demands of the militant gay agenda.


As much as you may not like gays, they exist. When we tought blacks to fight in the army, did they form an underground militia? Did the women? Do they now? Why is it that the american poulace has to be so predgedous? What did that come from? It may be how you grew up, but thats not the best excuswe eiither. I'm 15, grew up in a racist, radical house, and i have black friends. i have gay friends. Pull your head out or your rear.

Just wait till the democrats are back in power in 2008, at least we can hope for the law to be changed then. Everyone hates Bush and the republicans now anyways.

And another thing! The military votes republican anyway. The Democrats need to try to gain the military vote and this will kill that to no end. And no, not everyone hates Bush and the Republicans.

I bet you 3-1 that the republicans maintain the House Majority.

As much as you may not like gays, they exist. When we tought blacks to fight in the army, did they form an underground militia? Did the women? Do they now? Why is it that the american poulace has to be so predgedous? What did that come from? It may be how you grew up, but thats not the best excuswe eiither. I'm 15, grew up in a racist, radical house, and i have black friends. i have gay friends. Pull your head out or your rear.

It was sarcasm. :rolleyes:

As much as you may not like gays, they exist. When we tought blacks to fight in the army, did they form an underground militia? Did the women? Do they now? Why is it that the american poulace has to be so predgedous? What did that come from? It may be how you grew up, but thats not the best excuswe eiither. I'm 15, grew up in a racist, radical house, and i have black friends. i have gay friends. Pull your head out or your rear.

That was sarcasm, friend.

Yea but originally Clinton wanted to to make a allow to have gays in the military, it was until hard lines conservatives rushed in and he made a compromise and that law came in effect, not saying that was a good move cause oviously that law sucks. I'm just saying there will be a better chance to change this law with a democrat in power than a republican, though.

It was sarcasm. :rolleyes:

I apologize.

Sarcasm doesnt travel so well over the net.

Yea but originally Clinton wanted to to make a allow to have gays in the military, it was until hard lines conservatives rushed in and he made a compromise and that law came in effect, not saying that was a good move cause oviously that law sucks. I'm just saying there will be a better chance to change this law with a democrat in power than a republican, though.

Even some in his own party objected to what he wanted to do. He had to compromise or it would have been overwhelmingly defeated.

Eh, I've heard that there are already a good number of people out there who are gay in the US army, and have been for a long time. Very few worry about it, in particular from what I've heard, higher ups will occationally have people come to them and tell them they're homosexual in order to leave service. As for Sodomy, don't do it where you'll get caught. There are laws against sodomy on the books in 1/4th of US states, so it's not like it's all that shocking. In the unnatural acts thing they are specifically non-gender specific, though, so oral sex from a woman would be as bad (according to the code) as anything else.

As much as you may not like gays, they exist. When we tought blacks to fight in the army, did they form an underground militia? Did the women? Do they now? Why is it that the american poulace has to be so predgedous? What did that come from? It may be how you grew up, but thats not the best excuswe eiither. I'm 15, grew up in a racist, radical house, and i have black friends. i have gay friends. Pull your head out or your rear.


lol - you might want to check my signature. If you don't have them turned on you are forgiven. If not, then notice how ridiculous my argument was and decide if it might be sarcasm.

lol - you might want to check my signature. If you don't have them turned on you are forgiven. If not, then notice how ridiculous my argument was and decide if it might be sarcasm.

Turned them on. sorry.

Turned them on. sorry.


heh - no problem, I don't mind when people take my sarcasm seriously (it's fun). Anyway, It's nice to know your fighting for the good guys :)

Well as long as their homophobic people around and ultra conservative, people that think gays should go to hell, this will never happen, At least part of Europe and Canada knows what they are doing.

Yeah, but they're gay...

It's the whole bullshit military morale thing. Having gays will disrupt the good order of the men. Just like happened when they broke down segregated units, and allowed women to join...oh, wait, it didn't.

good point

Thank you. I just don't like racism or pred. of any kind. (i'm resorting to abbr. because i cant remember how to spell anything today.)

The Dems will do no such thing. They know they have a vast majority of the gay votes locked because Republicans wouldn't shed a tear to see us all brainwashed or burned at the stake.

There's no rational reason for Dems to take the political beating for proposing such a thing.

that's a pretty broad brush you use there. I would "shed a tear" if my gay friends were brainwashed or burned at the stake. Just because the church nutjobs happen to largely flock to the Republican party doesn't mean it's the church nutjob party. Most of the enviromentalists are democrats but it doesn't mean you have to be an enviromentalist to be a democrat. (not that there's anything wrong with them, just an example) The core of the Republican ideal is a defense oriented smaller government. If the democrats retake power over the next few years, it would largely be because the current group of republicans aren't living up to that and need to be replaced, and it's really difficult to replace a sitting person in the congress unless it's with another party.

As much as you may not like gays...

err, you're replying to sarcasm...

There are laws against sodomy on the books in 1/4th of US states, so it's not like it's all that shocking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

that's a pretty broad brush you use there. I would "shed a tear" if my gay friends were brainwashed or burned at the stake. Just because the church nutjobs happen to largely flock to the Republican party doesn't mean it's the church nutjob party. Most of the enviromentalists are democrats but it doesn't mean you have to be an enviromentalist to be a democrat. (not that there's anything wrong with them, just an example) The core of the Republican ideal is a defense oriented smaller government. If the democrats retake power over the next few years, it would largely be because the current group of republicans aren't living up to that and need to be replaced, and it's really difficult to replace a sitting person in the congress unless it's with another party.


Just to add to this, i would like to say tht I ams toutly republican. I do not support a lot of what the catholic church says. (for instance, if a woman is raped, she SHOULD have the right to an abortion rather than having to look at a child every day that is going to bring back such painful memories.) I also support the environmentalists, but i believe that despite all of the flak he gets that bush is a good man, just not a good speaker. look at stephen hawking, he can barely speak coherently at all, but he has nnobel prizes. i don't mean to make anyone angry or stir anything up, but this is how i feel.

that's a pretty broad brush you use there.

The ebil republicans stole all my little brushes! Detail work when I decorate is such a bitch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

I had seen that, but it doesn't invalidate my point. There's a law against orgies in North Carolina that I'm pretty sure doesn't actually require anyone involved to be having sex. As far as it goes, I think you should be able to have relations with whatever combination of people in whatever combination of ways without the state getting involved.

Having served in the military, I've seen this much closer than many.

First, let me say, there are homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

However, let's look at a few facts:

1) The military is comprised of a large variety of people. People of every race, gender, religious background and (although not openly) sexual orientation. As well, you have people of every moral upbringing, as well as an enormous range of intelligence, common sense, etc.

2) Most of the more diverse in terms of gender, intelligence and religious background tend to drift towards the non-combat arms units. Note I didn't say all...although most of the more diverse who do serve in the combat arms units tend to have a much harder time. Women are still not allowed to serve in combat arms, they're required to pick a non-combat MOS, whether they eventually end up serving on the front lines or not.

3) A very large number of the combat arms units are (for want of a better word) neanderthals. They grew up in a very strict moral society, and tend to view anything different from themselves as alien and undesireable.

4) The safety of an openly acknowledged homosexual in this sort of environment is highly in doubt. Accidents happen to people who go outside the accepted norm.

Again, note I'm not saying ALL of combat arms is like this, but a very decent percentage is. There are intelligent, diverse people in combat arms, but most of them aren't.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals serving in the military, and if someone wants to flaunt it, I personally have no issue with it. However, that person should realize that the slope-browed troops might not appreciate it and will probably make that lack of appreciation known.

Is this right? No. Is it likely to change anytime soon? No. Changing the views of these individuals within the military means changing the views of their society, which is going to take generations at best. People hold onto their moral codes tighter than a dog on his favorite bone.

No. Kill them, burn them and crucify them. We cannot become Gods unless we purify our genes by destroying those who bring us down from glory. Specifically, Gays, Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals. While I believe that all humans are equal, regardless of race, color, creed or sex, women and other ethnicities are fine, but homosexuals are below humans. They are filth. Scum. Deserving of nothing but termination.Kill the Heretic. Burn the Mutant, Purge the Unclean.

No. Kill them, burn them and crucify them. We cannot become Gods unless we purify our genes by destroying those who bring us down from glory. Specifically, Gays, Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals. Kill the Heretic. Burn the Mutant, Purge the Unclean.


I sure as hell hope that's sarcasm. If not, they have pills to fix this.

I sure as hell hope that's sarcasm. If not, they have pills to fix this.

I for one agree with you Albernon.

Having served in the military, I've seen this much closer than many.

First, let me say, there are homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

Indeed, and there always have been.

The problem is that, whether they flaunt it or not - whether they tell anyone or not, if a CO finds out, under don't-ask, don't-tell, the soldier is supposed to be discharged. And we aren't talking about an honorable discharge here either - but a dishonorable discharge, which means that damn near every company will refuse to hire you.

Thus, just for being gay and signing up to serve this country, someone can end up with no job prospects -treated no better (and often worse) than a convicted felon.

No. Kill them, burn them and crucify them. We cannot become Gods unless we purify our genes by destroying those who bring us down from glory. Specifically, Gays, Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals. While I believe that all humans are equal, regardless of race, color, creed or sex, women and other ethnicities are fine, but homosexuals are below humans. They are filth. Scum. Deserving of nothing but termination.Kill the Heretic. Burn the Mutant, Purge the Unclean.

also, the people who have genetic illnesses, alergies, are sick more than once a year, who's IQs are under 130, or who can't lift more than their own weight, are too short, too fat, and who don't live up to certain standards of attractiveness. After all that, there *should* still be *some* people left. Then we breed with who's left and continue purging the left over until, 50 or 60 generations down the line, we have a society that none of us would be qualified to join.

.... or not

also, the people who have genetic illnesses, alergies, are sick more than once a year, who's IQs are under 130, or who can't lift more than their own weight, are too short, too fat, and who don't live up to certain standards of attractiveness. After all that, there *should* still be *some* people left. Then we breed with who's left and continue purging the left over until, 50 or 60 generations down the line, we have a society that none of us would be qualified to join.

.... or not

I love this.

Well, my first impulse is a combination of Bill Hicks and Denis Leary:

A) "Anyone DUMB enough to want to serve in the military ought to be allwed to do it. What is this crap about 'oh, we're too moral to allow homosexuals' -- too MORAL? Excuse me, but aren't y'all basically hired killers? Your job nowadays is to kill brown people, and when our government wants you to do it, you do it. Too moral, shit -- you weren't too moral for My Lai!"

B)"You like to fuck men? Who cares. Here's a rifle, go! What? You like to fuck sheep? Well, here's a sheep and an M-16, go!"

What's the rule with regard to soldiers "fraternizing" with the opposite sex? Whatever that rule is, apply it to same-sex issues. How is it that men and women can serve together without any worry about heterosexuals gettin' busy, but we get all bent outta shape about gays? Man, that's just plain stupid. It's as if you're saying "well, we know you fags can't control yourselves, unlike these hormone-ridden boys who'd fuck anything with tits and a cooch." What a load of rubbish.

"Anyone dumb enough to serve in the military should be allowed in. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many pushups you can do. Put on this helmet, go wait in that foxhole. We'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody." -- Bill Hicks
Much better quote job. Thank you!

Well, my first impulse is a combination of Bill Hicks and Denis Leary:

A) "Anyone DUMB enough to want to serve in the military ought to be allwed to do it. What is this crap about 'oh, we're too moral to allow homosexuals' -- too MORAL? Excuse me, but aren't y'all basically hired killers? Your job nowadays is to kill brown people, and when our government wants you to do it, you do it. Too moral, shit -- you weren't too moral for My Lai!"

B)"You like to fuck men? Who cares. Here's a rifle, go! What? You like to fuck sheep? Well, here's a sheep and an M-16, go!"

What's the rule with regard to soldiers "fraternizing" with the opposite sex? Whatever that rule is, apply it to same-sex issues. How is it that men and women can serve together without any worry about heterosexuals gettin' busy, but we get all bent outta shape about gays? Man, that's just plain stupid. It's as if you're saying "well, we know you fags can't control yourselves, unlike these hormone-ridden boys who'd fuck anything with tits and a cooch." What a load of rubbish.


And i thought that the entire population had become retarded. I look up to people like you.

What's the rule with regard to soldiers "fraternizing" with the opposite sex?

The same as it is for homosexuality. Your gone.

Whatever that rule is, apply it to same-sex issues.

Already does.

How is it that men and women can serve together without any worry about heterosexuals gettin' busy, but we get all bent outta shape about gays? Man, that's just plain stupid. It's as if you're saying "well, we know you fags can't control yourselves, unlike these hormone-ridden boys who'd fuck anything with tits and a cooch." What a load of rubbish.

Actually, it is this post that is rubbish for it has no facts with it.

I'm a Brit and Homosexuals are aloud in the armed forces ( the best in the world may I add). What difference does your sexuality make to your miliatry ability. Gays can Fight just as well as hetrosexuals. Gays can opperate tanks or navigate ships just as well as the hetrosexuals. It is just a stupid law and thank god that it is not imposed on the Brits.

I would like to raise another matter. This matter is to do with women not being alowed in the Infantry in the British Army neither Are they aloud in the Royal Marines of the Royal Navy. I myself agree with this law not as a predjudice but as a Military Tactician. I would like to hear your views on this matter.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS POST

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Wow -- that means all the military men (or women) who like anal sex with their women (or men) are breaking the law! What a complete pile of horseshit! You KNOW lots of those boys (or girls) are into the brown eye! Come on! Buncha damned hypocrites.

Wow -- that means all the military men (or women) who like anal sex with their women (or men) are breaking the law! What a complete pile of horseshit! You KNOW lots of those boys (or girls) are into the brown eye! Come on! Buncha damned hypocrites.

How are they being hypocrites when the same punishment is handed out?

Thank you. I just don't like racism or pred. of any kind. (i'm resorting to abbr. because i cant remember how to spell anything today.)
It's a tough word if you try to sound it out. Instead, think of the word combination "pre-judge", then "pre-judicial", and then combine them, *poof*, "prejudice."

No. Kill them, burn them and crucify them. We cannot become Gods unless we purify our genes by destroying those who bring us down from glory. Specifically, Gays, Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals. While I believe that all humans are equal, regardless of race, color, creed or sex, women and other ethnicities are fine, but homosexuals are below humans. They are filth. Scum. Deserving of nothing but termination.Kill the Heretic. Burn the Mutant, Purge the Unclean.

Don't forget people without blond hair and blue eyes.

The same as it is for homosexuality. Your gone.



Already does.



Actually, it is this post that is rubbish for it has no facts with it.
And all of yours do? Hell, the last three you posted have no facts in them, what's your point?

Golly, son, do you wake up this uptight every morning or is it something you put in your coffee?

How are they being hypocrites when the same punishment is handed out?
Because they have the temerity to say that homosexuals are too immoral to join an outfit whose priamry job is the use of deadly force -- killing people. Surely murder, no matter how it's rationalized, is at least slightly more morally repugnant than homosexuality.

EDIT: And please, PLEASE, unless you can show me otherwise, PLEASE don't tell me that soldiers getting/receiving oral or anal sex from the opposite gender are punished at the same rate as homosexuals. I'd have to laugh until I exploded.

And all of yours do? Hell, the last three you posted have no facts in them, what's your point?

My last three posts? My first post of those three agreed with Albernon. My 2nd post of the three pointed out the fact that fraternizing is against the UCMJ when found out. My third of third post was a question asking you how is it hypocritical when the same punishment is handed out. So tell me. Of those three, which was inaccurate?

Golly, son, do you wake up this uptight every morning or is it something you put in your coffee?

Morning? Its 241 in the afternoon.

The "don't ask, don't tell, and don't harass" policy is pure and utter bulls***. I was actually discharged from the Army National Guard under Army Regulation 625-200 Paragraph 15-3b. I told my friend in the army that I was gay... well soon the whole platoon knew, then the whole company... the ammount of descrimination, prejudice, and biased behaviors I experienced from my comrades, and also my superiors was purely disgusting. Eventually, my commander held an official "commander's inquiry" into my sexual orientation and discovered that I had told many of my friends in my platoon of my sexuality, and also discovered my best friend in the company was a bisexual (although he denies it)... so we were charged as being in a relationship, in addition to homosexual admission... both considered homosexual conduct... and eligible for discharge. Needless to say, there were several problems along the way. I was intially set to receive an Other than Honorable discharge, but after a lengthy legal battle and with the help of JAG I did receive an honorable discharge.

I hope that the policy will soon be changed, and the SLDN hopes to have th epolicy changed within 5 years... I joined to be part of something bigger and to pay for college... and although i disagree with a lot of what the Army stands for that is why I joined as a combat medic... I figured if I was to do something I would rather help save lives.

Also, something that does bother me is that acording to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 654... it still says... "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

So, now kind of as a revenge... I volunteer with the US Coast Guard Auxilliary as a search and rescue swimmer and diver... Seeing I am technically banned from joining any armed forces...including the Coast Guard (active or reserve).

Because they have the temerity to say that homosexuals are too immoral to join an outfit whose priamry job is the use of deadly force -- killing people. Surely murder, no matter how it's rationalized, is at least slightly more morally repugnant than homosexuality.

My suggestion to you is to actually look up the UCMJ. It doesn't matter if your gay or not. You just cannot commit homosexual acts. Is that crystal clear?

No. Kill them, burn them and crucify them. We cannot become Gods unless we purify our genes by destroying those who bring us down from glory. Specifically, Gays, Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals. While I believe that all humans are equal, regardless of race, color, creed or sex, women and other ethnicities are fine, but homosexuals are below humans. They are filth. Scum. Deserving of nothing but termination.Kill the Heretic. Burn the Mutant, Purge the Unclean.
If this is not sarcasm, please consult your local psychologist immediately.

Oh, and keep away from sharp objects.

Your off your bloody head. You fool. I don't know what religion but if by any chance you are a "Christian" I would like to denounce you. I know no other Christias with radical views like you apart from the KKK. I beleive in God but not in madness

It was a joke! Edit: Ok you've quoted the right person now.

My last three posts? My first post of those three agreed with Albernon. My 2nd post of the three pointed out the fact that fraternizing is against the UCMJ when found out. My third of third post was a question asking you how is it hypocritical when the same punishment is handed out. So tell me. Of those three, which was inaccurate?



Morning? Its 241 in the afternoon.
But did any of them have FACTS in them, as per your demand?

Uh...it's a general statement, I know it's not morning.

Seriously, are you okay?

No. Kill them, burn them and crucify them. We cannot become Gods unless we purify our genes by destroying those who bring us down from glory. Specifically, Gays, Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals. While I believe that all humans are equal, regardless of race, color, creed or sex, women and other ethnicities are fine, but homosexuals are below humans. They are filth. Scum. Deserving of nothing but termination.Kill the Heretic. Burn the Mutant, Purge the Unclean.
Your off your bloody head. You fool. I don't know what religion but if by any chance you are a "Christian" I would like to denounce you. I know no other Christias with radical views like you apart from the KKK. I beleive in God but not in madness

It was a joke!
I know i meant to reply to the chap you were replying to but you accidently fell victim to my fury. I do apologise most profoundly.

My suggestion to you is to actually look up the UCMJ. It doesn't matter if your gay or not. You just cannot commit homosexual acts. Is that crystal clear?
SIR, HELL NO, SIR!

SIR, THE PRIVATE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE SERGEANT IS ACTING LIKE HE'S GOD'S GIFT TO KNOWLEDGE, SIR!

The "don't ask, don't tell, and don't harass" policy is pure and utter bulls***. I was actually discharged from the Army National Guard under Army Regulation 625-200 Paragraph 15-3b. I told my friend in the army that I was gay... well soon the whole platoon knew, then the whole company... the ammount of descrimination, prejudice, and biased behaviors I experienced from my comrades, and also my superiors was purely disgusting.

Well... it was your own fault my friend. You told a friend in the army you were gay so whatever happens became your fault.

Eventually, my commander held an official "commander's inquiry" into my sexual orientation and discovered that I had told many of my friends in my platoon of my sexuality, and also discovered my best friend in the company was a bisexual (although he denies it)... so we were charged as being in a relationship, in addition to homosexual admission... both considered homosexual conduct... and eligible for discharge.


As proscribed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Maybe next time, you will keep your yap shut?

Needless to say, there were several problems along the way. I was intially set to receive an Other than Honorable discharge, but after a lengthy legal battle and with the help of JAG I did receive an honorable discharge.

I would love to know how you pulled that one off since under the UCMJ, you were supposed to be dishonorably discharged. Not that I mind either which way just stating what the UCMJ states.

I hope that the policy will soon be changed, and the SLDN hopes to have th epolicy changed within 5 years... I joined to be part of something bigger and to pay for college... and although i disagree with a lot of what the Army stands for that is why I joined as a combat medic... I figured if I was to do something I would rather help save lives.

Which is good.

Also, something that does bother me is that acording to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 654... it still says... "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

Which coincides with the UCMJ.

So, now kind of as a revenge... I volunteer with the US Coast Guard Auxilliary as a search and rescue swimmer and diver... Seeing I am technically banned from joining any armed forces...including the Coast Guard (active or reserve).

Nothing wrong with the Auxilliary.

I know i meant to reply to the chap you were replying to but you accidently fell victim to my fury. I do apologise most profoundly.

It's ok, check my edit.

My suggestion to you is to actually look up the UCMJ. It doesn't matter if your gay or not. You just cannot commit homosexual acts. Is that crystal clear?
But its perfectly alright to commit a heterosexual one (at least some of them) (Dont get me wrong Ifind oral sex to be way better)

What a stupid fucking rule

The "don't ask, don't tell, and don't harass" policy is pure and utter bulls***. I was actually discharged from the Army National Guard under Army Regulation 625-200 Paragraph 15-3b. I told my friend in the army that I was gay... well soon the whole platoon knew, then the whole company... the ammount of descrimination, prejudice, and biased behaviors I experienced from my comrades, and also my superiors was purely disgusting. Eventually, my commander held an official "commander's inquiry" into my sexual orientation and discovered that I had told many of my friends in my platoon of my sexuality, and also discovered my best friend in the company was a bisexual (although he denies it)... so we were charged as being in a relationship, in addition to homosexual admission... both considered homosexual conduct... and eligible for discharge. Needless to say, there were several problems along the way. I was intially set to receive an Other than Honorable discharge, but after a lengthy legal battle and with the help of JAG I did receive an honorable discharge.

I hope that the policy will soon be changed, and the SLDN hopes to have th epolicy changed within 5 years... I joined to be part of something bigger and to pay for college... and although i disagree with a lot of what the Army stands for that is why I joined as a combat medic... I figured if I was to do something I would rather help save lives.

Also, something that does bother me is that acording to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 654... it still says... "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

So, now kind of as a revenge... I volunteer with the US Coast Guard Auxilliary as a search and rescue swimmer and diver... Seeing I am technically banned from joining any armed forces...including the Coast Guard (active or reserve).
I must say that I think it desgusting what happened to you. Fight for your freedom!

But did any of them have FACTS in them, as per your demand?

Yep.

Uh...it's a general statement, I know it's not morning.

then why say it was morning? WHy not say "are you always this uptight in the afternoon?" :D

Seriously, are you okay?

Apart of being lonely since a special someone is still at the University and lives on the other side of the state... yes I'm fine.

SIR, HELL NO, SIR!

SIR, THE PRIVATE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE SERGEANT IS ACTING LIKE HE'S GOD'S GIFT TO KNOWLEDGE, SIR!

Perhaps I know what the UCMJ says?

My suggestion to you is to actually look up the UCMJ. It doesn't matter if your gay or not. You just cannot commit homosexual acts. Is that crystal clear?
Yes. Because heterosexuals are allowed to be heterosexual, but just cannot commit heterosexual acts if they want to stay in the armed forces? I didn't know the US army had a vow of celibacy, I thought only churches did.

Double standards.

But its perfectly alright to commit a heterosexual one (at least some of them) (Dont get me wrong Ifind oral sex to be way better)

What a stupid fucking rule

Actually... no you can't. Fraternization and cohabitiation, as well as adultry, are illegal under the UCMJ.

Would Someone Reply To My Thread On The 4th Page.

Would Someone Reply To My Thread On The 4th Page.
Be a bit more specific not all of us have the same page view size (I see 40 posts per page)

Yeah, but they're gay...

It's the whole bullshit military morale thing. Having gays will disrupt the good order of the men. Just like happened when they broke down segregated units, and allowed women to join...oh, wait, it didn't.

I don't care who is in the foxhole next to me as long as they are there because they want to be (And not because of ME) and they passed on their OWN merits and not because of some stupid sensitivity training.

Oh women in the ranks did mess things up. However, at the least they aren't front-line combat troops.

Actually... no you can't. Fraternization and cohabitiation, as well as adultry, are illegal under the UCMJ.
But does it count of fraternization if one of the parties is not a member of the military?

Yes. Because heterosexuals are allowed to be heterosexual, but just cannot commit heterosexual acts if they want to stay in the armed forces? I didn't know the US army had a vow of celibacy, I thought only churches did.

Double standards.

UCMJ.

And churches don't have celibacy. Pastors can marry and so can priests.

Actually... no you can't. Fraternization and cohabitiation, as well as adultry, are illegal under the UCMJ.
I believe he was referring, as was I, to the fact that heterosexuals in the army get no shit for having a girlfriend at home and don't have to hide that fact(and that they're having sex with her) to their commanders. Not about relationships between soldiers.

There is a double standard. Gay soldiers are being treated differently than straight ones. Straight soldiers can talk to their fellow soldiers about Jane or Mary who's waiting for them at home, and how much they love her. Gay soldiers can't tell others about Paul or Rick who's waiting for them at home without fear of being honorably discharged. This is unacceptable.

But does it count of fraternization if one of the parties is not a member of the military?

Not that I know of but then again.... I'm not a JAG lawyer.

UCMJ.

And churches don't have celibacy. Pastors can marry and so can priests.
The catholic church does have celibacy. It's my reference, seeing it's the one with the most followers(by far) in Canada. But yes, I understand that there are churches without celibacy.

Still, you don't answer my question. I'm Canadian, I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. Is there or is there not a vow of celibacy in it? If not, then why the hell should gays be expected to be celibate, and straights could continue having their relationships (outside the bounds of the military, of course)?

UCMJ.

And churches don't have celibacy. Pastors can marry and so can priests.
Not in the RC Church they cant

I believe if they are married BEFORE they go into the priesthood they can continue that but after becoming a priest they can not get married

... I seriously think that gay people should be allowed in the military. I mean, let us look at what could happen. They get sent to war, and get blown up. Or they go to war and kill people. Generally if you see any fault its with the profession and not the sexual preference of the soldier.

Meanwhile as long as I'm not drafted to go to war for something I totally don't agree with I'm fine with gay people in the military.

... I seriously think that gay people should be allowed in the military. I mean, let us look at what could happen. They get sent to war, and get blown up. Or they go to war and kill people. Generally if you see any fault its with the profession and not the sexual preference of the soldier.

Meanwhile as long as I'm not drafted to go to war for something I totally don't agree with I'm fine with gay people in the military.

And gays are in the military and can join the military. They just can't tell people that they are gay which is fine by me.

For what it's worth, here's a little history on gays in the US millitary and said laws.

From: http://www.glinn.com/news/tline5.htm

Timeline of Gays in the U.S. Military

Military/Gay Timeline:1778, "Baron Frederich von Steuben, one of Europe's greatest military minds and a homosexual man, is engaged to train and discipline the disparate armies of the thirteen rebellious American colonies.", "After being discovered in bed with a private, Lt. Gotthold Frederick Enslin becomes the first know soldier to be dismissed from the U.S. military for homosexuality."

Military/Gay Timeline:1916, "Punishment of homosexual soldiers is first codified in American military law. The Articles of War, which take effect the following year, include `assault with the intent to commit sodomy' as a capital crime."

Military/Gay Timeline:1919, "A revision of the Articles of War of 1916 includes the act of sodomy itself as a felony.", "Dispatching a squad of young enlisted men to act as decoys, the U.S. Navy initiates a search for `sexual perverts' at the Newport, Rhode Island Naval Training Station. Based on information the plants gather, twenty sailors and sixteen civilians are arrested on morals charges by naval and municipal authorities. This is the first known attempt to purge homosexuals from the military."

Military/Gay Timeline:1920-1930s, "Homosexuality continues to be treated as a criminal act and thousands of gay soldiers and sailors are imprisoned. The military's move to transform homosexuality from a crime to an illness does not take place until the massive mobilization of World War II."

Military/Gay Timeline:1941-1945, "Nearly ten thousand enlisted people receive dishonorable `blue discharges' for homosexuality from the armed forces, so called because they are typed on blue paper."

Military/Gay Timeline:1942, "The Armed Forces release the first regulations instructing military psychiatrists to discriminate between homosexual and `normal' service members. Those who `habitually or occasionally engaged in homosexual or other perverse sexual practices' are deemed `unsuitable for military service'."

Military/Gay Timeline:1943, "Final regulations are issued banning homosexuals from all branches of military service. These have remained in effect for the last fifty years, with only slight modifications."

Military/Gay Timeline:1950, "The U.S. Congress establishes the Uniform Code of Military Justice which sets down the basic policies, discharge procedures and appeal channels for the disposition of homosexual service members."

Military/Gay Timeline:1957, "A 639 page Navy report, called the Crittenden Report for the captain who headed the committee, concludes that there is `no sound basis' for the charge that homosexuals in the military pose a security risk. The Pentagon denies the existence of this report for nearly twenty years.", "Federal courts rule that military personnel may appeal military court decisions to civil courts. This allows lesbians and gay men discharged for homosexuality to appeal to civil courts."

Military/Gay Timeline:1966, "Gay groups stage the first demonstrations protesting the treatment of lesbians and gays in the military."

Military/Gay Timeline:1975, "After being dismissed for homosexuality, Sgt. Leonard Matlovich sues the Air Force to be reinstated. Matlovich is thrust into national attention when he is featured on the cover of Time magazine with the headline `I Am a Homosexual: The Gay Drive for Acceptance'. NBC subsequently makes a TV movie of his story. His suit drags on until 1980 when a federal judge orders Matlovich reinstated. Instead of re-entering the Air Force, Matlovich accepts a settlement of $160,000. Matlovich becomes a gay rights activist and dies of AIDS in 1988."

Military/Gay Timeline:1981, "During the last week of the Carter administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Graham Claytor issues a revision in his department's policy to state for the first time that `homosexuality is incompatible with military service.' Though Claytor notes that this is not officially a change in policy, the revision is designed to make clear that homosexuality is grounds for discharge. The revision is implemented by the Reagan administration."

Military/Gay Timeline:1986, "Discharged lesbian drill sergeant Miriam Ben-Shalom wins a ten year battle with the U.S. Army Reserves when a court orders her reinstatement."

Military/Gay Timeline:1987, "U.S. Naval Academy Midshipman Joseph Steffan, at the top of his class, is discharged six weeks prior to graduation because, when asked if he was gay, he answered honestly. Though a three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Steffan's favor in 1994 and orders his reinstatement, the government appeals the decision to a full panel of judges. In a major setback in early 1995, the full Court of Appeals upholds Steffan's dismissal."

Military/Gay Timeline:1989, "Members of Congress who support lifting the military ban release draft copies of two internal Pentagon reports that find homosexuals in the military pose no security risk and in many cases make better soldiers than heterosexuals."

Military/Gay Timeline:1990, "Sgt. Perry Watkins wins a ten year court battle against the Army, which discharged him in 1981 for homosexuality.", "ROTC cadet James Holobaugh is discharged from the corps on the grounds of homosexuality and ordered to repay his $25,000 scholarship."

Military/Gay Timeline:1992, "The General Accounting Office reports that almost seventeen thousand service men and women were discharged for homosexuality between 1981 and 1990, at a cost of $493,195,968 to replace them.", "Presidential candidate Bill Clinton promises, if elected, to repeal the military's ban on gay and lesbian service members, because there is no legitimate justification for the exclusionary policy.", "The Navy Reserve Officers' Training Corps program creates a policy requiring midshipmen to sign an affidavit stating that they agree with the military's ban on homosexuals and will refund scholarship money if they are found to be gay."

Military/Gay Timeline:1993, "January: President Clinton issues a Presidential Memorandum instructing Defense Secretary Les Aspin to develop by July of that year an `Executive Order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who will serve in the Armed Forces'. At the same time, Clinton issues an interim policy that preserves all existing restrictions on homosexuals in the military but ends the practice of questioning recruits about their sexual orientation.", "April, Secretary Aspin asks the Rand Corporation a nonprofit research organization to provide `information and analysis that would be useful in helping formulate the required draft executive order'. Aspin also forms a fifty member Defense Department Military Working Group to study the issue. Three weeks after its first meeting, the group recommends continuing the ban, with the sole change of instructing commanders not to ask soldiers or recruits about their sexual orientation.", "March-July: The Senate Armed Forces Committee, headed by Senator Sam Num holds public hearings to consider the ban.", "May-July: The House Armed Services Committee also conducts hearing. At both House and Senate hearings, the overwhelming majority of those testifying are service members opposed to lifting the ban.", "July: Secretary Aspin signs a directive adopting the April recommendation of the Military Working Group. One week later, the Senate and House Committees issue their `findings'. Both recommend codifying Aspin's directive.", "August: The Rand Corporation releases its independent report, stating that `there is ample reason to believe that heterosexual and homosexual military personnel can work together effectively'. The government buries the study.", "September: The House and Senate both pass legislation discouraging homosexual enlistment in the military, the language of which is tougher than Clinton's `don't ask, don't tell'. The legislation would allow a future defense secretary to reinstate questioning of recruits about their sexual orientation. Within days, Clinton signs the measure with no fanfare and little public notice."

Military/Gay Timeline:1994, "March: Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union bring a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six lesbian and gay service members, the first direct constitutional challenge to the military's policy. The government immediately seeks discharge proceedings against some of the plaintiffs.", "April; Federal District Judge Eugene Nickerson grants the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction, preventing the military from initiating discharge proceedings while the case is active.", "June: U.S. District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly orders the Army to reinstate Colonel Margarethe Camemrmeyer to the National Guard. In his ruling, Zilly holds unconstitutional the old version of the military ban barring service by lesbians and gay men. Colonel Cammermeyer, a twenty seven year veteran of the Army and National Guard and chief nurse of the Washington State National Guard, was discharged from the military in June 1992 after she disclosed her sexual orientation during an interview for top security clearance."

Military/Gay Timeline:1995, "`Don't ask, Don't tell' is challenged in a number of appeals courts, with some victories and some losses for gays in the military.",

And gays are in the military and can join the military. They just can't tell people that they are gay which is fine by me.

Double standard.

Straight troops express their sexuality in very strong (and often offensive) terms.

And gays are in the military and can join the military. They just can't tell people that they are gay which is fine by me.
Says the person that if in the military would not have to be afraid of being dishonorably discharged if some stupid rumor got started, or if you mentioned a relationship you were in

If you don’t want to hear about sexuality at all there should be an equal rule of revealing sexual information weather you are heterosexual or homosexual

Double standard.

Straight troops express their sexuality in very strong (and often offensive) terms.

Actually...they all use strong and offensive terms. And I guess people do not look up the UCMJ much!

And gays are in the military and can join the military. They just can't tell people that they are gay which is fine by me.
Well, you're obviously a bigot then, since you support a different treatment for gay soldiers than the one reserved for straight soldiers.

Says the person that if in the military would not have to be afraid of being dishonorably discharged if some stupid rumor got started, or if you mentioned a relationship you were in

If you don’t want to hear about sexuality at all there should be an equal rule of revealing sexual information weather you are heterosexual or homosexual

I agree 100% however, there isn't and frankly,I do not care. I will stand beside the UCMJ in this case because it is the governing authority on the military.

Who else thinks the don't ask dont tell law is crap and that we should allow decent gay guys that want to go to the armed forces to serve their country or to better themselfs juts like straight people, I mean its the 21st century and I can't believe its still this way...look at Canada, England, France and Holland they all allow gays in the military and they are fine. Why should gay guys lie about who they are or be afraid to answer truthfully to questions when asked, from fellow soldiers for example. Who else thinks its time to change this old law that really does not work.

In theory I am for, but I'm gonna oppose it because I don't want anyone in the army. If gays can't join: well, that's a couple of people who are going to die for a worthless cause less.

Well, you're obviously a bigot then, since you support a different treatment for gay soldiers than the one reserved for straight soldiers.

Considering a few of my friends are homosexual, I know that this is a false statement.

Having served in the military, I've seen this much closer than many.

First, let me say, there are homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

However, let's look at a few facts:

1) The military is comprised of a large variety of people. People of every race, gender, religious background and (although not openly) sexual orientation. As well, you have people of every moral upbringing, as well as an enormous range of intelligence, common sense, etc.

2) Most of the more diverse in terms of gender, intelligence and religious background tend to drift towards the non-combat arms units. Note I didn't say all...although most of the more diverse who do serve in the combat arms units tend to have a much harder time. Women are still not allowed to serve in combat arms, they're required to pick a non-combat MOS, whether they eventually end up serving on the front lines or not.

3) A very large number of the combat arms units are (for want of a better word) neanderthals. They grew up in a very strict moral society, and tend to view anything different from themselves as alien and undesireable.

4) The safety of an openly acknowledged homosexual in this sort of environment is highly in doubt. Accidents happen to people who go outside the accepted norm.

Again, note I'm not saying ALL of combat arms is like this, but a very decent percentage is. There are intelligent, diverse people in combat arms, but most of them aren't.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals serving in the military, and if someone wants to flaunt it, I personally have no issue with it. However, that person should realize that the slope-browed troops might not appreciate it and will probably make that lack of appreciation known.

Is this right? No. Is it likely to change anytime soon? No. Changing the views of these individuals within the military means changing the views of their society, which is going to take generations at best. People hold onto their moral codes tighter than a dog on his favorite bone.


Same was said of black troops. It was said that the more "old fashioned" and "traditional" minded troops would never accept being part of a team wiht black people. And that black troops would be victims of racism and violence. But they were forced to deal with it. And there were few problems.

Troops are required to follow orders no matter what their "morals" are. If they don't, they are kicked out. So they will accept gay members in their ranks just like they did black troops. Period.

Considering a few of my friends are homosexual, I know that this is a false statement.
If you support measures that gives different a treament for homosexuals, then you are a bigot, no matter what you say or how many hypotetical homosexual friends you may have.

It's like saying "I think blacks should have their own buses and bathrooms, but I'm not racist because I have black friends". It doesn't stand.

You are supporting the enforcement of a double standard. Double standards are a consequence of bigotry, as there is no valid reason for them other than prejudice.

Why shouldnt gays be allowed to die for their country?

Amen, Skaladora. Corneliu's contributions to this thread have been bigotted, offensive and thoroughly repellant. Great soldiers have been treated like crap over this for generations, and it's time for it to stop.

Well... it was your own fault my friend. You told a friend in the army you were gay so whatever happens became your fault.

If it were illegal to be a girl, would being punished for being a girl be my fault? If I told someone close to me that I was a girl, would the punishment suddenly become my fault?

As proscribed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Maybe next time, you will keep your yap shut?[/qutoe]

Maybe the UCMJ is stupid?

[quote]I would love to know how you pulled that one off since under the UCMJ, you were supposed to be dishonorably discharged. Not that I mind either which way just stating what the UCMJ states.

The problem is that the rule itself is stupid. How do you logically back up ruining someone's life just because of their sexual orientation?

Amen, Skaladora. Corneliu's contributions to this thread have been bigotted, offensive and thoroughly repellant. Great soldiers have been treated like crap over this for generations, and it's time for it to stop.

I say they should be getting paid more money than the politicians who sit on their asses all day and do nothing while they put their lives on the line to defend them.

If you think what I have been saying is biggoted and repulsive, that isn't my problem but I have forgiven you for your statements. I am a law abiding citizen and follow the law, and that includes military law. If they see fit to change the law and it passes, I shall defend the new law as well be it good or bad.

Same was said of black troops. It was said that the more "old fashioned" and "traditional" minded troops would never accept being part of a team wiht black people. And that black troops would be victims of racism and violence. But they were forced to deal with it. And there were few problems.

Troops are required to follow orders no matter what their "morals" are. If they don't, they are kicked out. So they will accept gay members in their ranks just like they did black troops. Period.Exactly. The whole "morale" argument is specious. It's the same one they've used to fight every major change. Rank-and-file soldiers will treat gays with respect because they will be *required* to do so, just as they were required to treat racial minorities with respect when those changes came.

The problem is that the rule itself is stupid. How do you logically back up ruining someone's life just because of their sexual orientation?

The law is the law. In this case, its military law. I didn't write it but I will uphold it. If they see fit to change it, though I may not agree with the change, I will support the change because I am a law abiding citizen.

Maybe the UCMJ is stupid?


Alleluia! Finally someone said it!

- Hey, but it's the law.
- Yeah, but it's a stupid law.
- It's still the law. We have to follow the code.
- How about we change the stupid code?
- We can't.
- Why not?
- The code says so.

[/absurdity]

Oh women in the ranks did mess things up.

How so? COs in Iraq don't seem to agree with you. Neither do most of the soldiers I have spoken to.

However, at the least they aren't front-line combat troops.

In Iraq, they are just as "front-line" as anyone else, and end up in plenty of combat.


I agree 100% however, there isn't and frankly,I do not care. I will stand beside the UCMJ in this case because it is the governing authority on the military.

So, back when slavery was legal, you would have stood by Georgia because it was the governing authority on whether or not black people were slaves in this country?

Back when Jim Crow laws were in effect, you would have stood by Alabama, because they could determine how and who could vote?

If you were a German during the Nazi regime, you would have stood by and watched Jews get rounded up, because the lawful authorities had determined it to be so?

You don't stand by and support mistreatment of people just because the lawful authority is doing it.

So by definition, you support and agree with every law in effect? Sounds like you're forfeited your right to independant thought.

I'd like to hear your "defense and support" of a law that treated you and your family like crap.

The law is the law. In this case, its military law. I didn't write it but I will uphold it. If they see fit to change it, though I may not agree with the change, I will support the change because I am a law abiding citizen.

It's a good thing that those who founded this country, and have bettered it over the years, weren't like you. Some of us don't mindlessly support laws we don't agree with.

So by definition, you support and agree with every law in effect? I'd like to hear your "defense and support" of a law that treated you and your family like crap.

And what law would that be? The fact that the military always gets dumped on by people who do not like the military? 1st Amendment rights. Or Congress's right to do with the military as they see fit?

It's a good thing that those who founded this country, and have bettered it over the years, weren't like you. Some of us don't mindlessly support laws we don't agree with.

I'm all for bettering the nation dempublicents. I may not like several laws we have on the books and I do tell my congressmen, all 3 of them, that and request that they do something about it.

I am a law abiding citizen and follow the law, and that includes military law. If they see fit to change the law and it passes, I shall defend the new law as well be it good or bad.

So if slavery were the law of the land you'd support it without question like you do this evil law? If the law stated that all hispanics were to be rounded up into camps, you'd support that law without question? Laws aren't always right. Evil wins when good people do nothing to challenge bad laws.

Just following orders has never been an acceptable defense.

If you think what I have been saying is biggoted and repulsive, that isn't my problem but I have forgiven you for your statements. I am a law abiding citizen and follow the law, and that includes military law. If they see fit to change the law and it passes, I shall defend the new law as well be it good or bad.
Don't try to justify your bigoted views with the status quo. If a law is stupid, it needs to be changed. If you support laws mindlessly no matter how stupid they are, then I'm sorry for what I'm about to say, but you're stupid for obeying a stupid law instead of trying to have it changed.

If my MPs suddenly decided to pass a law that stated that all jews must be extermined, for example, I would oppose it with all I could muster. As did many(but unfortunately not all) Germans in WW2. The reason for the massacres of WW2 is that germans had the same mindset as you have, and did not question the laws and authorities when they should have.

If a law is stupid, discriminatory, or aims to have a minority of people treated differently from the majority, then it is my RESPONSIBILITY, as a citizen, to take all measures possible to have it overturned. Whether that implies taking it to court, writing to MPs, getting petitions sent to parliament, or protesting in the streets.

It is a citizen's responsibility to participate in democracy. Participating in democracy DOES NOT mean mindlessly following laws and directives issued from above. That reeks of feodalism and ignorance.

'nuff said.

I agree 100% however, there isn't and frankly,I do not care. I will stand beside the UCMJ in this case because it is the governing authority on the military.


So you support a law (or rule) merely because it's a law no matter what the law is?

I'm a Brit and Homosexuals are aloud in the armed forces ( the best in the world may I add). What difference does your sexuality make to your miliatry ability. Gays can Fight just as well as hetrosexuals. Gays can opperate tanks or navigate ships just as well as the hetrosexuals. It is just a stupid law and thank god that it is not imposed on the Brits.

I would like to raise another matter. This matter is to do with women not being alowed in the Infantry in the British Army neither Are they aloud in the Royal Marines of the Royal Navy. I myself agree with this law not as a predjudice but as a Military Tactician. I would like to hear your views on this matter.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS POST

I agree 100% however, there isn't and frankly,I do not care. I will stand beside the UCMJ in this case because it is the governing authority on the military.
Why would you blindly stand behind any document? People error and people wrote that document.

So if slavery were the law of the land you'd support it without question like you do this evil law? If the law stated that all hispanics were to be rounded up into camps, you'd support that law without question? Laws aren't always right. Evil wins when good people do nothing to challenge bad laws.

Just following orders has never been an acceptable defense.

I never said I wouldn't challenge the law.You can follow the law and challenge it at the same time.

So you support a law (or rule) merely because it's a law no matter what the law is?
Is that as scary to you as it is to me?

Why would you blindly stand behind any document? People error and people wrote that document.

Then I shouldn't stand behind the US Constitution? It is a document and written by man.

Same was said of black troops. It was said that the more "old fashioned" and "traditional" minded troops would never accept being part of a team wiht black people. And that black troops would be victims of racism and violence. But they were forced to deal with it. And there were few problems.

Troops are required to follow orders no matter what their "morals" are. If they don't, they are kicked out. So they will accept gay members in their ranks just like they did black troops. Period.

You know, I love optimists. :) You're really all so cute!

Do you know how long it took black members of the military to be accepted by the "regular" troops? Do you know that women (who have served in the armed forces for decades) still aren't accepted in the military by combat troops? Do you know that there are still soldiers who resent the "niggers" "kikes" "beaners" "insert other racist term here"?

Do you know how many women are raped in the military every year? Do you know how many black soldiers are beaten and/or killed every year? Do you know how many homosexuals are killed every year in the military?

Anything different is going to be suspect. It's adorable to suggest that just because the troops are ordered to accept something, they're going to accept it. But it's blatantly clear you've never served in a combat unit, or in fact, in the military at all.

Is that as scary to you as it is to me?


Yes, especially coming from someone who claims that they were raised to think for themselves. If that's thinking for yourself, then I am really scared of what his brand of mindless sheep would be.

I never said I wouldn't challenge the law.You can follow the law and challenge it at the same time.
But, as you stated, you support the actual law. So you support a double standard regarding a soldier's sexuality. I guess that tells us much about yourself.

Just don't try to hide your prejudice and bigotry towards homosexuals behind a sheen of "lawful citizen"-ness.

But, as you stated, you support the actual law. So you support a double standard regarding a soldier's sexuality. I guess that tells us much about yourself.

Just don't try to hide your prejudice and bigotry towards homosexuals behind a sheen of "lawful citizen"-ness.

I do not hide anything. I do not care if you are a homosexual or not. I treat everyone the same.

I never said I wouldn't challenge the law.You can follow the law and challenge it at the same time.

No, you said you support it. And I quote"

"The law is the law. In this case, its military law. I didn't write it but I will uphold it. If they see fit to change it, though I may not agree with the change, I will support the change because I am a law abiding citizen."

And you have said numerous times in this thead you support this stupid law and gay people are "asking for it" just for being out in the armed forces. How is that challenging this law in any way. Just admit you think it is a just law and us gay folk are some how inferior. You have implied it several times already.

I do not hide anything. I do not care if you are a homosexual or not. I treat everyone the same.

yet you support a law that treats homosexuals as less than the same. Why is that? You stand behind a bigoted law, making you a bigot.

I do not hide anything. I do not care if you are a homosexual or not. I treat everyone the same.

But you support the millitary treating us differently.

Then I shouldn't stand behind the US Constitution? It is a document and written by man.
Not blindly just accepting what it says

If people had done what you do the constitution would still bar certain races from voting, or woman’s suffrage would still be outlawed.

I do not hide anything. I do not care if you are a homosexual or not. I treat everyone the same.
Oooff now someone is going to be having a pout in a minute, a homphobic pout!

But you support the millitary treating us differently.

I may not like what it says in the UCMJ that's true but its the law. Try to get it changed.

Do you know how long it took black members of the military to be accepted by the "regular" troops? Do you know that women (who have served in the armed forces for decades) still aren't accepted in the military by combat troops? Do you know that there are still soldiers who resent the "niggers" "kikes" "beaners" "insert other racist term here"?

Time to start the process with gays in the military then. The sooner we start, the sooner we finish.

Just because a lot of soldiers are mentally ignorant and xenophobic doesn't mean the military authorities should consecrate that vision of ignorance and xenophobia. Right now, you're saying because most soldiers are homophobic bastards, it would be pointless for the authorities to stop being homophobic bastards. That's nonsense.

If the authorities acknowledge gays are equals and as fit to serve as straights, then slowly mentalities change. If there is abuse, then punishment is issued to the offenders. It's not perfect, but it's working towards the right direction.

If the authorities don't acknowledge there are gays in the military and that they're as fit to serve, then mentalities stay the same. If there is abuse, it goes unpunished, as the authorities refuse to adress the issue of sexual orientation. Neanderthal soldiers keep being bigoted and openly despise gays who risk their lives for their country. We're not going anywhere like that.

Gays should not be allowed in the army. It is a disgrace for any country!

Gays should not be allowed in the army. It is a disgrace for any country!

And how is it a disgrace?

Gays should not be allowed in the army. It is a disgrace for any country!
And what menatality have you got. The mentality of a scone? Or prehaps that mentality is too high for you let us try a piece of moss that has been stepped on.

I do not hide anything. I do not care if you are a homosexual or not. I treat everyone the same.
Funny, I never said a word about my own sexuality. Just pointed your own close-mindedness.

You do not treat everyone the same if you openly support laws and regulations that treat gay soldiers differently than straight ones. You said so on the last page. Yet, you're afraid to acknowledge the fact that the double standards you support have no logical or reasonable basis. Sounds to me like you're a closet homophobe.

I may not like what it says in the UCMJ that's true but its the law. Try to get it changed.

I am.

Other than here, where in this thread have you said that you didn't like this law? All I have seen is you saying you support it. Personally I don't care if you do. Every one is entiled to their opinions. Just don't claim not to be a biggot if you support biggoted laws. I can't stand it when people pretend to be friends of the gay community and then support unjust and punitive laws against us. You can't do both. Do a little soul searching and figure out what you truly believe. Then pick a side.

I am.

Other than here, where in this thread have you said that you didn't like this law? All I have seen is you saying you support it. Personally I don't care if you do. Every one is entiled to their opinions. Just don't claim not to be a biggot if you support biggoted laws. I can't stand it when people pretend to be friends of the gay community and then support unjust and punitive laws against us. You can't do both. Do a little soul searching and figure out what you truly believe. Then pick a side.

I don't have to pick a side. I can see that you are new here. Around here, there are things I say that I mean and things I say that I do not mean. I just like to argue for arguements sake and cause controversy when I can. I succeeded well in this thread :D

I may not like what it says in the UCMJ that's true but its the law. Try to get it changed.
You said yourself on the last page that you did indeed like what it says in the UCMJ on gays in the military. You're contradicting yourself.

Some people on this board ARE trying to get the law changed, and you disagreed with them.

You seriously need to be open open about it, and say out loud that your dislike of gays or support for their different treatment is irrationnal and born from personnal prejudice. Stop strying to pretend you're open-minded about difference in sexual orientation when you're clearly not. I smell hypocrisy here.

I may hate bible-thumping fundies, but at least with them you know where they stand.

Gays should not be allowed in the army. It is a disgrace for any country!
Gays are admitted in the Canadian military. They're in the British army as well. In both, they can be open about themselves and their sexual orientation. Neither the Canadian nor the British military are disgraced from that.

Thank you, come again.

I don't have to pick a side. I can see that you are new here. Around here, there are things I say that I mean and things I say that I do not mean. I just like to argue for arguements sake and cause controversy when I can. I succeeded well in this thread :D


In other words: Trolling is what he loves to do.

I would like to raise another matter. This matter is to do with women not being alowed in the Infantry in the British Army neither Are they aloud in the Royal Marines of the Royal Navy. I myself agree with this law not as a predjudice but as a Military Tactician. I would like to hear your views on this matter.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS POST

Different subject. You'll get more opinions on this if you start a seperate thread about it. We had one a month or two back on just that topic. It was quite long as I recall. If you don't want to start your own thread, you can do a search for that one.

In other words: Trolling is what he loves to do.

But trolling within the rules :D

I'm a Brit and Homosexuals are aloud in the armed forces ( the best in the world may I add). What difference does your sexuality make to your miliatry ability. Gays can Fight just as well as hetrosexuals. Gays can opperate tanks or navigate ships just as well as the hetrosexuals. It is just a stupid law and thank god that it is not imposed on the Brits.

I would like to raise another matter. This matter is to do with women not being alowed in the Infantry in the British Army neither Are they aloud in the Royal Marines of the Royal Navy. I myself agree with this law not as a predjudice but as a Military Tactician. I would like to hear your views on this matter.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS POST

Because our military, whilst not having the best equipment in the world and is rather smaller, isn't actually bigoted and homophobic? That we recognise that it actually doesn't matter if homosexuals declare what they are, that straight and gay soldiers are just the same, and shouldn't have to hide what they are?

But trolling within the rules :D

A rose by any other name...

And gays are in the military and can join the military. They just can't tell people that they are gay which is fine by me.

....

I may not like what it says in the UCMJ that's true but its the law. Try to get it changed.

I'll just sit and watch.

Just to add to this, i would like to say tht I ams toutly republican. I do not support a lot of what the catholic church says. (for instance, if a woman is raped, she SHOULD have the right to an abortion rather than having to look at a child every day that is going to bring back such painful memories.) I also support the environmentalists, but i believe that despite all of the flak he gets that bush is a good man, just not a good speaker. look at stephen hawking, he can barely speak coherently at all, but he has nnobel prizes. i don't mean to make anyone angry or stir anything up, but this is how i feel.

Comparing a man who is quite possibly the smartest man alive, if not ever, who can not speak due to a progressive, and highly destructive, neurological disorder, and George W. Bush is an insult to Hawkings.

To put it simply, Hawkings was a great speaker and debator when he could speak, the same can never be said for Dubya (well, perhaps he was once before all the scotch and coke started screwing with his head).

Because our military, whilst not having the best equipment in the world and is rather smaller, isn't actually bigoted and homophobic? That we recognise that it actually doesn't matter if homosexuals declare what they are, that straight and gay soldiers are just the same, and shouldn't have to hide what they are?

I think you mean it isn't homophobic. The fact that women are still barred from some areas would suggest that there is still bigotry - it's just sexism instead of homophobia.

I think you mean it isn't homophobic. The fact that women are still barred from some areas would suggest that there is still bigotry - it's just sexism instead of homophobia.

Crap, I knew there was something wrong with that post, I just couldn't put my finger on it. Still, one out of two is better than both.

I don't have to pick a side. I can see that you are new here. Around here, there are things I say that I mean and things I say that I do not mean. I just like to argue for arguements sake and cause controversy when I can. I succeeded well in this thread :D

I've been here for a year now and am very aware of your posting style. And as is your style, you are now trying to wiggle out of a situation of your own making that has made you either uncomfortable, look bad, or is "un-winable".

I don't have to pick a side. I can see that you are new here. Around here, there are things I say that I mean and things I say that I do not mean. I just like to argue for arguements sake and cause controversy when I can. I succeeded well in this thread :D
See, Corneliu, when you take an openly bigoted and homphobic stance in many, many threads, people start to realize that you really are bigoted.

You've got 17k posts. I've read them over several threads, and you were always like this. I don't believe even for a single moment that what you said here is for controversy's sake. I really don't understand what's the point of lying over this on an internet forum, but honestly I don't really care.

Like Texoma said, stop trying to hide the fact that you're prejudiced. If you think it's shameful of you to be bigoted about this(as would explain the fact that you refuse to acknowledge you are) then you should try to open your horizons and get past your prejudice and stereotypes. Not justify yourself and pretend you like gays and support equal treatment when you clearly don't.

I think you mean it isn't homophobic. The fact that women are still barred from some areas would suggest that there is still bigotry - it's just sexism instead of homophobia.

There are CERTAIN situation in which women, in a general sense, may be excluded from the military, but not an exclusive ban.

There are times when certain careers require a certain level of just pure brute strength. Not intellect, not the capacity to reason and think, but just complete muscle. I speak about military, police, firefighters, and other occupations where ones own life, and the life of others, may require significant phyiscal strength.

Women, in general, have not nearly the physical size and strength men do, and in a situation where women as a general rule would lack the physical characteristics to do their job I see no reason to not exclude them, not for the fact of two X chromosomes, but because they are physically incapable of doing the job.

Should a woman however demonstrate that she has the requisite physical strength to do it, then by all means let her in. I have seen, and boggled, at claims that groups like firefighter and police acadamy are biggoted because their standards of physical strenght are higher than what most women can do....

Um...HELLO? If you as a PERSON (not man nor woman) are not physically strong enough to do a physically taxing job then you are not qualified for that job. It would be like construction jubos unfailr discriminate against lawyers because I, with my JD, am unable to work as an engineer. I simply lack the qualifications for it.

And in situations where physical strength is a necessity of the job, many women, by nature of being the physically 'weaker sex" to coin the phrase, are not qualified. Now again, if any particular woman happens through genetics and good physical shape to meet those characteristics, then the argument of course, is void.

See, Corneliu, when you take an openly bigoted and homphobic stance in many, many threads, people start to realize that you really are bigoted.

Then no one knows me at all for in fact that I am not a bigotted person.

You've got 17k posts. I've read them over several threads, and you were always like this. I don't believe even for a single moment that what you said here is for controversy's sake. I really don't understand what's the point of lying over this on an internet forum, but honestly I don't really care.

Come on. Its the internet. Jeez.

Like Texoma said, stop trying to hide the fact that you're prejudiced.

How can I hide something that I am not? You can't.

If you think it's shameful of you to be bigoted about this(as would explain the fact that you refuse to acknowledge you are) then you should try to open your horizons and get past your prejudice and stereotypes. Not justify yourself and pretend you like gays and support equal treatment when you clearly don't.

Again, if you think I'm prejudiced then you do not know me at all for I am not a prejudiced person, I do not persecute anyone, and I want equal rights for all. So tell me how I am prejudiced?

Again, if you think I'm prejudiced then you do not know me at all for I am not a prejudiced person, I do not persecute anyone, and I want equal rights for all. So tell me how I am prejudiced?
You support different treatment for soldiers based on their sexual orientation. That is prejudice. That is also something I've said countless times over my last posts. I'm getting quite tired of repeating myself. Especially since you haven't seemingly even tried to deny that other than say "I'm not prejudiced".

A racist who says something racist in public is no less a racist if he adds "But I'm not racist" after his comment. The same if true of homophobia, sexism, xenophobia or antisemitism.

There are times when certain careers require a certain level of just pure brute strength. Not intellect, not the capacity to reason and think, but just complete muscle. I speak about military, police, firefighters, and other occupations where ones own life, and the life of others, may require significant phyiscal strength.

Women, in general, have not nearly the physical size and strength men do, and in a situation where women as a general rule would lack the physical characteristics to do their job I see no reason to not exclude them, not for the fact of two X chromosomes, but because they are physically incapable of doing the job.

Most of the jobs you listed rarely need pure brute strength. If they did, the tests would be more functional. Out of everything you listed, the only organization that I know of that regularly has functional tests is that of firefighters - and women can often pass those tests. The others have fitness tests. The requirements for equal fitness levels in men and women will be different - but only if those differences cause a functional difference should it matter.

Should a woman however demonstrate that she has the requisite physical strength to do it, then by all means let her in. I have seen, and boggled, at claims that groups like firefighter and police acadamy are biggoted because their standards of physical strenght are higher than what most women can do....

Indeed. But saying that, because women are less likely to be able to meet the requirements, that even those women who can do so should be banned is sexist - plain and simple.

Meanwhile, the reason for the different standards of physical strength are as I discussed above. Most of these standards come from fitness tests, not functional ones. If the test was something along the lines of, "Must be able to carry 200 lb of equipment at a fast march for 3 hours in temperatures up to 100 F," then it would make sense to keep the standards the same. However, if the standards are (as they generally are) meant to be a fitness test, then the standards will naturally be different, as fitness requirements in men and women are different.

I may not like what it says in the UCMJ that's true but its the law. Try to get it changed.
Thats not what you said before ... you said you SUPPORT the law

There is a major difference

You are all ugly. No offense intended. Now, you can't get mad at me.

Time to start the process with gays in the military then. The sooner we start, the sooner we finish.

As I said in my first post, I personally have no issue with gays in the military.

However, it is unrealistic at best to assume the military is going to be leading the charge in promoting any social issue.

I can possibly see, in the future when gays have the civil rights they deserve (i.e. the same civil rights everyone else has) that the military might be persuaded to amend their views and stance on gays in the military. This will not, unfortunately, change the opinion of the many people in the military...as I said, that sort of acceptance is going to take generations.

Until the civil social issues are resolved, however, don't expect the military (which is pretty much the definition of an ultra-conservative base) to make any sort of change.

You are all ugly. No offense intended. Now, you can't get mad at me.

...

...

...

[Goddamit, he's right

As I said in my first post, I personally have no issue with gays in the military.

However, it is unrealistic at best to assume the military is going to be leading the charge in promoting any social issue.

I can possibly see, in the future when gays have the civil rights they deserve (i.e. the same civil rights everyone else has) that the military might be persuaded to amend their views and stance on gays in the military. This will not, unfortunately, change the opinion of the many people in the military...as I said, that sort of acceptance is going to take generations.

Until the civil social issues are resolved, however, don't expect the military (which is pretty much the definition of an ultra-conservative base) to make any sort of change.
Again, the sooner we start...

...

...

...

[Goddamit, he's right]
Yes. I am pretty much at a loss for what do, myself. I want to get mad at him for calling me ugly, but he said "no offense meant", so I certainly can't take offense at his offensive comment, now, can I?

This will not, unfortunately, change the opinion of the many people in the military...as I said, that sort of acceptance is going to take generations.

It doesn't have to change their opinions. Their opinions are irrelevant. It will change their behaviour however. If it doesn't, they'll be court marshalled.

It doesn't have to change their opinions. Their opinions are irrelevant. It will change their behaviour however. If it doesn't, they'll be court marshalled.

You're really not getting the point. The military will NOT change its rules and regulations on gays in the military until the civil laws change regarding gays in general. That's simply the way the military works. It's not a liberal organization which is panting for new opportunities to show how open-minded they are.

You're really not getting the point. The military will NOT change its rules and regulations on gays in the military until the civil laws change regarding gays in general. That's simply the way the military works. It's not a liberal organization which is panting for new opportunities to show how open-minded they are.

For once, I agree.

Again, if you think I'm prejudiced then you do not know me at all for I am not a prejudiced person, I do not persecute anyone, and I want equal rights for all. So tell me how I am prejudiced?

As the saying goes, you can't shake the devils hand then say you're only kidding. In my year on here, you have gained a repuation of being a good deal less than tolerant. If you don't want people to think you are a bigot, then it is up to you (and only you) to change your behavior so we won't. You can't just say you're not after a year or more of acting like one. Only you are responsible for your reputation on here.

You're really not getting the point. The military will NOT change its rules and regulations on gays in the military until the civil laws change regarding gays in general. That's simply the way the military works. It's not a liberal organization which is panting for new opportunities to show how open-minded they are.

Actually, federal civil laws already ban discrimination on the basis of sexuality in government positions. For some reason, the military has been exempted from this.

Kind of like how it is perfectly ok for a school to have a rule that they will not allow recruiters from organizations that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc. on campus, but they have to allow military recruiters anyways - or be denied funds.

Yes. I am pretty much at a loss for what do, myself. I want to get mad at him for calling me ugly, but he said "no offense meant", so I certainly can't take offense at his offensive comment, now, can I?
I give you all the raspberry.http://www.edugraphics.net/gj-people/einstein/posters/gj221-to.JPG

You're really not getting the point. The military will NOT change its rules and regulations on gays in the military until the civil laws change regarding gays in general. That's simply the way the military works. It's not a liberal organization which is panting for new opportunities to show how open-minded they are.
That doesn't mean they should not.

Until further notice, is the military and its regulations not bound by the same laws and your national constitution? Even if they don't WANT to change their views, they can be MADE to change their views and enforce the new laws.

The Canadian military had to change its regulations and oppose discimination toward gay soldiers after lawsuits against it were filed and won. The tribunals stated that the army had to respect the constitution, in which "discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation" is forbidden.

Actually, federal civil laws already ban discrimination on the basis of sexuality in government positions. For some reason, the military has been exempted from this.

Kind of like how it is perfectly ok for a school to have a rule that they will not allow recruiters from organizations that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc. on campus, but they have to allow military recruiters anyways - or be denied funds.

And yet.

Gays can't legally get married by federal law.

Gays cannot file taxes jointly with the IRS.

In many states there are still laws regarding homosexual behaviour (despite the fact that they will possibly be struck down at the Supreme Court, a questionable statement given our new, more conservative judge base there).

And so on and so on and so on.

Resolve these issues, and eventually (as it did with blacks and women, etc.) the military will follow suit.

can someone explain to me what is so wrong with dont ask dont tell
i dont see how knowing the sexual orientation of its soldiers is any of the military's business

You're really not getting the point. The military will NOT change its rules and regulations on gays in the military until the civil laws change regarding gays in general. That's simply the way the military works. It's not a liberal organization which is panting for new opportunities to show how open-minded they are.

I understand your rationalization. But the president and congress can change it any time they like. Change can come instantly if the people demand it.

Just because the military has always been a certan way doesn't make it right. Nor does it mean it will always be a certan way or has to be that way. And I for one won't just stand around and do nothing about injustice while others twiddle their thumbs and try to justify it.

And yet.

Gays can't legally get married by federal law.

Gays cannot file taxes jointly with the IRS.

In many states there are still laws regarding homosexual behaviour (despite the fact that they will possibly be struck down at the Supreme Court, a questionable statement given our new, more conservative judge base there).

And so on and so on and so on.

Resolve these issues, and eventually (as it did with blacks and women, etc.) the military will follow suit.
There is no reason why discrimination cannot be attack on all fronts. Ease of passage shouldn't be a requirement for justice.

Actually, federal civil laws already ban discrimination on the basis of sexuality in government positions. For some reason, the military has been exempted from this.

Kind of like how it is perfectly ok for a school to have a rule that they will not allow recruiters from organizations that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc. on campus, but they have to allow military recruiters anyways - or be denied funds.

The military isn't exactly a normal civilian organization and it would be impossible to function under civillian laws. NFA, for example. Or EPA crap. Or a number of things.

That doesn't mean they should not.

Until further notice, is the military and its regulations not bound by the same laws and your national constitution? Even if they don't WANT to change their views, they can be MADE to change their views and enforce the new laws.

The Canadian military had to change its regulations and oppose discimination toward gay soldiers after lawsuits against it were filed and won. The tribunals stated that the army had to respect the constitution, in which "discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation" is forbidden.

Okay, I have to admit this one made me laugh.

We have legislators, congressmen, judges, governors, senators, et al, who will not give gays the right to marry.

And yet you expect these same government officials to instruct the military to stop discriminating against gays?

Not going to happen. WHEN civil law gets changed, then we might see changes in military law.

can someone explain to me what is so wrong with dont ask dont tell
i dont see how knowing the sexual orientation of its soldiers is any of the military's business
Because some heterosexual man can spend every waking free hour talking about his sexual exploits, but if a gay man confides in a friend that he is gay and the friend happens to blab he can be dishonorably discharged for mentioning it.

It’s a bigoted fucking rule that has no place in a civilized society

can someone explain to me what is so wrong with dont ask dont tell
i dont see how knowing the sexual orientation of its soldiers is any of the military's business
It creates a climate of paranoia. A gay soldier has to hide himself and his hypotethical boyfriend for fear of losing his position. It is a also a double standard, and as such is intellectually dishonest.

It maintains the climate of perceived inferiority of gays and lesbians. It makes abuse such as beating someone up because he has a different sexual orientation okay, because then the poor guy or gal who was just beaten up can't report it, because s/he can't explain why s/he was beaten up without losing his/her job.

It is an insult to all the gays and lesbians who work for, defend, and sometimes die for, their country.

And yet.

Gays can't legally get married by federal law.

Gays cannot file taxes jointly with the IRS.


Well, golly gee, that just make it all ok then. If one person assults another, that makes it ok for everyone to do it.

The military isn't exactly a normal civilian organization and it would be impossible to function under civillian laws. NFA, for example. Or EPA crap. Or a number of things.

But it isn't a civilian job. Its a federal job for it is runned by the government and not civilians.

Okay, I have to admit this one made me laugh.

We have legislators, congressmen, judges, governors, senators, et al, who will not give gays the right to marry.

And yet you expect these same government officials to instruct the military to stop discriminating against gays?

Not going to happen. WHEN civil law gets changed, then we might see changes in military law.
Then change the legislators. Wasn't USA supposed to be a democracy?

Maybe next election half of your country won't sit on their arse on election day and go out and vote, for a change.

Or, again, seize the tribunals and overturn the discriminatory laws and regulations.

If all else fails, then leave the nutjobs in power and move to Canada. We'll make you welcome.

Then change the legislators. Wasn't USA supposed to be a democracy?

Maybe next election half of your country won't sit on their arse on election day and go out and vote, for a change.

Or, again, seize the tribunals and overturn the discriminatory laws and regulations.

If all else fails, then leave the nutjobs in power and move to Canada. We'll make you welcome.
I thought it was more like 2/3 of our country on our collective arses.

If all else fails, then leave the nutjobs in power and move to Canada. We'll make you welcome.

Promise? Because as it stands now, Canada won't take me. I've looked into it.

Then change the legislators. Wasn't USA supposed to be a democracy?

Maybe next election half of your country won't sit on their arse on election day and go out and vote, for a change.

The thing is, they did. And so did I. Just not like most of ya'll.

Or, again, seize the tribunals and overturn the discriminatory laws and regulations.

If all else fails, then leave the nutjobs in power and move to Canada. We'll make you welcome.<---Please oh please. Do it.

Well, golly gee, that just make it all ok then. If one person assults another, that makes it ok for everyone to do it.

I'm sorry you take such offense to someone being realistic.

It's rather silly to assume that, because there's an outraged base of civilians, that the military is going to change its laws. Especially when the government is so eager to support it.

These things don't happen overnight...we all might wish we could wake up tomorrow and there would be no discrimination or racism. But it's not going to happen.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to end these things. But expecting that because YOU say its wrong means it's going to instantly changed is totally unrealistic. And expending your time and energy fighting an ultra-conservative group which WILL NOT change its laws until the civil laws change is a waste.

The first step in this battle (as with all battles of this sort) is to get the civil laws changed. That, right now, is a worthier windmill. THEN go after the military, because at that point you'll have solid rock to stand on, not quicksand.

I'm sorry it offends you when someone points out the realities.

Promise? Because as it stands now, Canada won't take me. I've looked into it.
Why wouldn't Canada take you in? :confused:

It creates a climate of paranoia. A gay soldier has to hide himself and his hypotethical boyfriend for fear of losing his position.
but shouldnt they have better things to talk about
for example killing the terrorists in the war theyre fighting

i mean they did join the military to kill, not to chat and share secrets

but shouldnt they have better things to talk about
for example killing the terrorists in the war theyre fighting
It takes 5 damn seconds to slip up and mention a bf ... Besides being able to share yourself with another human being is absolutly key to moral and their ability to fight

They are not fucking robots

but shouldnt they have better things to talk about
for example killing the terrorists in the war theyre fighting

i mean they did join the military to kill, not to chat and share secrets
I hate to be the one to tell you(not really) but soldiers do not spend all their time killing things. For one they do have to be transported to wherever they have to fight. And then there's the times when they aren't fighting. And of course they might seek out conversations with their fellows for comfort in bleak situations.

but shouldnt they have better things to talk about
for example killing the terrorists in the war theyre fighting

i mean they did join the military to kill, not to chat and share secrets
Yes. Because straight soldiers also have to keep silence about their personnal life or get dishonorably discharged? They never mention their girlfriend waiting at home to their fellow unit members? Straight soldiers always talk about terrorists and killing people, they never need to get their minds off that? No, they don't, and neither should gays have to.

It's all about the double standards. Gay soldiers are treated differently. That's unacceptable.

And yet.

Gays can't legally get married by federal law.

If we were talking about marriage, this would be relevant.

The law against discrimination in the workplace already exists. Why should the military be treated differently from the rest of the government structure? The FDA cannot discriminate based on sexuality. The EPA cannot. The FBI cannot, and so on. But the military magically can?

can someone explain to me what is so wrong with dont ask dont tell
i dont see how knowing the sexual orientation of its soldiers is any of the military's business

It isn't. But under "don't ask, don't tell", if the military finds out through any means, the person is dishonorably discharged. In case you don't know, that basically means the end of their career. IIRC, a dishonorable discharge, much like a felony conviction, prevents voting in some states.


The military isn't exactly a normal civilian organization and it would be impossible to function under civillian laws. NFA, for example. Or EPA crap. Or a number of things.

I'm not talking about "normal civilian organizations." I'm talking about federal laws that apply to governmental positions. The military is a government organization, just as any other part of the executive branch is.

Why wouldn't Canada take you in? :confused:

To move there from the US you need 3 things.

1) a job offer (or be part of a profession in short supply in Canada). I'm disabled so that leaves me out.

2) No helath problems that might cause a burden to the National Health system. I have a severe spinal cord injury that may require rather involved operations in the future.

3) $10,000 in savings. That's almost a years income from my disability insurance. No way I can put that aside.

The only way I can get in is through marrage.

Yes. Because straight soldiers also have to keep silence about their personnal life or get dishonorably discharged? They never mention their girlfriend waiting at home to their fellow unit members? Straight soldiers always talk about terrorists and killing people, they never need to get their minds off that? No, they don't, and neither should gays have to.

It's all about the double standards. Gay soldiers are treated differently. That's unacceptable.

And hopefully one day, that'll change.

To move there from the US you need 3 things.

1) a job offer (or be part of a profession in short supply in Canada). I'm disabled so that leaves me out.

2) No helath problems that might cause a burden to the National Health system. I have a severe spinal cord injury that may require rather involved operations in the future.

3) $10,000 in savings. That's almost a years income from my disability insurance. No way I can put that aside.

The only way I can get in is through marrage.
Good thing for you gay marriage is legal here, no? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

would everyone be happy if the military agreed to let gays in and be open about their preferences, if they did so in a gay-only battalion?

while im guessing all of you would say "NO", i want to know why, because this makes perfect sense to me--> the gays should be happy because they can be in the military and openly gay (and everyone around them would have similar views, etc), the straight people in the military should be happy because they wont have to deal with the gays in the military, and ill be happy because then everyone can stop whining about Gays in the armed forces in the USA

would everyone be happy if the military agreed to let gays in and be open about their preferences, if they did so in a gay-only battalion?

Segregated units? Isn't that almost as bad as court-martialing them if they are found out?

would everyone be happy if the military agreed to let gays in and be open about their preferences, if they did so in a gay-only battalion?

while im guessing all of you would say "NO", i want to know why, because this makes perfect sense to me--> the gays should be happy because they can be in the military and openly gay, the straight people in the military should be happy because they wont have to be especailly close to the gays, and ill be happy because then everyone can stop whining about Gays in the armed forces in the USA
Only if the gay battalion wears pink uniforms.

Only if the gay battalion wears pink uniforms.

HAHAHAHA

Best answer I have seen in a while.

Segregated units? Isn't that almost as bad as court-martialing them if they are found out?
way to read the rest of the post
in my opinion, the answer to your question is no

Good thing for you gay marriage is legal here, no? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

*lol* Well, that's the back up plan should things get bad enough here. Surely someone up there will take pitty and agree to marry me. :p

would everyone be happy if the military agreed to let gays in and be open about their preferences, if they did so in a gay-only battalion?

while im guessing all of you would say "NO", i want to know why, because this makes perfect sense to me--> the gays should be happy because they can be in the military and openly gay, the straight people in the military should be happy because they wont have to be especailly close to the gays, and ill be happy because then everyone can stop whining about Gays in the armed forces in the USA
Separate but equal has been debunked in supreme court already.

Moreover, there is no "black people" battalion. There are no "female only" batallions, either. Neither are the "for jews only" batallions.

To put gays into separate batallions is to foster the segregation between sexual orientations. Just as racial segregation was wrong, so is segregation based on sexual orientation.

way to read the rest of the post
in my opinion, the answer to your question is no

I didn't say one way or the other. I asked a simple question that you desired not to answer.

would everyone be happy if the military agreed to let gays in and be open about their preferences, if they did so in a gay-only battalion?

while im guessing all of you would say "NO", i want to know why, because this makes perfect sense to me--> the gays should be happy because they can be in the military and openly gay (and everyone around them would have similar views, etc), the straight people in the military should be happy because they wont have to deal with the gays in the military, and ill be happy because then everyone can stop whining about Gays in the armed forces in the USA
No for the same frigging reason racial segragated units are not allowed

Separate but equal has been debunked in supreme court already.

Moreover, there is no "black people" battalion. There are no "female only" batallions, either. Neither are the "for jews only" batallions.

To put gays into separate batallions is to foster the segregation between sexual orientations. Just as racial segregation was wrong, so is segregation based on sexual orientation.

I couldn't agree more.

Only if the gay battalion wears pink uniforms.
Pink camoflage uniforms. With shiny pink helmets. Even their special issue gay bullets should be pink.

Segregated units are still discriminatory.

Only if the gay battalion wears pink uniforms.
Well, maybe that would unnerve the terrorist so much that they'd fall to the floor, laughing uncontrollably to death... and/or forget to press their suicide bomb button.

Hey, that could actually work!

But there's no reason straight soldiers shouldn't wear pink uniforms as well then...

would everyone be happy if the military agreed to let gays in and be open about their preferences, if they did so in a gay-only battalion?

You mean like this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Even so, no. It would be no different than segregating black from white, democrat from republican, christian from jew from athiest, etc.

*lol* Well, that's the back up plan should things get bad enough here. Surely someone up there will take pitty and agree to marry me. :p
Well, too bad already courting someone. But I already know from your posts you're a reasonable, intelligent and sensible man. Add to that a reasonably attractive corporal envelope, and I think you're in business ;)

How do you think we got the "don't ask don't tell" policy we have today? It was done by Bill Clinton.
And yet Clinton routinely gets called far-left, ultra-liberal, etc. :rolleyes:

And another thing! The military votes republican anyway.
The government can make changes to the military even if the majority of soldiers didn't vote for them, so this is inconsequential.

The core of the Republican ideal is a defense oriented smaller government...the current group of republicans aren't living up to that and need to be replaced
*snigger*

When was the last time any group of Republicans lived up to this mythical ideal?

3) A very large number of the combat arms units are (for want of a better word) neanderthals. They grew up in a very strict moral society, and tend to view anything different from themselves as alien and undesireable.

4) The safety of an openly acknowledged homosexual in this sort of environment is highly in doubt. Accidents happen to people who go outside the accepted norm.
The training for the US military must be terrible if they can't even prevent the troops from atacking each other. It is such a treacherous thing to do.

Well, too bad already courting someone. But I already know from your posts you're a reasonable, intelligent and sensible man. Add to that a reasonably attractive corporal envelope, and I think you're in business ;)

Well thank you. :D I certanly hope I'm in business anyway. And if you're currious as to my appearance, click the link in my sig.

I wish you the best of luck with your courting. ;)

Well thank you. :D I certanly hope I'm in business anyway. And if you're currious as to my appearance, click the link in my sig.
;)
Holy Baloney. You're having trouble finding someone to marry... because?

(Well, you probably would've been a little too old for me... you had that part of your spine removed the year I was born! :p Still, you're quite hot for your age! )


I wish you the best of luck with your courting. ;)
Thanks a bunch! With a little luck, I'll finally be able to double the total number of boyfriends I've had! ^^

Firstly, those that said they came from Britain and said they didnt understand this law, until recently Britain banned Gays from joining the armed service. Obviously they have changed that now, and accepted the simple fact that gays can fight.

They have always been in the army... hell, where else are you going to find an almost exclusively male community?

But anyway, it is a stupid law, and I am glad Britain has got rid of it..

Though work is still needed on the law on women.

I have read the document that explains why women are not allowed in combat roles in the British army. It is not due to phycal differences, where though they say most women will not meet the required standards, as some some will there is little point banning all women, just let them pass or fail on theri merits. It is not due to psychological differences which they say are not too great and are easily overcome during training. No, it is due essentially to sexism among the British squaddies. Ie they will think the woman is not up to it, harras them, which will make it hard to form small tightly knitted teams which are needed in combat roles. Excellent... women are not allowed in combat roles because many squaddies are morons...

Oh, and more on topic again, the American military law really has to move out of the 60s.

The training for the US military must be terrible if they can't even prevent the troops from atacking each other. It is such a treacherous thing to do.

You're right, because of course it never happens in other countries. For example, there's no country out there where people are targeted for being a particular religion. No soldier in ANY defence force has ever been convicted of killing, oh let's say...a catholic.

Actually, federal civil laws already ban discrimination on the basis of sexuality in government positions. For some reason, the military has been exempted from this.

Kind of like how it is perfectly ok for a school to have a rule that they will not allow recruiters from organizations that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc. on campus, but they have to allow military recruiters anyways - or be denied funds.

Rational basis my dear Dempublicents, rational basis.

By that I mean, when it comes to constitutional review, it is incorrect to say discrimination is NEVER ok, it IS allowed.

Those who you discriminate against however are afforded different review based on who they are. For instance, race. SCOTUS has held that in issues of race one uses an analysis of strict scrutinty.

Basically that means any law that discriminates based on race may not NECESSARILY be bad, but what it means in the legal jargon is that for a strict scrutinty analysis to pass, the discriminating legislative authority must show "a compelling state interest, to wich the legislation is narrowly tailored to address". In other words, if you're discriminating you must have a REALLY good reason for it, and the discriminating laws must be very focused to be the best way to accomplish it.

For instance affirmative action in state schools. SCOTUS has said it IS in fact discrimination, but they have a compelling interest (showing diversity and addressing past wrongs) and that affirmative action is really the best way to do that.

For women and gender issues it's "intermediate scrutinty" which is, again in jargon "important governmental interest and closely related to the objective", or, a pretty good reason, and the discriminatory law is closely related to what you're trying to do.

Sexual identity however is the lowest form a review, a simple "rational basis" test, which is basically...give us any good reason, as long as it's not pure bias, and you can discriminate against gays. The court has not found any good reason in homosexual discrimination in public official positions, but tends to buy the military justification of keeping gays out as a rational reason. Also goes along with defference to the military.

So the reason the military can NOT discriminate based on race, can to some degree discriminate based on gender, and can freely discriminate based on sexual identity is because the court reviews them all differently. You need a REALLY good reason to discriminate on gender, a pretty good reason for race, and any rational reason at all for sexual identity.

It sucks, but dem's the law of the land.

Separate but equal has been debunked in supreme court already.



It has, and it has not.

Brown v. Board of Education said that racially segregated schools, by the very nature of what racial segregation does to people, can NEVER EVER EVER be equal. Even if given the same funding, even the same resources, even identically skilled faculty, racially segregated schools can NOT be equal. Thus seperate but equal fails, whatever you do.

It's also worth noting that this was an issue of RACE, not sexual identity. Don't be confused into thinking the court views them the same way. While I find it an abhorrent philosophy, court sees discrimination against gays as not quite as bad as against racial groups. See my prior post for a more specific analysis.

Sexual identity however is the lowest form a review, a simple "rational basis" test, which is basically...give us any good reason, as long as it's not pure bias, and you can discriminate against gays. The court has not found any good reason in homosexual discrimination in public official positions, but tends to buy the military justification of keeping gays out as a rational reason. Also goes along with defference to the military.

They may "buy" it, but that doesn't make any of the bullshit the military has come up with actually rational. Every argument boils down to, "Teh gays are bad because we say so," and nothing more. It is pure bias.

Meanwhile, I see no logical reason that the rational basis test should be applied, rather than, at the very least, intermediate scrutiny.

So the reason the military can NOT discriminate based on race, can to some degree discriminate based on gender, and can freely discriminate based on sexual identity is because the court reviews them all differently. You need a REALLY good reason to discriminate on gender, a pretty good reason for race, and any rational reason at all for sexual identity.

In truth, I'd really like to see an actual intermediate scrutiny type argument for different treatment of women in the military. Hell, even a rational basis would be nice to hear. Thus far, once again, all of the arguments have been hogwash.

It has, and it has not.

Brown v. Board of Education said that racially segregated schools, by the very nature of what racial segregation does to people, can NEVER EVER EVER be equal. Even if given the same funding, even the same resources, even identically skilled faculty, racially segregated schools can NOT be equal. Thus seperate but equal fails, whatever you do.

It's also worth noting that this was an issue of RACE, not sexual identity. Don't be confused into thinking the court views them the same way. While I find it an abhorrent philosophy, court sees discrimination against gays as not quite as bad as against racial groups. See my prior post for a more specific analysis.
Well, that's certainly an enlightening, and depressing, portrait of the legal system.

However, my arguments were not aimed to reflect the legal stance on the matter. My argument was baed on morality, logic, and rationality. If segregation based on skin color, which is an arbitrary factor and in no way indicates a significant difference between two individuals is wrong, then so it is for sexual orientation, since it is also arbitrary and has no relevance towards a person's abilities or capacities.

A different sexual orientation neither requires nor should entail different treatment.

The core of the Republican ideal is a defense oriented smaller government...the current group of republicans aren't living up to that and need to be replaced
The Libertarian Party will do quite nicely.

Anyways, having read through this forum, I think some of you are perhaps too critical of Corneliu. He basically supports the rule of law. From what I can tell, he says even if a law should be reformed, violating it is the wrong course of action, something I agree with. I cannot read minds, so I cannot judge if he is biased, but in my opinion he is not. Jumping to assumptions is a waste of time.

They may "buy" it, but that doesn't make any of the bullshit the military has come up with actually rational. Every argument boils down to, "Teh gays are bad because we say so," and nothing more. It is pure bias.

Meanwhile, I see no logical reason that the rational basis test should be applied, rather than, at the very least, intermediate scrutiny.



In truth, I'd really like to see an actual intermediate scrutiny type argument for different treatment of women in the military. Hell, even a rational basis would be nice to hear. Thus far, once again, all of the arguments have been hogwash.

The "reasons" they give are that gays, given the same access as men would have, might cause straight soliders to be uncomfortable, which could impact the training and preparedness of the military.

I don't buy it, but while may be thinly veiled bias, it's not coming straight out and saying "we don't like gays." It may have SOME validity, as I can imagine many straight men who would have problems sharing quarters with gay men. Again I don't agree, but I can see it happening.

I don't buy it, but while may be thinly veiled bias, it's not coming straight out and saying "we don't like gays." It may have SOME validity, as I can imagine many straight men who would have problems sharing quarters with gay men. Again I don't agree, but I can see it happening.
Couldn't they segregate the corps then? I know that is hardly desirable, but if it works, why not?

Anyways, having read through this forum, I think some of you are perhaps too critical of Corneliu. He basically supports the rule of law. From what I can tell, he says even if a law should be reformed, violating it is the wrong course of action, something I agree with. I cannot read minds, so I cannot judge if he is biased, but in my opinion he is not. Jumping to assumptions is a waste of time.

Thank You Europa Maxima for telling them something that I have told them though I know they will not believe me.

Feel free to IM me anytime :)

Couldn't they segregate the corps then? I know that is hardly desirable, but if it works, why not?

Segregation would bring in another issue which I didn't address, which is another reason they don't bunk men and women together.

Military claims that sexual relations would also impact their rediness, that forming personal loving relationships with your fellows in arms could be damaging as it may lead to insubordination, or fear of acting as a proper solider would if it would endanger your loved ones life. To THAT I can sorta agree, you don't want military commanders being put in a position where their orders could result in the death of a loved one....so the military tries to limit that as much as possible, including keepign living arrangements between men and women who are not already involved, seperate.

Putting all the gay men in a room together would sorta defeat that purpose, as it would, for the purposes of forming relationships, be just as if you intermixed men and women.

Now, don't take this to mean I BELIEVE it, but that's the justification.

Effectivly the military makes two arguments:

1) you can't bunk straight and gay together because both men and women may be uncomfortable dressing, undressing, bathing etc in the presence of a gay person of the same gender just as they would in the presence of someone of the other gender, this thus leads to problems, and impacts the readiness of the army

2) You can't bunk men and women (or gay people of the same gender) together, because that increases the chance of interpersonal love affairs, which can impact the army as you don't want people in a position where their action or inaction could cause the death of a loved one, as they may be more concerned with their safety then with following orders.

Can't keep out of the closet homosexuals in normal accomodations for issue #1, can't keep em seperate for issue #2. now while these may seem biased against gays, they are the SAME arguments that the military uses to prevent keeping men and women from sharing the same accomodations.

Putting all the gay men in a room together would sorta defeat that purpose, as it would, for the purposes of forming relationships, be just as if you intermixed men and women.
Mixing them with women then? :p

Mixing them with women then? :p

hehe, I can see that.

Um...I want to stay in the women's room because...um...I'm gay.

Hey yeah, me too!

Yeah, me as well!

Oh I'm flaming, let me stay with them!

Boobies! erm...I mean...cock!

Mixing them with women then? :p
What about lesbians? Do we bunk them up with men?

So we separate the corps into "likes to suck cock" batallions and "likes to eat pussy" batallions? :rolleyes:

What about lesbians? Do we bunk them up with men?

So we separate the corps into "likes to suck cock" batallions and "likes to eat pussy" batallions? :rolleyes:

Hehe, the proud, the true, the fighting cocksucker batallion.

Has an interesting ring to it I suppose.

I think he was being pretty sarcastic though...can you IMAGINE what would happen if you allowed men to share women's accomodations simply by saying they're gay? I'd be the first in line....

What about lesbians? Do we bunk them up with men?

So we separate the corps into "likes to suck cock" batallions and "likes to eat pussy" batallions? :rolleyes:
In that case, the only possible solution is to get the soldiers to get over their homophobia. Something I don't see happening in any foreseeable time.

Segregation would bring in another issue which I didn't address, which is another reason they don't bunk men and women together.

Military claims that sexual relations would also impact their rediness, that forming personal loving relationships with your fellows in arms could be damaging as it may lead to insubordination, or fear of acting as a proper solider would if it would endanger your loved ones life. To THAT I can sorta agree, you don't want military commanders being put in a position where their orders could result in the death of a loved one....so the military tries to limit that as much as possible, including keepign living arrangements between men and women who are not already involved, seperate.

Putting all the gay men in a room together would sorta defeat that purpose, as it would, for the purposes of forming relationships, be just as if you intermixed men and women.

Now, don't take this to mean I BELIEVE it, but that's the justification.

Effectivly the military makes two arguments:

1) you can't bunk straight and gay together because both men and women may be uncomfortable dressing, undressing, bathing etc in the presence of a gay person of the same gender just as they would in the presence of someone of the other gender, this thus leads to problems, and impacts the readiness of the army

2) You can't bunk men and women (or gay people of the same gender) together, because that increases the chance of interpersonal love affairs, which can impact the army as you don't want people in a position where their action or inaction could cause the death of a loved one, as they may be more concerned with their safety then with following orders.

Can't keep out of the closet homosexuals in normal accomodations for issue #1, can't keep em seperate for issue #2. now while these may seem biased against gays, they are the SAME arguments that the military uses to prevent keeping men and women from sharing the same accomodations.
And yet they're hollow arguments.

If Canada and Britain can manage to let gays bunk in with the rest of the straights, then so could the USA if they really wanted to.

Besides, you can really see those arguments are rubbish: both are effectively being proved wrong by the actual DADT policy, as gays are already bunking with other men, and this doesn't affect the readiness of the army in the least.

Hehe, the proud, the true, the fighting cocksucker batallion.

Has an interesting ring to it I suppose.

I think he was being pretty sarcastic though...can you IMAGINE what would happen if you allowed men to share women's accomodations simply by saying they're gay? I'd be the first in line....
I was, sort of. Many women are also homophobic.

Who else thinks the don't ask dont tell law is crap and that we should allow decent gay guys that want to go to the armed forces to serve their country or to better themselfs juts like straight people, I mean its the 21st century and I can't believe its still this way...look at Canada, England, France and Holland they all allow gays in the military and they are fine. Why should gay guys lie about who they are or be afraid to answer truthfully to questions when asked, from fellow soldiers for example. Who else thinks its time to change this old law that really does not work.

Yep, tell it! You're absolutely right.

The "reasons" they give are that gays, given the same access as men would have, might cause straight soliders to be uncomfortable, which could impact the training and preparedness of the military.

And without something to back it up, those "reasons" aren't very rational, are they? In fact, rationality would lead us to the opposite conclusion, since gay members have always been a part of the military - and still are. Fellow soldiers have always known that some of their peers were gay - and still do.

They are no different from saying, "We can't have gay soldiers because polar bears would die," because they have no more rational backing.

Hehe, the proud, the true, the fighting cocksucker batallion.

Has an interesting ring to it I suppose.

I think he was being pretty sarcastic though...can you IMAGINE what would happen if you allowed men to share women's accomodations simply by saying they're gay? I'd be the first in line....
Yeah, and then you'd have all the straights pretending to be gay to bunk with the women, and all the gays pretending to be straight to bunk with the men. Much good that would do to the army -_-'

In that case, the only possible solution is to get the soldiers to get over their homophobia. Something I don't see happening in any foreseeable time.
Nothing a good martial court can't handle.

And yet they're hollow arguments.

If Canada and Britain can manage to let gays bunk in with the rest of the straights, then so could the USA if they really wanted to.

Besides, you can really see those arguments are rubbish: both are effectively being proved wrong by the actual DADT policy, as gays are already bunking with other men, and this doesn't affect the readiness of the army in the least.

The argument would be, I suppose, that you can't be made uncomfortable by something you don't know. If I don't know you're gay, I probably won't assume you are, and won't think twice about it. But if I DO know...well...

Hence "don't ask, don't tell, and therefore we don't know." Again I don't agree with it, but you need to consider the court's willingness to let the military get away with a LOT. They're willing to let them even discriminate to an extent based on gender, which is harder to get away with. There are some lines that won't get crossed however, even by the military, and that line generally falls at "race".

"We can't have gay soldiers because polar bears would die"
Awww, but think of the poor, cute little fluffy white polar bears!

Have you no heart?:p

Military claims that sexual relations would also impact their rediness, that forming personal loving relationships with your fellows in arms could be damaging as it may lead to insubordination, or fear of acting as a proper solider would if it would endanger your loved ones life.

Never mind that, historically, the opposite has been true. Soldiers fighting side-by-side with loved ones have fought more bravely.

To THAT I can sorta agree, you don't want military commanders being put in a position where their orders could result in the death of a loved one....

The military already has rules about this that have nothing to do with homo- vs. heterosexuality. To my knowledge a commanding officer can never be in command over a spouse. They can be in a unit together - at the same level, but cannot have positions over one another.

You're right, because of course it never happens in other countries. For example, there's no country out there where people are targeted for being a particular religion. No soldier in ANY defence force has ever been convicted of killing, oh let's say...a catholic.
A Catholic who was a fellow soldier? Which army would this be?

The military already has rules about this that have nothing to do with homo- vs. heterosexuality. To my knowledge a commanding officer can never be in command over a spouse. They can be in a unit together - at the same level, but cannot have positions over one another.

They can't be in the same chain of command.

The argument would be, I suppose, that you can't be made uncomfortable by something you don't know. If I don't know you're gay, I probably won't assume you are, and won't think twice about it. But if I DO know...well...

Hence "don't ask, don't tell, and therefore we don't know." Again I don't agree with it, but you need to consider the court's willingness to let the military get away with a LOT. They're willing to let them even discriminate to an extent based on gender, which is harder to get away with. There are some lines that won't get crossed however, even by the military, and that line generally falls at "race".
Too bad that line doesn't stop short of torture if your skin is brown.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but sometimes you need to stop taking that crap and make them stop this nonsense.

Yeah, and then you'd have all the straights pretending to be gay to bunk with the women, and all the gays pretending to be straight to bunk with the men. Much good that would do to the army -_-'

As much as the discussion is flippant...think about it...all the straight men pretend to be gay, all the gay men pretend to be straight, and now you have straight men with straight women and gay men with gay men (and I suppose inverse would be true for lesbians, although I doubt many straight women would willingly bunk with men on a regular basis).

Which brings us right back to the problems the military argues there are. Now, again I don't AGREE with it, but I do have an interesting question. For the women of the board, how many of you would be uncomfortable living with men, showering with men, changing with men, basically being with men the whole time? I think a LOT of you would be uncomfortable.

Now me as a straight male wouldn't care a bit, but if we accept that it's SOMEWHAT rational that women as a whole would probably not like to live with men to that full extent, it may be somewhat reasonable to suggest that straight men might not like living with gay men.

How much however you're willing to believe that this dislike might impact the functions of a military are, however, up to debate.

Now me as a straight male wouldn't care a bit, but if we accept that it's SOMEWHAT rational that women as a whole would probably not like to live with men to that full extent, it may be somewhat reasonable to suggest that straight men might not like living with gay men.

How much however you're willing to believe that this dislike might impact the functions of a military are, however, up to debate.
You mean on the basis that the straight men would dislike the idea of being lusted for by their gay counterparts?

Never mind that, historically, the opposite has been true. Soldiers fighting side-by-side with loved ones have fought more bravely.



The military already has rules about this that have nothing to do with homo- vs. heterosexuality. To my knowledge a commanding officer can never be in command over a spouse. They can be in a unit together - at the same level, but cannot have positions over one another.

True in a general sense, but let's take the military's argument one devil's advocate step further. Let's say you and your loved one are in combat, together, and are given an order to advance into hostile territory.

Would you keep your eyes ahead of you focused on your task, or would you be looking over your shoulder to ensure your loved on is ok? That moment of distraction which could lead to both of you being killed.

Again, I don't think it's valid enough to be compelling, but I can sorta see the logic of it.

You mean on the basis that the straight men would dislike the idea of being lusted for by their gay counterparts?

Just as MANY women on this board I'm sure would feel uncomfortable being lusted after by their straight male counterparts who get to watch them undress and shower on a daily basis.

I personally wouldn't care one way or the other, but if it's valid for women, would it not be valid for straight men.

Again, how far you're willing to say that this dislike translates into a negative impact for the military, is, however, a matter of debate. The military argues that this level of uncomfort will impact the function of the military. I disagree. But I think it's somewhat short sighted to say that the uncomfort wouldn't exist, or would not be in some vague sense "rational", just as we wouldn't think twice about a woman who voiced her concern about being forced to undress in front of men.

True in a general sense, but let's take the military's argument one devil's advocate step further. Let's say you and your loved one are in combat, together, and are given an order to advance into hostile territory.

Would you keep your eyes ahead of you focused on your task, or would you be looking over your shoulder to ensure your loved on is ok? That moment of distraction which could lead to both of you being killed.

Again, I don't think it's valid enough to be compelling, but I can sorta see the logic of it.
This doesn't cover the situation where the gay soldier has a boyfriend who isn't in the military. His lover could be waiting patiently at home.

What we're arguing for is not for gays to have the right to have relationships in the military. The army doesn't allow soldiers to pair together. That's fine because it applies equally to straights and gays. What I oppose is the double standard about the disclosure of the sexual preference. Equal treatment for equal human beings. No more, no less.

The whole "destroy the morale" thing is total rubbish to disguise the fact that the army are scared that if all the army homosexuals came out, they'd find out that most of the army was in fact gay, and they'd change all the uniforms to pink.

You mean on the basis that the straight men would dislike the idea of being lusted for by their gay counterparts?
Straight men are so full of themselves, thinking that every gay guy around lusts over his hairy ass. :rolleyes:

Never mind that, historically, the opposite has been true. Soldiers fighting side-by-side with loved ones have fought more bravely.

Yeah, just look at Beren and Lúthien! ;)

The whole "destroy the morale" thing is total rubbish to disguise the fact that the army are scared that if all the army homosexuals came out, they'd find out that most of the army was in fact gay, and they'd change all the uniforms to pink.
What is it with you guys and pink? :rolleyes:

I'm a fag myself, and I never wear pink. I hate pastel.

Yeah, just look at Beren and Lúthien! ;)
And Ecthelion lusting after Beren...well, I think I might've come up with that bit. :p

This doesn't cover the situation where the gay soldier has a boyfriend who isn't in the military. His lover could be waiting patiently at home.

What we're arguing for is not for gays to have the right to have relationships in the military. The army doesn't allow soldiers to pair together. That's fine because it applies equally to straights and gays. What I oppose is the double standard about the disclosure of the sexual preference. Equal treatment for equal human beings. No more, no less.

Let me say, before I say antying else, I AGREE WITH YOU. Absolutly agree with you, 100%, I think it's archaic and barbaric. That being said, what I have been doing is not proffering my OWN judgment, but merely the arguments the military has posed to these exact challenges. It is NOT my viewpoint, but I am merely stating the counter arguments.

And for that the military would say something like this:

We are applying the same standards as we always have. We do not allow men and women to habitate together because 1) it would lead to discomfort and 2) increase the chances of interpersonal relationships.

Homoesexuals living with heterosexuals would break #1, leading to discomfort in the military ranks, and decrease our effectivness as a mlitary.

Homosexuals segregated and living only together would break #2, increase the chance of interpersonal relationships and decrease our effectiveness as a military.

So we can't allow openly gay people to live with heterosexuals due to #1, and we can't segregate them due to #2, so all we can do is ban them.

Again. I can see the logic where letting gays live with heterosexuals would cause discomfort. I can also see why letting them live segregated would cause increased interpersonal relationships.

What I can NOT see, and why I do NOT support these arguments, is how either one of those would impact the effectivness of the military. If I had to pick which one was more likely to actually have an impact on military efficiency, I COULD see #2, I don't at all see #1.

Yeah, just look at Beren and Lúthien! ;)


Screw that, look at the bloody spartans!

Straight men are so full of themselves, thinking that every gay guy around lusts over his hairy ass. :rolleyes:
Some of them are cute, but otherwise yeah, they are a bit too presumptuous.

What is it with you guys and pink? :rolleyes:

I'm a fag myself, and I never wear pink. I hate pastel.
Yes, but this is the army we're talking about, they're not going to know that.:)

Thank You Europa Maxima for telling them something that I have told them though I know they will not believe me.

Feel free to IM me anytime :)
Well I have added you to MSN, so whenever you're on, I'll see you then.