NationStates Jolt Archive

After Gen. Pace's comments about homosexual acts being immoral while talking about the don't ask don't tell policy, I just want to know if you think its a good policy to keep. I personally think it is.

Being in the military, I agree with the policy.

After Gen. Pace's comments about homosexual acts being immoral while talking about the don't ask don't tell policy, I just want to know if you think its a good policy to keep. I personally think it is.

It's primitive and stupid, especially when US army is begging for soldiers, being stretched as it is.

All branches of the US military have that doctrine. It deals with fraternization policies that already exist, this is just part of that.

Don't ask don't tell is daft, why should discrimination based on sexuality be illegal everywhere but the military?

I fail to see what the problem is. Do you honestly think that if Joe Marine gets his bottom pinched in the shower, that he's not going to take care of it all by himself? I mean, really. And if homosexuals were able to serve openly in the Armed Forces, it would eliminate the dubious claim that a gay person could be blackmailed into giving away secrets. Get over it. You're excluding a whole lot of patriotic people who want to serve their country.

FACT CHECK: U.S. Troops Don’t Have A ‘Strong Aversion’ To Homosexual Conduct (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/hunter-bigotry/)

If a man is thinking about another man's sexual orientation while both men are in American military uniforms in the hellhole of Baghdad and being shot at/bombed/kidnapped/beheaded/all at once, then that man needs to re-think his priorities.

If a man is thinking about another man's sexual orientation while both men are in American military uniforms in the hellhole of Baghdad and being shot at/bombed/kidnapped/beheaded/all at once, then that man needs to re-think his priorities.

It's only generals and politicians who have the leisure to spout off on this sort of thing.

I don't mind people who are homosexuals in the military, everyone should be able to serve if they want. But I understand why they have the policy. They're not trying to hunt down homosexuals. It's all about fraternization. Declaring it imoral isn't cool either. I am actually freinds with a lesbian where I serve and she's a good person to know.

I don't mind people who are homosexuals in the military, everyone should be able to serve if they want. But I understand why they have the policy. They're not trying to hunt down homosexuals. It's all about fraternization. Declaring it imoral isn't cool either. I am actually freinds with a lesbian where I serve and she's a good person to know.

Fraternization, right, 'cuz homosexual people are just such sluts, they'll jump on anything that breathes or moves. :rolleyes: I must admit that the "one of my best friends is one" was a nice touch, though.

It's only generals and politicians who have the leisure to spout off on this sort of thing.

i say around them up an send them to combat

I think its a backwards policy that just shows what side of the 21st country America is on

And to be honest I fail to see any plus sides to it apart from keeping some right wing extremist happy

they're not trying to hunt down homosexuals. It's all about fraternization.

Um…so women who join the military must pretend to be men in your army?

and I'm sorry equal rights doesn't stop at not lynching them

If a man is thinking about another man's sexual orientation while both men are in American military uniforms in the hellhole of Baghdad and being shot at/bombed/kidnapped/beheaded/all at once, then that man needs to re-think his priorities.

The pancake got it as accurate as a cook flipping a...well...a pancake.

Fraternization, right, 'cuz homosexual people are just such sluts, they'll jump on anything that breathes or moves. :rolleyes: I must admit that the "one of my best friends is one" was a nice touch, though.

It's not because they are sluts. Fraternization within the same unit/department/command are just bad for moral. It creates conflict as well as the two can give each other special traetment and favors, especially if one was higher ranking or in a leadership position. Male/Female, Officer/Enlisted, and same sex fraternization are prohibited. There are other things that can happen as well.

It's primitive and stupid, especially when US army is begging for soldiers, being stretched as it is.

The policy doesn't say you can't join if you're gay, it just says don't advertise it all over the baracks. Its a sensible policy.

Um…so women who join the military must pretend to be men in your army?

and I'm sorry equal rights doesn't stop at not lynching them

I'm in the Navy. Anyways, equal rights and opportunity are a big deal in the military. I've seen a wide range of diversity with race, sex, creed in the military. In enlisted and officer ranks. Women don't have to pretend to be anything.

i say around them up an send them to combat

See how much they think about teh gayz then. :p

'Don't ask' is a fine policy. 'Don't tell' is where the problem is. If you're openly gay, you're drummed out? That's discrimination on its face. Since it's based on a non-essential characteristic, it's wrong, and contravenes these soldiers' human rights.

I'm in the Navy. Anyways, equal rights and opportunity are a big deal in the military. I've seen a wide range of diversity with race, sex, creed in the military. In enlisted and officer ranks. Women don't have to pretend to be anything.

Sounds like the military simply tries to make itself LOOK better in the eyes of everyone rather than actually realizing that everyone should be treated equally. I do recall that the military had segregated divisions up to 1948! And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a sick policy and you know it.

After Gen. Pace's comments about homosexual acts being immoral while talking about the don't ask don't tell policy, I just want to know if you think its a good policy to keep. I personally think it is.

ZOMG! I agree with Soviestan! Probably for different reasons, but still. :fluffle: Yes, people need to learn to mind their own *ahem* fucking business ;)

It's primitive and stupid, especially when US army is begging for soldiers, being stretched as it is.

Interestingly enough, when Time Magazine looked at what positions were lost when soldiers were discharged based on sexuality, quite a few language specialists - including people who speak Farsi - were lost. Seems like those soldiers would be useful these days, don't ya think?


To the OP: It's a stupid, discriminatory policy that does nothing but harm good soldiers and keep others out of the military.


It's not because they are sluts. Fraternization within the same unit/department/command are just bad for moral.

I'll assume you mean morale. And, yes, this can cause a problem. That's why there are already rules against it.

The Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy says nothing about fraternization or gay relationships within the military. It says that a person can't even admit to being gay, or they will be discharged from the military - usually dishonorably (which often completely ruins their lives, by the way).

In fact, by instituting this policy, the military is keeping itself ignorant of any relationships that might be occurring between gay members of the military - relationships that would otherwise be known and taken into account in the chain of command.

See how much they think about teh gayz then. :p

:D i say they be to busy working out how to end the war faster

'Don't ask' is a fine policy. 'Don't tell' is where the problem is. If you're openly gay, you're drummed out? That's discrimination on its face. Since it's based on a non-essential characteristic, it's wrong, and contravenes these soldiers' human rights.

And they don't actually have to tell. If someone finds out, even if they weren't being open, the same results occur....

Sounds like the military simply tries to make itself LOOK better in the eyes of everyone rather than actually realizing that everyone should be treated equally. I do recall that the military had segregated divisions up to 1948! And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a sick policy and you know it.

It's not a sick policy. Minorities and women aren't promoted just so that the brass can say: "Look at this black guy we just promoted" or "Check out this woman who just made officer"

Segregation was a truly aweful policy and am ashamed of it. But I had nothing to do with it. You'd have to be in the military to understand it.

I'll assume you mean morale. And, yes, this can cause a problem. That's why there are already rules against it.

The Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy says nothing about fraternization or gay relationships within the military. It says that a person can't even admit to being gay, or they will be discharged from the military - usually dishonorably (which often completely ruins their lives, by the way).

In fact, by instituting this policy, the military is keeping itself ignorant of any relationships that might be occurring between gay members of the military - relationships that would otherwise be known and taken into account in the chain of command.[/QUOTE]

I know a dishonorable discharge ruins lives. People keep their personal lives to themselves, that's how it should be. I know several people who are homosexuals, but I'm not going to whistleblow and have them kicked out, as long as they keep it to themselves I don't care what they do.

And they don't actually have to tell. If someone finds out, even if they weren't being open, the same results occur....

I didn't know that. That's makes it even worse.

Plus isn't having a superior finding out kind of bad faith if the policy really is "don't ask, don't tell?" His ass shouldn't have been asking around, and certainly shouldn't have gone telling another man's secrets.

I don't mind people who are homosexuals in the military, everyone should be able to serve if they want. But I understand why they have the policy. They're not trying to hunt down homosexuals. It's all about fraternization. Declaring it imoral isn't cool either. I am actually freinds with a lesbian where I serve and she's a good person to know.

Lesbians are not homossexuals.

The word is too ugly to describe them.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is an idiotic policy, which regularly costs the military dedicated and competent personnel.

I'm in the Navy.

Damn sunbather! :p

Anyways, equal rights and opportunity are a big deal in the military.

don't have to tell me this I get that paragraph after pretty much everything I read

Women don't have to pretend to be anything.

Exactly so why should a woman (who will be far more likely to get special treatment for being so) be able to be open and basically not hide who they are?

Don't ask, don't tell is made of fail.

It's not because they are sluts. Fraternization within the same unit/department/command are just bad for moral. It creates conflict as well as the two can give each other special traetment and favors, especially if one was higher ranking or in a leadership position. Male/Female, Officer/Enlisted, and same sex fraternization are prohibited. There are other things that can happen as well.

Quite right, fraternization can have detrimental effects on morale, which, as Dempublicents pointed out, is why there are already rules against it. Unless I mistake you, you're saying that gays shouldn't be in the Armed Forces because they are more prone to fraternize. I can't think of any other way to interpret what you say, because we already have heterosexual men and women serving, under the current "no fraternization" rules. And I would be interested to know what you mean by that ominous "there are other things that can happen as well."

EDIT: My typing is made of fail!

Don't ask, don't tell is made of fail.

Your postulation that my guy friend is gay is made of fail. :mad: :p

To the OP: It's a stupid, discriminatory policy that does nothing but harm good soldiers and keep others out of the military.


Ha, no it does plenty to keep homos out of the army. I say they go back to the old rules of no gays, women, and heathens.

Ha, no it does plenty to keep homos out of the army.

Lookie here, lurker, homophobic comments are just going to get you flamed.

Lookie here, lurker, homophobic comments are just going to get you flamed.

It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

you left out communists, strange eh comrade ;)

It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

Whatever you say, puppet.

you left out communists, strange eh comrade ;)

Crap I could be in big trouble if the wrong people found out.

All branches of the US military have that doctrine. It deals with fraternization policies that already exist, this is just part of that.

It doesn't have anything to do with fraternization. Men and women can date if they are in the same unit. It might be highly discouraged, but it's allowed. Fraternization has to do with officers/enlisted mingling. Seargents/ enlisted fall into a different catagory as well.

Its an appaling double standard.

The fact that an american, ANY american can be denied his or her wish to serve his or her country simply because of the fact that this person is openly homosexual is the most ascinine position I have ever heard.

Unfortunately I am an atheist, like most NSers. Deal with it.
i'm one too
It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

and a Australian

It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

Unfortunately I am an atheist, like most NSers. Deal with it.

I know a dishonorable discharge ruins lives. People keep their personal lives to themselves, that's how it should be. I know several people who are homosexuals, but I'm not going to whistleblow and have them kicked out, as long as they keep it to themselves I don't care what they do.

People keep their personal lives to themselves, eh? So you've NEVER seen a soldier hit on someone out at a bar? You've NEVER heard a soldier talk about his sex-life or a date he went on? You've NEVER heard a soldier talk about how she wishes her boyfriend didn't do something?

Somehow I highly doubt it. And yet, a homosexual soldier doing any of these things would receive a dishonorable discharge should his CO choose to pursue it at all. On the other hand, a heterosexual soldier will most likely be congratulated by his peers for his sexual conquests.

It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

You forgot to use "mongoloid" somewhere in there. That's perfect for any situation.

Ha, no it does plenty to keep homos out of the army. I say they go back to the old rules of no gays, women, and heathens.

Hey, the 19th Century called. They want their policies back.

Ha, no it does plenty to keep homos out of the army. I say they go back to the old rules of no gays, women, and heathens.

No Irish, no dogs, no blacks amirite?

I know a dishonorable discharge ruins lives. People keep their personal lives to themselves, that's how it should be.

No, they don't. "People" don't keep their personal lives to themselves AT ALL, and frankly, I don't think you believe that. You would have NO problems overhearing a male talk about his wife back home. NO problems someone talking about the girl he met. No problems having a soldier discuss her children.

And it happens all the time, every day. And NONE of those people are told "don't talk about your personal life"

The rule is not, and has never been, keep your personal life to yourself.

It is, and has always been, keep your personal life to yourself, if you are gay.

After Gen. Pace's comments about homosexual acts being immoral while talking about the don't ask don't tell policy, I just want to know if you think its a good policy to keep. I personally think it is.

I agree with the policy.

I don't understand why being forthcoming about sexual preference is so much less acceptable than fucking guys without anyone knowing.

I'm sure we can apply this logic to everything. "You didn't see me kill that guy, so it's all good."

I agree woth the policy.

Can I ask why?

People keep their personal lives to themselves, eh? So you've NEVER seen a soldier hit on someone out at a bar? You've NEVER heard a soldier talk about his sex-life or a date he went on? You've NEVER heard a soldier talk about how she wishes her boyfriend didn't do something?

Somehow I highly doubt it. And yet, a homosexual soldier doing any of these things would receive a dishonorable discharge should his CO choose to pursue it at all. On the other hand, a heterosexual soldier will most likely be congratulated by his peers for his sexual conquests.

Dem, forget about it. You'll never convince the average soldier their commanders are wrong. You've got to go after the commanders and get THEM to change the policy. This policy was implimented by a commander in chief and can be removed by one!

Dem, forget about it. You'll never convince the average soldier their commanders are wrong. You've got to go after the commanders and get THEM to change the policy. This policy was implimented by a commander in chief and can be removed by one!

From what I understand, most soldiers are already convinced that the policy is stupid (as are quite a few, if not most, COs). It's just those few at the very top and a few bigots in the lower ranks who keep holding on.

Unfortunately I am an atheist, like most NSers. Deal with it.

Hahaa you're going to hell!

Hahaa you're going to hell!

Hahaha. As far as I know, you ain't God. So you've got no right to judge her. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Hahaa you're going to hell!

Blarg I'm in hell.

I know, that's the problem. As I said, we need to convince the generals, admirals, and all the upper brass type peeps to quit being such bigots.

Alternatively, you could convince the Israelis and Palestinians to stop fighting. Or convince Hitler that Jews ain't as bad as they seem.

Basically, that's not going to happen any time soon. Many of them are quite firm in their beliefs, and it may look weak to back down on policies like these.

From what I understand, most soldiers are already convinced that the policy is stupid (as are quite a few, if not most, COs). It's just those few at the very top and a few bigots in the lower ranks who keep holding on.

I know, that's the problem. As I said, we need to convince the generals, admirals, and all the upper brass type peeps to quit being such bigots.

Absolutely.

Hahaha. As far as I know, you ain't God. So you've got no right to judge her. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Pat Robertson says you are and God talks to him every tuesday.

Pat Robertson says you are and God talks to him every tuesday.

He also predicted an earth-destroying comet or meteor would strike the earth that year several different years.

I don't much care for his track record, and if god really talks to him, he's obviously just fucking with him.

Pat Robertson says you are and God talks to him every tuesday.

And on that note, I'm going to take nothing you say seriously, ever again.

Pat Robertson says you are and God talks to him every tuesday.

Don't forget his self-proclaimed one-ton leg press.

In the Canadian Forces, there is no policy against homosexuals whatsoever. In fact, the CF has gay marriage in place, and yes, army padres have presided over weddings between homosexuals, I can think of one wedding out in the atlantic area between senior NCOs, both male.

Far as I know, no one cares (except maybe for a handful of the slightly more bigoted type) and there's never been an issue.

I also think that most personnel in the US military don't care about gays either, but there tends to be a disconnect between the people who make policy decisions and the people who live with said policies.

I don't understand why being forthcoming about sexual preference is so much less acceptable than fucking guys without anyone knowing.

I'm sure we can apply this logic to everything. "You didn't see me kill that guy, so it's all good."

The policy is confusing as fuck-all. They basically say "you can be gay, we just don't want to know." They also say you can put gay pride bumper stickers on your car, visit gay night clubs, have gay friends ect. You just can't "be gay" in public. Conversely, no one can ask you about the rainbow bumper-sticker you have on your car.

So basically it's just officially ignoring the elephant in the room.

In the Canadian Forces, there is no policy against homosexuals whatsoever. In fact, the CF has gay marriage in place, and yes, army padres have presided over weddings between homosexuals, I can think of one wedding out in the atlantic area between senior NCOs, both male.

Far as I know, no one cares (except maybe for a handful of the slightly more bigoted type) and there's never been an issue.

I also think that most personnel in the US military don't care about gays either, but there tends to be a disconnect between the people who make policy decisions and the people who live with said policies.
That's because you Canadians are better than us when it comes to treating people equally.

Why thank Kyronea, but believe me, we have plenty of our own issues to deal with still.

Why thank Kyronea, but believe me, we have plenty of our own issues to deal with still.

Of course. Nothing and nobody's perfect.

FACT CHECK: U.S. Troops Don’t Have A ‘Strong Aversion’ To Homosexual Conduct (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/hunter-bigotry/)

Hey from actually been in, I can disagree with that quote. The aversion very strong indeed :fluffle::gundge:

Hahaa you're going to hell!

I'll save you a seat up the front.

Hahaa you're going to hell!

You do know Jesus spoke harshly about people judging one another.

I believe his exact words were "don't"

After Gen. Pace's comments about homosexual acts being immoral while talking about the don't ask don't tell policy, I just want to know if you think its a good policy to keep. I personally think it is.

Keep it.

Hahaa you're going to hell!

thats funny as there no hell

The policy doesn't say you can't join if you're gay, it just says don't advertise it all over the baRracks. Its a sensible policy.

Well, besides your arguing about something you can't spell, there's also the fact that, by saying it "hurts morale" you're basically insulting the troops, calling them idiotic bigots.

Well, besides your arguing about something you can't spell, there's also the fact that, by saying it "hurts morale" you're basically insulting the troops, calling them idiotic bigots.

Which is not the case, as apparently only the old fogeys in command and a few pockets of bigotry here and there actually still support it.

Note: I'm on your side.

Keep it.

You mean the segregationist policy that is much like not allowing blacks in the military. Right.

You mean the segregationist policy that is much like not allowing blacks in the military. Right.

Funny. This policy is not telling gays not to join the military nor is it preventing them to join. Get your facts straight before spouting shit you know nothing about.

Which is not the case, as apparently only the old fogeys in command and a few pockets of bigotry here and there actually still support it.

Note: I'm on your side.

Uhm, I understood without the note, danke. :)

I actually know fully well about this policy. It prevents gays from having the right to be as open about their sexuality as a heterosexual BDSM fan. But do enlighten me. Is there any reason you support this policy besides thinking gays are icky?

HA! I do not consider them icky by any stretches of the imagination.

Funny. This policy is not telling gays not to join the military nor is it preventing them to join. Get your facts straight before spouting shit you know nothing about.

I actually know fully well about this policy. It prevents gays from having the right to be as open about their sexuality as a heterosexual BDSM fan. But do enlighten me. Is there any reason you support this policy besides thinking gays are icky?

Funny. This policy is not telling gays not to join the military nor is it preventing them to join. Get your facts straight before spouting shit you know nothing about.

oh right right, it's not preventing gays from joining.

just people who ADMIT to being gay, gotcha. So gays can join the military, just as long as everyone thinks they are straight.

Sorta like a black person could join the military, just as long as he wore makeup and tricked everyone into thinking he was white.

Ask if you want, tell if you want.

HA! I do not consider them icky by any stretches of the imagination.

so then you have no reason?

Other than, of course, the majority of republicans support it, you moderate centrist you.

Okay, so, what is your issue? They might distract you from firing rounds with their firm buttocks?

HA. No actually. Its regs. That's why I support it. When they change the regs, I will support that to.

HA! I do not consider them icky by any stretches of the imagination.

Okay, so, what is your issue? They might distract you from firing rounds with their firm buttocks?

HA! I do not consider them icky by any stretches of the imagination.

So there's no reason you support the policy. That or you're slow enough not to know to answer the entire post.

Sheesh.

HA. No actually. Its regs. That's why I support it. When they change the regs, I will support that to.

so in other words, you support it, because...it is?

That is the most fucked up logic I have ever encountered in my lifetime. That, or you're too spineless to have an opinion until someone elses tells you what it is.

Ask if you want, tell if you want.

rAmen.

HA. No actually. Its regs. That's why I support it. When they change the regs, I will support that to.

So... You're in favor of keeping whatever situation is there?

Okay, can I please, PLEASE talk to the bigots, rather than the zombies?

HA. No actually. Its regs. That's why I support it. When they change the regs, I will support that to.

Translation:

We have always been at war with Eastasia

We have always been at war with Eurasia

What a cop-out.

rAmen.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4098/flyingspaghettimonster6vh1.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4098/flyingspaghettimonster6vh1.gif (http://imageshack.us)

:fluffle:

Also: Can someone please tell me if there really are people who are homophobic? I don't mean homosexual-hating bigots. I mean are there any people who are genuinely afraid of people who are homosexual?

Translation:

We have always been at war with Eastasia

We have always been at war with Eurasia

What a cop-out.

doubleplusgood!

Funny. This policy is not telling gays not to join the military nor is it preventing them to join. Get your facts straight before spouting shit you know nothing about.

If my life would be utterly ruined if I joined the military and then someone happened to find out my sexuality, I wouldn't join. They may not be expressly saying that you can't join (although they won't recruit you if they know you're gay), but it is keeping someone from doing it.

From what I understand, most soldiers are already convinced that the policy is stupid (as are quite a few, if not most, COs). It's just those few at the very top and a few bigots in the lower ranks who keep holding on.

What is this? Everyone that disagrees with you must be a bigot is it then? Hmm, is it fair for them to call you names too then? Such as, propagandizer of immoral sodomites? Just curious is all, cause if we're going to start calling the other side meaningless names, what’s fair for one should be fair to all, don't ya think?

Everyone that disagrees with you must be a bigot is it then?

Anyone who supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a homophobic bigot. Period.

That is almost trivially true.

What is this? Everyone that disagrees with you must be a bigot is it then? Hmm, is it fair for them to call you names too then? Such as, propagandizer of immoral sodomites? Just curious is all, cause if we're going to start calling the other side meaningless names, what’s fair for one should be fair to all, don't ya think?

I'm sure you could disagree with Dempublicents on some other issue and not be a bigot, but on this one? Sorry. Bigotry involves hating and discriminating against someone for who they are, and homosexuals can no more change their sexuality than people can change their skin colors. Gays can suppress their sexuality, but they can't change it, no matter what the hucksters at the anti-gay clinic told you.

So in this case, bigot is not a meaningless term. It's an accurate one, and if you don't like it, you can change, and it won't apply to you anymore. Unlike being gay--that you can't change, if you are, and I don't know if you are or not. I'm just saying if, here. I'm not even suggesting that you are. Think of it as a hypothetical you, if it makes you more comfortable.

What is this? Everyone that disagrees with you must be a bigot is it then? Hmm, is it fair for them to call you names too then? Such as, propagandizer of immoral sodomites? Just curious is all, cause if we're going to start calling the other side meaningless names, what’s fair for one should be fair to all, don't ya think?

Calling someone a bigot in this case is merely noting an observation of behavior that would fall in the category of bigotry.

Your example on the other hand is a purely subjective value judgement placed on another individual based on your own (potentially twisted) sense of morality.

One is empirical, the other is not.

Anyone who supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a homophobic bigot. Period.

That is almost trivially true.

Essentially true, although I doubt most of that bigotry is calculated. Underlying prejudices are fairly prevalent where I come from, but very seldom do people intend to convey them.

I've never been in the military, but my parents were and so were my children. The one thing I have never been able to figure it is why the sexual preference of the person defending you is important.

If I'm in a burning building, I'm not going to ask the firefighter who's rescuing me what his orientation is, I'm going to latch onto him/her for dear life and thank God he/she is there.

The same with the military. If somebody is getting shot at, whether defending my freedom or supporting economic interests, I'm not interested in what his/her orientation is, I just hope he/she is a good shot and well trained.

I don't think sexual orientation should be a consideration.

I've never been in the military, but my parents were and so were my children. The one thing I have never been able to figure it is why the sexual preference of the person defending you is important.

If I'm in a burning building, I'm not going to ask the firefighter who's rescuing me what his orientation is, I'm going to latch onto him/her for dear life and thank God he/she is there.

The same with the military. If somebody is getting shot at, whether defending my freedom or supporting economic interests, I'm not interested in what his/her orientation is, I just hope he/she is a good shot and well trained.

I don't think sexual orientation should be a consideration.

It's always amused me that one of the things that makes male homophobes especially uncomfortable seems to be the idea that gay men might see them naked and then be overwhelmed with lust and want to attack them. Like they're so hot that gay men wouldn't be able to help themselves. As though under fire on a battle field, a gay soldier would be so busy checking out his war buddy's ass that he wouldn't be paying attention to where the bullets are coming from. Sorry--nobody is that gorgeous. I'm straight, and if there were bullets whizzing around me, Scarlet Johansen could come walking past naked and I wouldn't give her more than a glimpse.

It's always amused me that one of the things that makes male homophobes especially uncomfortable seems to be the idea that gay men might see them naked and then be overwhelmed with lust and want to attack them. Like they're so hot that gay men wouldn't be able to help themselves. As though under fire on a battle field, a gay soldier would be so busy checking out his war buddy's ass that he wouldn't be paying attention to where the bullets are coming from. Sorry--nobody is that gorgeous. I'm straight, and if there were bullets whizzing around me, Scarlet Johansen could come walking past naked and I wouldn't give her more than a glimpse.

And today's military is increasingly mixed, male and female. Both my children (son and daughter) were stationed on mixed sex ships. Yet no one (except some fools who think that their husbands/wives have no self control) seems to have as much of a problem having men and women on the same ship as they do with having homosexuals in the service.

The only thing it's got going for it is the fact that it's an improvement over the previous policy of outright discrimination or ejection from the service because of homosexuality. Other than that it's horrible.

It's cool I just rolled around in asbestos. Yeah, I hate gays, blacks, jews, mexicans, eurofags, australians, japan, people that like soccer, people that like ketchup, people that like mayonaise, vegetarians, atheists, and especially people that use macs.

Careful, mate. :mad:

And today's military is increasingly mixed, male and female. Both my children (son and daughter) were stationed on mixed sex ships. Yet no one (except some fools who think that their husbands/wives have no self control) seems to have as much of a problem having men and women on the same ship as they do with having homosexuals in the service.

Although if recent reports are accurate (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/), women soldiers do have some serious difficulties at times with rape and sexual harassment. Makes me wonder if the reason some of those soldiers who claim to worry about the possibility of being raped by a gay serviceman are simply wondering if what they've done will come back to haunt them.

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

-Barry Goldwater

Although if recent reports are accurate (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/), women soldiers do have some serious difficulties at times with rape and sexual harassment. Makes me wonder if the reason some of those soldiers who claim to worry about the possibility of being raped by a gay serviceman are simply wondering if what they've done will come back to haunt them.

Given that, maybe we need more gay men in the military. The women would be safer.

Who cares whether they prefer to bed men or women? Last I checked, the duties of a soldier had very little to do with that.

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

-Barry Goldwater

It's funny, cause he's considered a conservative. That quote's so true though.

I understand pace's opinion as a 'traditionalist roman catholic' or something of the sort.

I personally think that it should be covered via civil rights and equal oppourtunity, lets get real though, a whole bunch of guys spending all their time together, part of the mystic of the active deployed military is only being able to sleep with foreign women that you are ready to kill their family under orders.

Seriously though, I think that being muted isn't a good personality choice, if gay people are able to police men, or firefighters, or indian cheifs or whatever the last YMCA guy was, then soldier should be no different.

Of course you know changing the system.. and suddently like america starts loosing thousands of soldiers due to wild all male orgies exhausting them for their day service.. really though.. anyway.. I woulnd't want to be the one that did that to america.. that is perhaps 'out of touch'

if women can serve why not gay men. Atleast there is less of a chance of pregnancy during sexual harasmanet of gay men.. just a sore but or something like that. how often are women sexually harased analy?

this may get touchy. to any mods that read this and feel it inappropriate can you just delete the post and not ban me, as I'm not trying to be 'issued' just honest.

I honestly see no reason why.. we should be in a society that can respect peoples personal sexual choices. and as long as they do not act on their attractions or otherwise in forced women, whether men to women, women to men, men to men or women to women... then if it is kept legal it shouldn't matter who someone is sleeping with as long as it is consensual.

If gay people are willing to follow orders, what does it mater? Its not like all gay men are fairy - anal - joes.

It's funny, cause he's considered a conservative. That quote's so true though.

There was a time, not so long ago, where conservativism was linked to social libertarianism. Then the conservatives hitched their electoral wagon to the evangelicals and the mantra of "family values" and it's been nothing but abortion and gay-bashing ever since. Which is not to say that gays had it easy before--they didn't--but of late, the bashing has been more one-sided and vocal.

There was a time, not so long ago, where conservativism was linked to social libertarianism. Then the conservatives hitched their electoral wagon to the evangelicals and the mantra of "family values" and it's been nothing but abortion and gay-bashing ever since. Which is not to say that gays had it easy before--they didn't--but of late, the bashing has been more one-sided and vocal.

And Clinton only pretended to be a Democrat to get elected.

Then he did "don't ask, don't tell" and more gays were thrown out under his eight years in office than in all of the years from the end of WW II to his election.

It spawned a witch hunt of incredible proportions.

It was about as "Democrat" as his "ending welfare as we know it".

And Clinton only pretended to be a Democrat to get elected.

Then he did "don't ask, don't tell" and more gays were thrown out under his eight years in office than in all of the years from the end of WW II to his election.

It spawned a witch hunt of incredible proportions.

It was about as "Democrat" as his "ending welfare as we know it".
If you want to know why the activist gay community is no fan of Hillary, that's why. They feel, with reason, that Hillary will throw them under the bus when it's politically necessary to do so. They'll vote for her over any Republican, but they'll be supporting other candidates in the primaries.

If my life would be utterly ruined if I joined the military and then someone happened to find out my sexuality, I wouldn't join. They may not be expressly saying that you can't join (although they won't recruit you if they know you're gay), but it is keeping someone from doing it.

The thing is though, the regulation is hardly ever enforced. No one truly cares but its a pain in the ass to actually change the regulation.

Anyone who supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a homophobic bigot. Period.

That is almost trivially true.

I call bullshit on this statement.

It's been enforced to a surprising degree. In fact, because it came down as an official order, the military took that as an incentive to turn it into a witch hunt, and an "automatic out".

In the past, it used to be up to the commander's discretion whether the behavior in question (such as "hey, you just told me you're really a homosexual") constitutes anything worth worrying about. A lot of commanders used to ask themselves "is this guy a good soldier? if so, I'm keeping him". Yes, there were a few assholes who would throw out a good soldier, but they were shooting themselves in the foot.

Now there is NO leeway - you find you have a gay soldier in the unit and you MUST throw them out.

Now, the stupidity is not only institutionalized, it is MANDATORY.

It's not hard to change a regulation - you just give an order as President. That simple.
I only heard it in passing yesterday, so I couldn't even begin to tell you where I heard it, but apparently throwing soldiers out under DADT has dramatically fallen in the last 12 months. Gay activists say it's because the military needs as many soldiers as they can get right now and they can't afford to lose anyone, but the second that the manpower crisis is over, they'll start getting tossed again unless the law is changed.

The thing is though, the regulation is hardly ever enforced. No one truly cares but its a pain in the ass to actually change the regulation.

It's been enforced to a surprising degree. In fact, because it came down as an official order, the military took that as an incentive to turn it into a witch hunt, and an "automatic out".

In the past, it used to be up to the commander's discretion whether the behavior in question (such as "hey, you just told me you're really a homosexual") constitutes anything worth worrying about. A lot of commanders used to ask themselves "is this guy a good soldier? if so, I'm keeping him". Yes, there were a few assholes who would throw out a good soldier, but they were shooting themselves in the foot.

Now there is NO leeway - you find you have a gay soldier in the unit and you MUST throw them out.

Now, the stupidity is not only institutionalized, it is MANDATORY.

It's not hard to change a regulation - you just give an order as President. That simple.

It's been enforced to a surprising degree. In fact, because it came down as an official order, the military took that as an incentive to turn it into a witch hunt, and an "automatic out".

In the past, it used to be up to the commander's discretion whether the behavior in question (such as "hey, you just told me you're really a homosexual") constitutes anything worth worrying about. A lot of commanders used to ask themselves "is this guy a good soldier? if so, I'm keeping him". Yes, there were a few assholes who would throw out a good soldier, but they were shooting themselves in the foot.

Now there is NO leeway - you find you have a gay soldier in the unit and you MUST throw them out.

Now, the stupidity is not only institutionalized, it is MANDATORY.

It's not hard to change a regulation - you just give an order as President. That simple.

*shrugs*

It may depend on the branch as well.

The Navy, from what I've seen isn't on a massive and relentless witch hunt to expel gays and lesbians.

That's because it's largely over.

They're not making it such a big deal nowadays I guess, people keep their personal lives personal. So, it works out.

The Navy, from what I've seen isn't on a massive and relentless witch hunt to expel gays and lesbians.

That's because it's largely over.

They're not making it such a big deal nowadays I guess, people keep their personal lives personal. So, it works out.

The point is they shouldn't have to.

I support some portions of it. From the fraternization standpoint it's fine. But I really don't care what people do on their off time and as long as they keep it to themselves. Saying it's ''immoral'' is wrong and people shouldn't be kicked out under that pretense.

I don't know how many women arrive in port pregnant. The sad truth is I may never be on a ship my entire time in the Navy, almost making it a paradox of sorts or an oximoron.

I support some portions of it. From the fraternization standpoint it's fine. But I really don't care what people do on their off time and as long as they keep it to themselves. Saying it's ''immoral'' is wrong and people shouldn't be kicked out under that pretense.

When a carrier goes on a float, how many women arrive in port pregnant?

Seems to me that fraternization, to some extent, is going to happen whether people are hetero or homo.

Maybe there should be a way to define conditions under which sex is OK - like when you're not standing watch.

Er, what not-DK was saying is that it's largely over because almost all the homosexuals got kicked out.

That's not true. There are still gays and lesbians in the Navy. One of my good friends where I'm stationed is a lesbian.

They're not making it such a big deal nowadays I guess, people keep their personal lives personal. So, it works out.

Er, what not-DK was saying is that it's largely over because almost all the homosexuals got kicked out.

I call bullshit on this statement.

Why's that Corny? Want to pretend you're not a homophobic bigot?

We don't buy it.

Why's that Corny? Want to pretend you're not a homophobic bigot?

We don't buy it.

That's because I'm not. I'm friends with our openly gay student Senate President, I have a few lesbian friends as well. I'm not afraid of gays.

Why's that Corny? Want to pretend you're not a homophobic bigot?

We don't buy it.

Although I agree that Corny is wrong on this, and I believe that homosexuals should be in the service without any question as to their orientation (or sexual habits), I don't believe that you should resort to what I call the "bigot defense".

Calling someone a homophobic bigot is not an argument.

I believe that Corny's beliefs about homosexuals are rooted in what he has been told, and very little by what he has experienced (probably never knew that there have been plenty of homosexuals in his presence without his knowledge).

I believe that Corny's beliefs about homosexuals are rooted in what he has been told, and very little by what he has experienced (probably never knew that there have been plenty of homosexuals in his presence without his knowledge).

Could it be because I just flat out do not care if they are or not? As I stated earlier, i'm friends with our Student Senate President. If I'm friends with someone who turns out to be gay, that will not alter the friendship.

After Gen. Pace's comments about homosexual acts being immoral while talking about the don't ask don't tell policy, I just want to know if you think its a good policy to keep. I personally think it is.
I think it's a great policy. It guarantees that the only people who can ever be drafted are people so homophobic that they would rather be shot than pretend to be gay. When the specter of a potential Iraq draft first reared its ugly head, most of my friends were totally unconcerned because they would just have to say they were gay and they'd never be forced to die for Bush's lies. :D

Seriously, though, it's so pathetically bogus. The first American soldier wounded in Iraq is gay. His virtue and character were never in question. His ability to serve was never in question. His bravery and service were honored. The fact that he is gay did nothing to prevent him from serving his country.

Most actual soldiers say they don't care if there are gay members serving with them. DADT is just a political move that benefits politicians and civilian homophobes who won't ever actually serve in the armed forces. DADT hurts national defense and excludes capable, qualified, talented individuals who could otherwise be helping to protect their country.

As for the bullshit about "immorality" being kept out of our armed forces, the number of convicted felons in the service has been skyrocketing. Who would you rather provide with weapons and lethal training: a law-abiding citizen who happens to be gay, or a convicted felon? If you answered "the felon," you might be a neocon.

*shrugs*

It may depend on the branch as well.
If memory serves DADT was put into place via executive order. One of the first things Clinton did in office. So no, it's not difficult to change the regulation, and it doesn't depend on the branch.

If memory serves DADT was put into place via executive order. One of the first things Clinton did in office. So no, it's not difficult to change the regulation, and it doesn't depend on the branch.

That was not what I was talking about when I said it depends on the branch :rolleyes:

HA. No actually. Its regs. That's why I support it. When they change the regs, I will support that to.

*hands Corny a box of Free Will(TM)*
Go ahead, try some.

*hands Corny a box of Free Will(TM)*
Go ahead, try some.

IPPON! We have a winner!

I will probably include a note saying "you're free to join us, General"

Careful, he might decide to, y'know... TELL. :D

I think it's a great policy. It guarantees that the only people who can ever be drafted are people so homophobic that they would rather be shot than pretend to be gay. When the specter of a potential Iraq draft first reared its ugly head, most of my friends were totally unconcerned because they would just have to say they were gay and they'd never be forced to die for Bush's lies. :D

I have said on more than one occassion that if there is ever a draft for a war I do not support, and this policy is still in place, I'm going to get very VERY drunk, get naked with an equally drunk male friend, jump in bed, have pictures taken and send those pictures, along with my draft notice, back to the military.

I will probably include a note saying "you're free to join us, General"

That was not what I was talking about when I said it depends on the branch :rolleyes:

So what were you talking about? Or is it a secret?

(Perhaps so secret even he doesn't know. :rolleyes: )

I have presented this argument to those in favor of the policy and say it "doesn't prevent gays from joining the military"

The argument is basically thus:

People say that this is tantamount to rules saying that blacks could not join, or that women could not join. The defenders of the policy say that it is not at all comparable. Those rules said there was an outright bar. NO blacks, period. No women, period. This policy does not say "no gays, period", gays are allowed to join.

It is true that the policy does not prevent gays from joining the military. It merely prevents homosexuals from admitting their homosexuality if they wish to join, or remain in, the military. This is an important difference. It does not say "gays can not join", it says "people we know are gay can not join".

Truly a monumentus difference.

But I ask for a consideration in the matter. A policy that says "no blacks in the military" really depends on one thing, that one can be identified as black. Likewise a policy that says no women in the military depends on whether one can be identified as a woman. Under a policy of "no blacks allowed" a black person could, theoretically, wear makeup, undergo skin treatments and bleachings, and undergo all efforts to pretend to be white. In the same vein a woman could tape her breasts, cut her hair, and make every effort to pretend to be a man.

As long as their deception goes uncovered, they may stay. If their ruse is reveiled, they are removed from the military.

And so it is with "don't ask, don't tell". The position is identical. Those that say that this policy is not equivalent to a "no blacks" policy, and thus they support it, are dillusional in that regard. Functionally there is no difference. A "no blacks" policy would still allow for a black man to join, as long as he was able to successfully hide his identity as a black man. A "no women" policy would still allow for a woman to join, as long as she was able to successfully hide her identity as a woman.

So to does "don't ask don't tell" operate. It allows a homosexual to join, just as long as he is able to hide his identity as a homosexual.

But just as a "no blacks" policy would remove a man revealed to be black, and a "no women" policy would reveal a woman revealed to be a woman, "don't ask don't tell" would remove anyone revealed to be gay.

A policy of "no black" or "no women" isn't really that, as no law or rule can be enforced if a violation is unknow. In reality a "no black" policy is really a "no blacks, that we know about", and a "no women" policy is really a "no women, that we know about"

Don't ask don't tell is no different, it is just more up front about it.

I have presented this argument to those in favor of the policy and say it "doesn't prevent gays from joining the military"

The argument is basically thus:

People say that this is tantamount to rules saying that blacks could not join, or that women could not join. The defenders of the policy say that it is not at all comparable. Those rules said there was an outright bar. NO blacks, period. No women, period. This policy does not say "no gays, period", gays are allowed to join.

It is true that the policy does not prevent gays from joining the military. It merely prevents homosexuals from admitting their homosexuality if they wish to join, or remain in, the military. This is an important difference. It does not say "gays can not join", it says "people we know are gay can not join".

Truly a monumentus difference.

But I ask for a consideration in the matter. A policy that says "no blacks in the military" really depends on one thing, that one can be identified as black. Likewise a policy that says no women in the military depends on whether one can be identified as a woman. Under a policy of "no blacks allowed" a black person could, theoretically, wear makeup, undergo skin treatments and bleachings, and undergo all efforts to pretend to be white. In the same vein a woman could tape her breasts, cut her hair, and make every effort to pretend to be a man.

As long as their deception goes uncovered, they may stay. If their ruse is reveiled, they are removed from the military.

And so it is with "don't ask, don't tell". The position is identical. Those that say that this policy is not equivalent to a "no blacks" policy, and thus they support it, are dillusional in that regard. Functionally there is no difference. A "no blacks" policy would still allow for a black man to join, as long as he was able to successfully hide his identity as a black man. A "no women" policy would still allow for a woman to join, as long as she was able to successfully hide her identity as a woman.

So to does "don't ask don't tell" operate. It allows a homosexual to join, just as long as he is able to hide his identity as a homosexual.

But just as a "no blacks" policy would remove a man revealed to be black, and a "no women" policy would reveal a woman revealed to be a woman, "don't ask don't tell" would remove anyone revealed to be gay.

A policy of "no black" or "no women" isn't really that, as no law or rule can be enforced if a violation is unknow. In reality a "no black" policy is really a "no blacks, that we know about", and a "no women" policy is really a "no women, that we know about"

Don't ask don't tell is no different, it is just more up front about it.
And I would suggest that anyone who thinks that's still a bogus comparison look into the history of blacks "passing."

If someone's a butch lesbian or a very feminine gay, does it count as telling?

:D

I think that the US military needs to drastically fix its recruiting system. I read that article regarding women being raped/sexually assaulted etc, and the fact that women are restricted in their choice of trades, and the fact that gays can't join unless they pretend to be something their not are serious issues.

The policies against women and gays restrict the number of potential recruits, and require you to lower your recruiting standards (hence all the people who really have no business wearing a uniform, I don't want someone watching my back if their willing to shoot an innocent under orders or no, or if their willing to rape the woman we have in our section), thus allowing ex-criminals (not that all people with a criminal record should be restricted, but anyone with anything violent need a psyche eval at the very least and barred at most). As mentioned earlier, the CF has zero issues with homosexuality, and we have zero issue with women. I did training with plenty of women, and we all lived in the same tents, got changed in front of each other, etc. We had seperate showers and washrooms but that was it - we had zero problems. I don't know of any openly gay individuals in my platoon, but I didn't really go around asking, we had our suspiscions about a few, and again, no problems.

All these policies do is restrict the military's potential recruiting pool, and alienate their own citizens.

It's not because they are sluts. Fraternization within the same unit/department/command are just bad for moral. It creates conflict as well as the two can give each other special traetment and favors, especially if one was higher ranking or in a leadership position. Male/Female, Officer/Enlisted, and same sex fraternization are prohibited. There are other things that can happen as well.

the policy states that you cannot be openly gay. It has nothing to do with fraternization as it applies to people who have homosexual relationship with non service members. Military can only have relationships with the military now? Equal protection means exactly that and the policy is wrong. Being openly gay means you might be out a bar off base with your bf or gf and another marine sees you. They can report you and you can be expelled just for being gay. It's a BS policy and it needs to change.

What is this? Everyone that disagrees with you must be a bigot is it then?

No. Anyone who supports this type of discrimination against homosexuals, on the other hand, is a bigot, by its very definition.


Hmm, is it fair for them to call you names too then?

Do I actually meet the definition of said "name"?

Such as, propagandizer of immoral sodomites?

Last time I checked, I'm not involved in any propaganda, nor do I have anything to do with any immoral sodomites, so that really wouldn't work.

Just curious is all, cause if we're going to start calling the other side meaningless names, what’s fair for one should be fair to all, don't ya think?

Maybe you should pull out a dictionary. I can guarantee that the word bigot will be there, and you can see what the meaning of the word is.

The thing is though, the regulation is hardly ever enforced. No one truly cares but its a pain in the ass to actually change the regulation.

If no one cared, there wouldn't be shortages in critical areas in the military simply because some of the soldiers were gay. There wouldn't be decorated soldiers who can't get any type of job because they have been dishonorably discharged. Servicemen wouldn't have to wait until retirement to acknowledge their spouses publicly. And so on....

The reality is that, whether your average soldier cares about enforcing this policy (I'd guess not), it is being enforced and it is ruining the lives of servicemen and keeping others from even joining. Enforcement may be down right now, when they need every soldier they can get their hands on, but that's a wartime issue, not an issue with the policy itself.

thats funny as there no hell

It would be funny if he could be surprised by that fact. It kind of sucks that he'll never know the difference.

Okay, so far we have the Islam fundie, the Christian fundie, the it-must-hurt-morale-SOMEHOW, the I-swear-I'm-not-a-bigot and the Inertia defenses.

Anyone I missed? Perhaps someone with an actual, decent REASON for this absurdity?

Heik, you won't find someone with an actual decent reason for this policy because quite frankly, there isn't one.

It's another example of politicians imposing their will on the armed forces for political purposes and of the decision makers in the military not being able to/otherwise unwilling to tell said politicians to eff off (something to do with keeping their jobs and having to show loyalty). There is a disconnect between the enlisted ranks, and the politicians, and often times, military decision makers. It's an unfortunate fact of life, that hopefully, will change.

They're not making it such a big deal nowadays I guess, people keep their personal lives personal. So, it works out.

You mean gay people keep their personal lives personal? I highly doubt that heterosexual soldiers never talk about their sex lives/spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends/etc.

The unit my soon-to-be-brother-in-law fights in has a phone tree system to call all of their wives in the event of an emergency, or if they're coming home unexpectedly, etc. If a homosexual man were a part of that unit, he couldn't list his own spouse or boyfriend as part of that phone tree - that would be "telling".

I never understood all these stories about people shooting themselves in the foot or fleeing to Canada to avoid serving in the US military during wartime. If you don't want to fight, just make out with a fellow soldier of the same gender and you won't have to worry about the Pentagon sending you off to fight.

I was under the impression that before the DADT policy gays weren't allowed period.

I never understood all these stories about people shooting themselves in the foot or fleeing to Canada to avoid serving in the US military during wartime. If you don't want to fight, just make out with a fellow soldier of the same gender and you won't have to worry about the Pentagon sending you off to fight.

The draft was done away with before the DADT was put in place by Clinton, if I'm not mixing up my facts. So back in the time of 'Nam, you wouldn't have been kicked out/not drafted if you were gay.

Heik, you won't find someone with an actual decent reason for this policy because quite frankly, there isn't one.

It's a rhetorical question. But it's really not a surprise, they support the man that says wicca soldiers shouldn't have their beliefs taken into account...

The draft was done away with before the DADT was put in place by Clinton, if I'm not mixing up my facts. So back in the time of 'Nam, you wouldn't have been kicked out/not drafted if you were gay.

Even today there are soldiers who have gone through all kinds of lengths to not serve in Iraq. All they had to do was pretend to be gay to get out of going though, if I'm interpreting "Don't Ask Don't Tell" correctly.

The thing is though, the regulation is hardly ever enforced. No one truly cares but its a pain in the ass to actually change the regulation.

No one might have cared where you served, but they damn sure cared where I did.

No one might have cared where you served, but they damn sure cared where I did.

I'm not in the military but my father and mother were.

That is why you're talking out of your behind?

Ok, folks, change of plans, my country suffered a military coup in 1964, so I get to pretend I know jack about the military too.

:rolleyes:

I do not have a problem with gays in the military asshat. I've stated it before.

I'm not in the military but my father and mother were.

That is why you're talking out of your behind?

Ok, folks, change of plans, my country suffered a military coup in 1964, so I get to pretend I know jack about the military too.

I'm not in the military but my father and mother were.

So where do you base your assumption that this reg is hardly ever enforced?

I've seen it enforced first hand.

:rolleyes:

I do not have a problem with gays in the military asshat. I've stated it before.

Yet you are against them being able to STAY in the military should their option be found out, and presented no reason other than simple, abject INERTIA! All the while spouting crap about an environment you know squat about and pretending to know anything!

And I would suggest that anyone who thinks that's still a bogus comparison look into the history of blacks "passing."

You know I take back what I said before, I have heard one REMOTELY good response to what I said, and it went something like this:

The difference between a "no blacks" and a "no women" policy and "don't ask don't tell" is that with the policy of no blacks and no women, they were free to ask you whether you were black, or a women, and deny you if you said yes.

If you said "no", and you were lying, you lied on government forms. This is a criminal act. So the difference between a policy of "no blacks" and "no women" and "don't ask don't tell" is that for a black person, or a woman, to get into the military on that policy, they must break the law. No gay person has to break the law to get into the military, they just have to not reveal that they are gay.

Thus if someone finds out that a gay person is gay, under don't ask don't tell, the worst that happens to them is they are kicked out. Under a policy of "no women" or "no blacks" if someone finds out that you are a woman, or black, and you actively lied, rather than simply passively didn't say anything you were not required to say, not only were you drummed out, but you faced criminal charges as well.

So the difference between old policies of "no blacks" or "no women" and current "don't ask don't tell" is the "don't ask" part, people were free to ask if you were black, or a woman, and if you lied, and were discovered, you could face actual prison. No gay person ever has to lie, and thus commit a criminal act to join the military, they only need to withold information they are under no legal obligation to disclose.

This was actually a decent argument because it did make a good point, black and women who violated these laws did face a much higher penalty on discovery. So I thought about it for a minute, and replied (this was on another forum).

So, let's change it a bit, let's make a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for black. We won't ask you if you're black. We won't require you to tell us if you are black. We will make no inquiry into the color of your skin what so ever. however, should we discover that you are black, we will kick you out. But if you're black, you can attempt to join if you wish, you won't face any criminal violations or sanctions, but if we find out we'll remove you. Is that fair?

He said no, of course not. I asked why not and his response was along the lines of "how can you not find out if someone is black, you can look at them."

I responded "not always, and besides, efforts CAN be made to hide it, it's been done before". He responded that for most black people, it would be difficult if not impossible to indefinitly, successfully, pose as a white person, but gays are not inherently gay looking. All that is required for a gay man to not be known as gay is to not admit to being gay. It is passive. A black man has to actually take efforts to not look black. Same with women. Thus to hide ones race, or gender, is active, to hide ones sexuality is passive.

Which basically boils down to it. It's ok to discriminate against gays because gays have an easier time pretending not to be gay. It would be very hard for a black person to pretend not to be black, or a woman to pretend not to be a woman, but gays can fairly easily pretend not to be gay..

In other words, it's ok to discriminate against them, because if they don't want the discrimination, they can hide from it. Not ok to discriminate against blacks, because blacks can't help but look black, so they can do nothing to avoid the discrimination. Gays can help "looking" gay, so they CAN avoid being discriminated against, all they have to do is pretend not to be gay.

In other words, it's ok to discriminate against gays, gays can avoid being discriminated against by hiding a fundamental aspect of their personhood.

So where do you base your assumption that this reg is hardly ever enforced?

He removed that assumption from a part of his anatomy.

:rolleyes:

I do not have a problem with gays in the military asshat. I've stated it before.

then why do you support a policy that prevents gays from openly serving in the military?

If you don't have a problem with it, why do you support something that prevents it?

I was under the impression that before the DADT policy gays weren't allowed period.

correct. Before DADT gays were not allowed, and they could ask you if you were gay, and if it lied and said you were not, you not only could get discharged, but court marshalled.

Hey, I kinda like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"You're going to Iraq."
"I'm gay."
"Well, screw that then."
"No, thank you sir."

then why do you support a policy that prevents gays from openly serving in the military?

If you don't have a problem with it, why do you support something that prevents it?

Because... it's there.

Meaning he should also support Democrats, greens, communists, terrorists, gay marriage in the Netherlands, gay-hunting in Iran, abortion, abortion clinic bombings, atheists, Fred Phelps...

Being in the military, I agree with the policy.

Isn't it great how our army is, on terms of free thought, typically on the same level as the Borg Collective?

What are the stipulations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

To my knowledge, it prevents individuals from asking another if s/he is gay, and warns those who are to not disclose that information.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me...

What are the stipulations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

To my knowledge, it prevents individuals from asking another if s/he is gay, and warns those who are to not disclose that information.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me...

That's the way I understand it, too. The objection is, what does the Armed Forces care if someone is gay or not? Why are gays perceived to be less capable of serving honorably than heterosexuals of either sex?

What are the stipulations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

To my knowledge, it prevents individuals from asking another if s/he is gay, and warns those who are to not disclose that information.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me...

There's a bunch of idiots who claim it's discriminatory.

It doesn't sound unreasonable to fundamentally deny a large part of who they are?

How would the average person feel if DADT applied to religion?

There's a bunch of idiots who claim it's discriminatory.

It is discriminatory. Unless we're using some new definition of discrimination from the Fundie English Dictionary.

There's a bunch of idiots who claim it's discriminatory.

How exactly is it not dicriminatory? Why should someone have to hide who they are?

It is discriminatory. Unless we're using some new definition of discrimination from the Fundie English Dictionary.

How exactly is it not dicriminatory? Why should someone have to hide who they are?

Please, guys, don't feed the troll.

Please, guys, don't feed the troll.

True enough. Better than getting sucked into concentric circles of inanity.

I've always wanted to try my ignore function.

It doesn't sound unreasonable to fundamentally deny a large part of who they are?

How would the average person feel if DADT applied to religion?

Okay. But it's not necessarily denying who you are--and nor should it be. Meh, maybe it is. I don't know. I'm so apathetic these days.

There's a bunch of idiots who claim it's discriminatory.

Awww... Isn't that cute?

But it's WROOOOOOOOONG!!!

QED:

Is it forbidden to tell you're straight in the armed forces? No! Is it forbidden to tell you're gay in the armed forces? Yes!

Then it IS discriminatory!

Okay. But it's not necessarily denying who you are--and nor should it be. Meh, maybe it is. I don't know. I'm so apathetic these days.

Here's an example. While a soldier is well withing his/her rights to go to a gay bar, s/he will be worried what questions might arise if it's found out she goes there. S/he has to worry about the questions that arise when every duty station s/he goes to, s/he lives on off base housing with his/her "room mate" who seems to want to follow him/her all over the country.

How does the soldier answer [perfectly legal to ask question]: why does this person follow you to every duty station you go to?

What are the stipulations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

To my knowledge, it prevents individuals from asking another if s/he is gay, and warns those who are to not disclose that information.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me...

reasonable....yeah, about that...

its reasonable if its reasonable to never be able to talk to colleagues about your life. no talking about dates, no talking about your boyfriend, no talking about plans for your wedding. no meeting outside of work with your co-workers and their wives/girlfriends. no bringing your sweetheart to the company picnic. no socializing with your coworkers.

a friend of mine has been "married" to a man in the airforce for 6 years. if his "wife" gets transferred overseas, he cant go. if there is an accident on the job that puts his "wife" into the hospital, no one will call him. he gets not only none of the benefits of being a military spouse but also none of the common courtesies of being a military "girlfriend". why? because his lover cant tell anyone that he is gay and in a committed relationship. its not allowed. no one at his job even knows that he has anyone who should be called in case of emergencies.

reasonable?

I like it, but it should also be expanded to protect those who do decided to tell.

Awww... Isn't that cute?

But it's WROOOOOOOOONG!!!

QED:

Is it forbidden to tell you're straight in the armed forces? No! Is it forbidden to tell you're gay in the armed forces? Yes!

Then it IS discriminatory!is it? has anyone in the military actually said "I'm Straight and PROUD of it"? or is it something that everyone assumes. ;)

Here's an example. While a soldier is well withing his/her rights to go to a gay bar, s/he will be worried what questions might arise if it's found out she goes there. S/he has to worry about the questions that arise when every duty station s/he goes to, s/he lives on off base housing with his/her "room mate" who seems to want to follow him/her all over the country.

How does the soldier answer [perfectly legal to ask question]: why does this person follow you to every duty station you go to?
answer 1:
dunno, s/he just does.... weird isn't it?

answer 2:
S/He fancies me. s/he hasn't done anything illegal, so I couldn't get a restraining order. but I'm used to the attention already, s/he not doing any harm.

answer 3:
I saved his/her life in High School... now s/he has this notion that his/her life is now mine. kinda like a maid/butler that I don't have to pay for.

Answer 4:
Dunno. is it affecting my performance sir?

reasonable....yeah, about that...

its reasonable if its reasonable to never be able to talk to colleagues about your life. no talking about dates, no talking about your boyfriend, no talking about plans for your wedding. no meeting outside of work with your co-workers and their wives/girlfriends. no bringing your sweetheart to the company picnic. no socializing with your coworkers.

a friend of mine has been "married" to a man in the airforce for 6 years. if his "wife" gets transferred overseas, he cant go. if there is an accident on the job that puts his "wife" into the hospital, no one will call him. he gets not only none of the benefits of being a military spouse but also none of the common courtesies of being a military "girlfriend". why? because his lover cant tell anyone that he is gay and in a committed relationship. its not allowed. no one at his job even knows that he has anyone who should be called in case of emergencies.

reasonable?

She shoots ... she scores!

Nicely put, Ash. ;)

reasonable....yeah, about that...

its reasonable if its reasonable to never be able to talk to colleagues about your life. no talking about dates, no talking about your boyfriend, no talking about plans for your wedding. no meeting outside of work with your co-workers and their wives/girlfriends. no bringing your sweetheart to the company picnic. no socializing with your coworkers.

a friend of mine has been "married" to a man in the airforce for 6 years. if his "wife" gets transferred overseas, he cant go. if there is an accident on the job that puts his "wife" into the hospital, no one will call him. he gets not only none of the benefits of being a military spouse but also none of the common courtesies of being a military "girlfriend". why? because his lover cant tell anyone that he is gay and in a committed relationship. its not allowed. no one at his job even knows that he has anyone who should be called in case of emergencies.

reasonable?can't he put his... "wife" as a dependant? also can he make his "Wife" a contact in case of emergencies?

can't he put his... "wife" as a dependant? also can he make his "Wife" a contact in case of emergencies?

As a dependent? I doubt that, but as a contact, I would think so. Ash's example just points up the inequities in not recognizing that gay people, too, can have committed relationships, even gay people who wear our country's uniform. Nice, huh? Defending the rights of other people to treat you like a second-class citizen.

can't he put his... "wife" as a dependant? also can he make his "Wife" a contact in case of emergencies?

Not if he wants to stay in the military--which is the whole point, I think.

I like it, but it should also be expanded to protect those who do decided to tell.

is it? has anyone in the military actually said "I'm Straight and PROUD of it"? or is it something that everyone assumes. ;)


answer 1:
dunno, s/he just does.... weird isn't it?

answer 2:
S/He fancies me. s/he hasn't done anything illegal, so I couldn't get a restraining order. but I'm used to the attention already, s/he not doing any harm.

answer 3:
I saved his/her life in High School... now s/he has this notion that his/her life is now mine. kinda like a maid/butler that I don't have to pay for.

Answer 4:
Dunno. is it affecting my performance sir?

So the options are either to lie about your life (one of those lies is going to lead to more lies) or answer in a way that brings more questions that will get increasingly difficult to dodge.

can't he put his... "wife" as a dependant? also can he make his "Wife" a contact in case of emergencies?

Sure he can. And if something does happen and they have to call his "wife" and realize his "wife" is a dude, he gets kicked out the military.

That's the entire point to this discussion. Have you been following at ALL?

There's a bunch of idiots who claim it's discriminatory.

yeah, what idiots. To THINK someone would say it's discriminatory that you can be fired from your job if someone finds out you're gay.

Really, what fucking morons.

Okay. But it's not necessarily denying who you are

How is it not?

She shoots ... she scores!

Nicely put, Ash. ;)

thank you

Not if he wants to stay in the military--which is the whole point, I think.putting a male as an emergency contact is grounds for dissmissal?

So the options are either to lie about your life (one of those lies is going to lead to more lies) or answer in a way that brings more questions that will get increasingly difficult to dodge.except did you read the first sentence? protect those who do decide to tell. that means if others "figure it out" it should still be protected. they didn't ask, and technically, s/he didn't tell.

Sure he can. And if something does happen and they have to call his "wife" and realize his "wife" is a dude, he gets kicked out the military.

That's the entire point to this discussion. Have you been following at ALL?except emergency contact isn't just wife. can be friend, relative or anyone.

the point I thought, was the notion of "don't ask, don't tell" being a fair policy, and not the iron clad rule.

sure it needs working on. but to shitcan it because of a few flaws isn't right also.

To answer the question of whether it is discriminatory or not, one must look at the basic idea of discrimination. Namely, that one person can do something that the other can not do, and that there is no biological or physical difference that prevents the second person from doing so.

IE men not being able to give birth is not discriminatory, it is biology. A blind person not being able to work as a truck driver is not discriminatory, it's biology.

So, now we must ask the question, can a straight man in the military go up to a superior officer and tell that superior officer truthfully, and honestly, what his sexual orientation is and still expect to remain in the military?

Can a gay man in the military go up to a superior officer and tell that superior officer truthfully, and honestly, what his sexual orientation is and still expect to remain in the military?

If the answer to these questions differ, then it is discrimination.

I note, also, that nobody has attempted to satisfactorally answer my question from before.

As a dependent? I doubt that, but as a contact, I would think so. Ash's example just points up the inequities in not recognizing that gay people, too, can have committed relationships, even gay people who wear our country's uniform. Nice, huh? Defending the rights of other people to treat you like a second-class citizen.

it was that part that hit me the hardest when my friend was telling me about the difficulties of being involved with a man in the military. if something happens to his lover, no one will call him. he just wont show up at the end of the day.

To answer the question of whether it is discriminatory or not, one must look at the basic idea of discrimination. Namely, that one person can do something that the other can not do, and that there is no biological or physical difference that prevents the second person from doing so.agreed

IE men not being able to give birth is not discriminatory, it is biology. A blind person not being able to work as a truck driver is not discriminatory, it's biology.nope, a question of Ability. not Biology.

So, now we must ask the question, can a straight man in the military go up to a superior officer and tell that superior officer truthfully, and honestly, what his sexual orientation is and still expect to remain in the military?

Can a gay man in the military go up to a superior officer and tell that superior officer truthfully, and honestly, what his sexual orientation is and still expect to remain in the military?

he should be able to, even if he were gay.

now should special dispensation be afforded because of one individual's choice?

The problem is the trust that military people need to have with the members of their squad... in any situation.

can one woman in a squad of men trust them to the point of showering with them and not be attacked?

can one Straight man trust his gay comrades enough to shower with them and not be attacked?

you can order someone to trust another person, but trust is a personal thing.
If the answer to these questions differ, then it is discrimination.

I note, also, that nobody has attempted to satisfactorally answer my question from before.there is no satisfactory answer. it all comes down to personality. one solution is to create a seperate division where homosexuals can be apart of. like the 442 during wwII were only japanese... perhaps something like that... or on the flip side... one division where people who don't want to associate with Gays can be lumped together.

except did you read the first sentence? protect those who do decide to tell. that means if others "figure it out" it should still be protected. they didn't ask, and technically, s/he didn't tell.

I should have clarified; my response to answer 4 pertains to how DADT is currently enforced.

Really though, it's who they are, why should they be forced to live in the closet? People like to talk about their perosnal lives. Why is it fair for straight people to be allowed to go on and on about their bf/gf and their plans for the future while a gay person cannot? It's not like they'd be running around forcing people to listen to them banter on about their personal lives. It just means they could go to the N-club and introduce their partner as such and not as their "room mate."

can one Straight man trust his gay comrades enough to shower with them and not be attacked?

you can order someone to trust another person, but trust is a personal thing.
there is no satisfactory answer. it all comes down to personality. one solution is to create a seperate division where homosexuals can be apart of. like the 442 during wwII were only japanese... perhaps something like that... or on the flip side... one division where people who don't want to associate with Gays can be lumped together.

The problem is, there's bound to be racists in the army that don't trust blacks, morons that don't trust muslims, and so on. Why are the anti-gay bigots the only bigots being catered to then?

putting a male as an emergency contact is grounds for dissmissal?

You mentioned claiming him as a dependent--that would certainly get noticed, as would the fraud charges that would undoubtedly follow.

can one Straight man trust his gay comrades enough to shower with them and not be attacked?

Why are you assuming that gay men would be rapists? One does not logically follow the other. For that matter, why are you assuming that the straight man would be attractive enough to warrant any sexual interest whatsoever?

agreed

nope, a question of Ability. not Biology.

he should be able to, even if he were gay.

now should special dispensation be afforded because of one individual's choice?

The problem is the trust that military people need to have with the members of their squad... in any situation.

can one woman in a squad of men trust them to the point of showering with them and not be attacked?

can one Straight man trust his gay comrades enough to shower with them and not be attacked?

you can order someone to trust another person, but trust is a personal thing.
there is no satisfactory answer. it all comes down to personality. one solution is to create a seperate division where homosexuals can be apart of. like the 442 during wwII were only japanese... perhaps something like that... or on the flip side... one division where people who don't want to associate with Gays can be lumped together.

You're not changing the fact that the person is gay to begin with. So really, the attack would happen whether or not the soldier knew the attacker was gay. You can walk through a river and pretend there aren't snakes under the surface, it doesn't mean they won't bite you.

So does that also mean there needs to be a division for soldiers that don't want to associate with Christians, blacks, women, ect? Seriously.

IPPON! We have a winner!

*bows*
I'd like to thank all the little people.

Why are you assuming that gay men would be rapists? One does not logically follow the other. For that matter, why are you assuming that the straight man would be attractive enough to warrant any sexual interest whatsoever?

When you look at how high the bar is set for physical beauty (generally speaking) in the gay community it does seem strange when Cleatus is worried about some "homo" being overcome with lust at the sight of his fatness.

now should special dispensation be afforded because of one individual's choice?

What you absolutly and truly do not understand is that it is the STRAIGHT people in the military who are afforded special dispensation

They are afforded the opportunity to be open about their sexuality and still remain in the military.

Gays are not. No, one should not get special dispensation. This is exactly what is happening now.

The problem is the trust that military people need to have with the members of their squad... in any situation.

If YOU can't trust gay people because they are gay that is YOUR problem, and maybe YOU shouldn't be in the military.

can one Straight man trust his gay comrades enough to shower with them and not be attacked?

What....the....fuck?

No, seriously, what the fuck? Are you that bigoted? Are you that homophobic? Are you, frankly, that fucking stupid?

one division where people who don't want to associate with Gays can be lumped together.

Sure, I have a great place to put people who don't want to associate with gays.

out of the military.

What you absolutly and truly do not understand is that it is the STRAIGHT people in the military who are afforded special dispensation explain the special dispensation.

They are afforded the opportunity to be open about their sexuality and still remain in the military.that's not special. are they told to flaunt their sexuality? are they? sure they talk about their dates over the weekend, but are they asked to?

what of the women in the forces. are they forced to listen about the men's conquests? are the men forced to listen about the women's conquests?


Gays are not. No, one should not get special dispensation. This is exactly what is happening now. exactly. there shouldn't be any consiquences. thus "Don't ask". there should be no active hunt for anyone due to their sexual leanings or activities UNLESS it breaks the law, Pedophilia for one, rape being the other. but on the same tolken, there shouldn't be anything on the forms to indicate a person's sexual leanings. the only way to solve that is to make it TOTALLY impersonal. everyone, including 'spouses' are reduced to numbers.



If YOU can't trust gay people because they are gay that is YOUR problem, and maybe YOU shouldn't be in the military.I have no problem with Gays anywhere, tho it seems you have an issue...


What....the....fuck?

No, seriously, what the fuck? Are you that bigoted? Are you that homophobic? Are you, frankly, that fucking stupid?is there a difference between how Gays are treated and how women are treated? or are you of the opinion that only Gay Hating men are the only ones capable of gang violence?

Sure, I have a great place to put people who don't want to associate with gays.

out of the military.oh, so it's not okay to discriminate against gays yet ok to show them preferrence. Equal opportunity means EQUAL. if they don't want to work with gays, put em in their own units. same with gays who don't want to work with anyone who has an issue with their lifestyles. put them in their own units. if children cannot play nicely, you seperate them.

what of the women in the forces. are they forced to listen about the men's conquests? are the men forced to listen about the women's conquests?
No, I tended to walk away when the conversations veered over to what they did with the hookers over the weekend (which it often did). It's their right to talk about it, it didn't make me uncomfortable, I didn't want to listen so I left. Just like I would if they went on and on about baseball.

is there a difference between how Gays are treated and how women are treated? or are you of the opinion that only Gay Hating men are the only ones capable of gang violence?.

Yes there is a difference. As a *straight* woman I could bring a boyfriend to a squad picnic, I could hold hands with a guy, I could talk about him to my friends.

oh, so it's not okay to discriminate against gays yet ok to show them preferrence. Equal opportunity means EQUAL. if they don't want to work with gays, put em in their own units. same with gays who don't want to work with anyone who has an issue with their lifestyles. put them in their own units. if children cannot play nicely, you seperate them.

Men who don't want to work with women don't have that option why should straight men? What you are talking about is Separate But Equal which doesn't work.

I think that if the rule is going to be in place, it should include all sexualities, not just homosexuals. I want the bisexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, and stupidideaosexuals to all shut up.

oh, so it's not okay to discriminate against gays yet ok to show them preferrence.

Excuse me? By your logic, the civil rights act was immoral. :eek:

The civil rights act prevented discrimination and levied penalties against those who would not hire someone based on race or other such factors. By your logic, telling people they can't be intolerant is bad.

oh, so it's not okay to discriminate against gays yet ok to show them preferrence. Equal opportunity means EQUAL.

What preference? No, seriously, what fucking preference are you talking about?

if children cannot play nicely, you seperate them.

These are not children, they are soldiers. Frankly, I expect more from soldiers than I do from children. Likewise, if soldiers are not capable of behaving better than children, they don't deserve to be soldiers.

The fact that you'd even say this makes me question how seriously you take your arguments, or are you advocating that soldiers are no better than children?

Soldiers are ADULTS, and they are there to do a JOB. If I don't like my coworkers I have two options. Suck it up, or get fired. Why the hell should I let people entrusted with guns, planes and fucking TANKS to operate with any less maturity?

Frankly I think letting gays into the military openly would be perfectly natural selection. Anyone who has issues with it and those issues prevent them from doing their duty adequatly does not deserve to be a soldier.

Anyone who has issues with it and those issues prevent them from doing their duty does not deserve to have a job, period.

oh, so it's not okay to discriminate against gays yet ok to show them preferrence.
How exactly are gay people in the military getting prefferential treatment?
Equal opportunity means EQUAL. if they don't want to work with gays, put em in their own units. same with gays who don't want to work with anyone who has an issue with their lifestyles. put them in their own units. if children cannot play nicely, you seperate them.


And if they don't want to work with blacks? Or with jews? Or anyone not of their faith? And what about in an emergency situation where one of the gay units was forced to work with one of the straight units? What then? At what point do you tell them to just get over it?

You're not changing the fact that the person is gay to begin with. So really, the attack would happen whether or not the soldier knew the attacker was gay. You can walk through a river and pretend there aren't snakes under the surface, it doesn't mean they won't bite you.which is behind the original purpose of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a person may be Gay, but as long as that person doesn't proclaim it then any attack won't be because of his sexual preference, but something else.

So does that also mean there needs to be a division for soldiers that don't want to associate with Christians, blacks, women, ect? Seriously. if there is such a wide spread problem? hell yes. in Vietnam there were units comprised only of Blacks. when women first entered the military, there were units comprised only of women. it's after the idea of being with them got ingrained that they started mixing em up.

Why are you assuming that gay men would be rapists? One does not logically follow the other. For that matter, why are you assuming that the straight man would be attractive enough to warrant any sexual interest whatsoever?nope... funny howmany people just assume that tho.

You mentioned claiming him as a dependent--that would certainly get noticed, as would the fraud charges that would undoubtedly follow.not if he IS a dependant. there are adult dependants. if the military person is paying for 50% (or some percentage) of the other's living expenses, then that person is dependant on the military person. the problem you are referring to is when they try to file for JOINT taxes...

The problem is, there's bound to be racists in the army that don't trust blacks, morons that don't trust muslims, and so on. Why are the anti-gay bigots the only bigots being catered to then?says who? A chaplin got his job back after invoking God's name. AAnd for every racists bastard in there, you'll find over twice to three times the amount of those who are not Racists.

I should have clarified; my response to answer 4 pertains to how DADT is currently enforced. ah, nevermind then.

Really though, it's who they are, why should they be forced to live in the closet? People like to talk about their perosnal lives. Why is it fair for straight people to be allowed to go on and on about their bf/gf and their plans for the future while a gay person cannot? It's not like they'd be running around forcing people to listen to them banter on about their personal lives. It just means they could go to the N-club and introduce their partner as such and not as their "room mate."same reason why people can't tell certain jokes in the workplace. same as why you are told what you can or cannot display at your work area. a comfortable workplace demands some give and take. now given that the Military has alot of tools that can cause alot of fatal accidents. trust is very important.

Also, there are methods to "telling" people things. you don't just start going on about your love life or any personal life to just anyone. you tell your close friends. the same with gay people. my late boss (died from Aids in the mid 90's) showed me his trust when one day, he just started talking about his boyfriend when I was around. before he was really quiet about it around me. but he tested the waters... found I really didn't care about who he slept with. and he drew me into his conversations with others. we were all cool about it. he didn't just start talking about his personal life... same as my other co-workers and their families.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was the first attempt to allow gays into the military. should it be kept the same? no, it needs to evolve as time goes on. from a rule, it should be come policy. then a rule of thumb.

"Don't ask, Don't tell" should become a "they don't need to know." not a gag order, not a law, but advice. Some don't react to the news of one's gay... ness? very well. others handle it with stride. some take some time to get used to the idea. it's not their fault. nor is it the fault of the homosexual. but one has the information and has to use their common sense as to when and how to inform the other.

What preference? No, seriously, what fucking preference are you talking about?



These are not children, they are soldiers. Frankly, I expect more from soldiers than I do from children. Likewise, if soldiers are not capable of behaving better than children, they don't deserve to be soldiers.

The fact that you'd even say this makes me question how seriously you take your arguments, or are you advocating that soldiers are no better than children?

Soldiers are ADULTS, and they are there to do a JOB. If I don't like my coworkers I have two options. Suck it up, or get fired. Why the hell should I let people entrusted with guns, planes and fucking TANKS to operate with any less maturity?age does not guarentee maturity.

just because someone grows older, doesn't mean that they grow UP.

add to the fact that if they are going to be childish about the differences in others, then treat em like children.

Frankly I think letting gays into the military openly would be perfectly natural selection. Anyone who has issues with it and those issues prevent them from doing their duty adequatly does not deserve to be a soldier.

Anyone who has issues with it and those issues prevent them from doing their duty does not deserve to have a job, period. and now we see the meat of the matter. you want Thought Police. you want people not to be free to be who they are, but free to think the ideas YOU want them to think and to penalize those who don't. you are for REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. Eye for an Eye. revenge.

nice.

Is there really that wide spread of a problem? I don't think the number of homophobic people in the military is greater than in the rest of the world.

age does not guarentee maturity.

just because someone grows older, doesn't mean that they grow UP.
And how is this relevant to the fact that people seerving in the military shold have some level of maturity?

add to the fact that if they are going to be childish about the differences in others, then treat em like children.

and now we see the meat of the matter. you want Thought Police. you want people not to be free to be who they are, but free to think the ideas YOU want them to think and to penalize those who don't. you are for REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. Eye for an Eye. revenge.

nice.

Oh, so you can read minds?

No?

Then step away from the strawman.

Also, there are methods to "telling" people things. you don't just start going on about your love life or any personal life to just anyone. you tell your close friends. the same with gay people. my late boss (died from Aids in the mid 90's) showed me his trust when one day, he just started talking about his boyfriend when I was around. before he was really quiet about it around me. but he tested the waters... found I really didn't care about who he slept with. and he drew me into his conversations with others. we were all cool about it. he didn't just start talking about his personal life... same as my other co-workers and their families.
The guys in my unit went on and on about the hookers and "stuff." They went on to any and everyone about their escapades. Which wasn't a problem beyond being a conversation that didn't interest me.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was the first attempt to allow gays into the military. should it be kept the same? no, it needs to evolve as time goes on. from a rule, it should be come policy. then a rule of thumb.

"Don't ask, Don't tell" should become a "they don't need to know." not a gag order, not a law, but advice. Some don't react to the news of one's gay... ness? very well. others handle it with stride. some take some time to get used to the idea. it's not their fault. nor is it the fault of the homosexual. but one has the information and has to use their common sense as to when and how to inform the other.
It was better than having people sign papers saying they weren't gay, which is what DADT replaced. It really is time to revise thinking, and really I don't think the majority of military think being gay is a big deal.

Still dodging the question, Junii--how would allowing a gay servicemember to be out be extending that servicemember preferential treatment to straight servicemembers?

Okay. But it's not necessarily denying who you are--and nor should it be. Meh, maybe it is. I don't know. I'm so apathetic these days.

Let me repeat the example I used earlier.

My fiance's brother currently serves in the special forces of the Air Force as a loadmaster on a C-130. He and his crew are often shipped off with little warning and without the ability to tell their family where they are going or. Even once they are there, they often cannot tell anyone where they are or what they are doing. Sometimes they come back rather unexpectedly. Luckily, nothing awful has happened yet, but there are certainly plans in place if it does.

Most of the guys in the crew are married - many with children. They have a phone tree that begins with their CO on base who will call one wife, who will then call the next, and so on.... This works if they are coming back with little notice, and would work if everyone needed to come to the base to hear bad news as well. Nobody has any problem with the fact that these men have wives, and that their wives' names are on a phone tree that originates with the CO.

Now, suppose there were a homosexual soldier on the crew. Suppose he had a spouse who he had been with for 10 years. Could he add his spouse's name to that list? Could he make sure that spouse was able to come and pick him up? Could he call that spouse on the phone from who-the-hell-knows-where and profess his love and the need to hear his spouse's voice without worry? The answer, by the way, is no. He couldn't even mention that spouse to any of the crew, as he would most likely be dishonorably discharged from the military - pretty much ruining his life.

Anyone who pretends that this isn't discriminatory doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.

I like it, but it should also be expanded to protect those who do decided to tell.

What would be the point if you were able to proclaim your sexuality? At that point, it wouldn't have any effect at all.

is it? has anyone in the military actually said "I'm Straight and PROUD of it"? or is it something that everyone assumes. ;)

It is something that they directly talk about. People in the military quite often talk about their spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, dates that they went on, who is hot in the latest issue of Maxim, etc.... People do that, of course, unless they are gay, as doing it then could get them dishonorably discharged.

answer 1:
dunno, s/he just does.... weird isn't it?

answer 2:
S/He fancies me. s/he hasn't done anything illegal, so I couldn't get a restraining order. but I'm used to the attention already, s/he not doing any harm.

answer 3:
I saved his/her life in High School... now s/he has this notion that his/her life is now mine. kinda like a maid/butler that I don't have to pay for.

Answer 4:
Dunno. is it affecting my performance sir?

Lovely. So they have to lie to their CO. Isn't that an offense punishable by court martial, other than just being a bad thing to have to do in the first place?

can't he put his... "wife" as a dependant?

No.

also can he make his "Wife" a contact in case of emergencies?

Not unless he wants them to start to rationally question his sexuality, and likely find out that he is homosexual.

except did you read the first sentence? protect those who do decide to tell. that means if others "figure it out" it should still be protected. they didn't ask, and technically, s/he didn't tell.

If there is no reason to kick someone out because you know they are homosexual, there is no reason whatsoever for the rule.

It's like saying, "I think we should have a 'don't ask, don't tell' rule about eating candy. You're CO can't ask you if you eat candy, and you can't tell if you eat candy. You won't get kicked out of the military for eating candy, though. If your CO catches you with candy or finds wrappers in the trash can, it means absolutely nothing. We just want this completely pointless rule on the books."

the point I thought, was the notion of "don't ask, don't tell" being a fair policy, and not the iron clad rule.

sure it needs working on. but to shitcan it because of a few flaws isn't right also.

"A few flaws"???? The entire concept is flawed from the start because it assumes that people of one sexual orientation are automatically worse soldiers than another, and hence should be treated differently than all other soldiers.

Th epolicy is Bullshit. It's a stupid, homofobic and bigoted practice that damages the military and the US.

But then again, homofobia is nothing new in the military. Not by a long shot.

What preference? No, seriously, what fucking preference are you talking about?

Apparently, it is "preference" if we get rid of the people causing the problem, instead of getting rid of someone just being a good soldier and living his life.

These are not children, they are soldiers. Frankly, I expect more from soldiers than I do from children. Likewise, if soldiers are not capable of behaving better than children, they don't deserve to be soldiers.

Indeed, it is dangerous to let them be soldiers.

Anyone who has issues with it and those issues prevent them from doing their duty does not deserve to have a job, period.

Precisely. It's kind of like the guy in the women in the military thread who stated that he wouldn't be able to command women. If having women in your unit would affect your ability to command, you shouldn't be a commander. It is the problem of the person who holds bigoted views, not that of the person who doesn't. If a soldier can't command/work with a black, white, latino, male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, etc., etc., etc. soldier, that is the problem of that particular soldier, not of the person they can't work with. If there are to be measures taken, they must be taken against the person who has a problem working with others.


add to the fact that if they are going to be childish about the differences in others, then treat em like children.

If they are going to be childish, they aren't mature enough to be in charge of military weaponry. We don't put children in the military for a reason.

and now we see the meat of the matter. you want Thought Police. you want people not to be free to be who they are, but free to think the ideas YOU want them to think and to penalize those who don't. you are for REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. Eye for an Eye. revenge.

Nice strawman you built there. I'll burn it for you.

It isn't a matter of thought police or any type of discrimination. It is a matter of action. A soldier can think that a woman's place is in the home all he wants - as long as it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. If it gets in the way, he is the problem. He is likely a danger to the rest of his unit and must be removed. Likewise, a soldier can think being gay is wrong and nasty or whatever they want to think. But if that attitude makes them a sub-par soldier, then they are the sub-par soldier, not the gay person they can't deal with. We remove sub-par soldiers from the military. We shouldn't remove good soldiers just because some sub-par soldiers can't deal with them.

I was listening to a story on the radio about how female soldiers in Iraq are afraid for their lives because they are constantly in danger of men in their own squad sexually attacking them. Their own commanders have told them not to go out alone (this is on base), especially at night.

Now, I hear there are "tens of thousands of gay men serving in the military". Why aren't other men afraid that they are going to get raped? :P

I think that if these gay men were allowed to be open about their sexuality they can befriend the women and protect them!

I was listening to a story on the radio about how female soldiers in Iraq are afraid for their lives because they are constantly in danger of men in their own squad sexually attacking them. Their own commanders have told them not to go out alone (this is on base), especially at night.
Another indication that the US forces are in serious need of proper training...

then why do you support a policy that prevents gays from openly serving in the military?

Its a personal thing. I do not care if they are gay. Just some flaunt it so much that it becomes disgusting. Watch a Gay Pride parade sometime.

If you don't have a problem with it, why do you support something that prevents it?

maybe because it is a personal thing that should not be the concern of anyone?

What are the stipulations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

To my knowledge, it prevents individuals from asking another if s/he is gay, and warns those who are to not disclose that information.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me...

No it does not sound reasonable. People do not understand that it is a personal thing.

It doesn't sound unreasonable to fundamentally deny a large part of who they are?

How would the average person feel if DADT applied to religion?

Its the way the federal government works. They are not allowed to ask us our religion and we are under no obligation to state what our religion is :D

can't he put his... "wife" as a dependant? also can he make his "Wife" a contact in case of emergencies?

All that does is list the person as a place of contact. That is all very reasonable.

putting a male as an emergency contact is grounds for dissmissal?

Nope

except did you read the first sentence? protect those who do decide to tell. that means if others "figure it out" it should still be protected. they didn't ask, and technically, s/he didn't tell.

And basiclly it is an allegation without concrete proof.

except emergency contact isn't just wife. can be friend, relative or anyone.

Yep

the point I thought, was the notion of "don't ask, don't tell" being a fair policy, and not the iron clad rule.

Indeed. All it is is just policy.

sure it needs working on. but to shitcan it because of a few flaws isn't right also.

Hear Hear

Its a personal thing. I do not care if they are gay. Just some flaunt it so much that it becomes disgusting. Watch a Gay Pride parade sometime.
So now we're to the heart of the matter. Gay MEN shouldn't be gay because it's icky.

maybe because it is a personal thing that should not be the concern of anyone?

And I'd prefer if Christians couldn't wear their crosses, have churches along main roads, engage in public prayer or protest the concerts I enjoy attending. It's really not my right to say they can't.

Its a personal thing. I do not care if they are gay. Just some flaunt it so much that it becomes disgusting. Watch a Gay Pride parade sometime.

God I hate heteros, they flaunt it and it becomes disgusting. Just watch practically any Hollywood movie sometime.


maybe because it is a personal thing that should not be the concern of anyone?


Thankfully "It's a personal thing" is not justification to keep the policy in place.

Its the way the federal government works. They are not allowed to ask us our religion and we are under no obligation to state what our religion is :D

Except that religion is a choice, and sexuality isn't. :rolleyes:

Sure there's a way to change the policy so that it's fair.

make it so that the military still has no right to ask what their sexual orientation is and the soldier still has a right not to tell them what it is, but change it so that if their sexual orientation is found out that it is no longer grounds for dismissal and instead they can only shrugh their shoulders and do nothing about it instead.

Now I ask you: What's wrong with that?

Its the way the federal government works. They are not allowed to ask us our religion and we are under no obligation to state what our religion is :D

And you can still go about your business wearing your cross. Oh, and you can pray and go to church on your off time. And you don't have to worry about getting fired if you come in late on ash wednesday with the ash cross on your head.

So now we're to the heart of the matter. Gay MEN shouldn't be gay because it's icky.

Did I say that? No I didnt. Grow up :rolleyes:

And I'd prefer if Christians couldn't wear their crosses, have churches along main roads, engage in public prayer or protest the concerts I enjoy attending. It's really not my right to say they can't.

Indeed for the US Constitution protects those rights.

Sure there's a way to change the policy so that it's fair.

make it so that the military still has no right to ask what their sexual orientation is and the soldier still has a right not to tell them what it is, but change it so that if their sexual orientation is found out that it is no longer grounds for dismissal and instead they can only shrugh their shoulders and do nothing about it instead.

Now I ask you: What's wrong with that?

But that would require everyone to be reasonable. And by everyone I mean homophobes.

God I hate heteros, they flaunt it and it becomes disgusting. Just watch practically any Hollywood movie sometime.

LOL! Why do you think I hate hollyweird? LMAO!!!!

Thankfully "It's a personal thing" is not justification to keep the policy in place.

That's all it is. Policy. Just because something is policy does not mean people have to follow it 100% of the time.

I think the don't ask/don't tell policy sucks.

Sure there's a way to change the policy so that it's fair.

make it so that the military still has no right to ask what their sexual orientation is and the soldier still has a right not to tell them what it is, but change it so that if their sexual orientation is found out that it is no longer grounds for dismissal and instead they can only shrugh their shoulders and do nothing about it instead.

Now I ask you: What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. If they want to change policy to that, I'll support it.

And you can still go about your business wearing your cross. Oh, and you can pray and go to church on your off time. And you don't have to worry about getting fired if you come in late on ash wednesday with the ash cross on your head.

Ash Wed. services are mostly at night :rolleyes:

Its a personal thing. I do not care if they are gay. Just some flaunt it so much that it becomes disgusting. Watch a Gay Pride parade sometime.
See question 7 especially.
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/may06/quiz16g.gif

Did I say that? No I didnt. Grow up :rolleyes:
No, it's you who needs to grow up. You called a gay pride parade disgusting. You said flaunting gayness was disgusting.



Indeed for the US Constitution protects those rights.
And gay people deserve that same protection. It's the same thing.

Ash Wed. services are mostly at night :rolleyes:

No they are not. Go to a catechism class.

Absolutely nothing. If they want to change policy to that, I'll support it.

Then wouldn't doing away with the policy and not putting one in it's place do the exact same thing?

No, it's you who needs to grow up. You called a gay pride parade disgusting. You said flaunting gayness was disgusting.

Yes the gay pride parade is disgusting. I've seen the pictures. It is disgusting. As to flaunting it, the way those who participate in the gay pride do it is disgusting.

Being gay is not icky at all. A few of my friends are gay/lesbians. I have no problem with them and I do not get "weirded out" when I am with them.

And gay people deserve that same protection. It's the same thing.

Agreed. :p

No they are not. Go to a catechism class.

I'm not Catholic so kiss my Methodist ass.

I'm not Catholic so kiss my Methodist ass.

Didn't your Methodist mother teach you not to curse? Or fundies can do anything as long as they hate gays?

LOL! Why do you think I hate hollyweird? LMAO!!!!



That's all it is. Policy. Just because something is policy does not mean people have to follow it 100% of the time.

I don't think you understand. It's a military policy handed down from the President of the United Fucking States. They follow it, and to suggest that they don't follow it 100% of the time is either idiocy or ignorance.

I'm not Catholic so kiss my Methodist ass.

He doesn't need to. He proved you wrong.

You fail at debate.

Didn't your Methodist mother teach you not to curse? Or fundies can do anything as long as they hate gays?

My mother is non-demoninational. :D

See question 7 especially.
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/may06/quiz16g.gif

hah thats awesome