Military and homosexuals

[Raesvelg]

And I will stick to my position regarding your claims, and the binary set of options therein.

And again, you're defending an untenable position, and doing it through a patently ridiculous means. "The topic never comes up" is obviously untrue. You can claim otherwise, but your claim, as made, is predicated upon the idea of almost zero down time during the "work" day, and that each individual soldier despises everyone else in the military and disappears in order to avoid them the instant that the opportunity presents itself.

Why not just accept that the policy is ridiculous and cannot be defended?

 

[masterorion]

i guess you know more about being in the military than myself. keep telling yourself that. as the original statement i made: dont ask dont tell is easy to follow. you dont get asked, you have no reason to tell. contemplate that. im done trying to reinforce it to you because you dont listen to it. if it does come in conversation as it apparently does for you so often, you are bound to not tell as they are not supposed to be asking per the UCMJ.

end of story.

 

[Raesvelg]

To borrow Tag's point from earlier in the thread, sure, it's simple.

All you have to do is drink from the "Colored" fountains, sit in the "Colored" sections, and nobody will bother you. It's such a simple law, I don't see why those damn negroes keep complaining about it.

 

[masterorion]

exactly. difference being military members know the consequence and agree to it through contract.
congrats to that rule going away soon, but for now, it is what it is

 

[Saocide]

Woah was there a horrible comparison of Blacks to Gays? I know someone doesn't even think that's a remotely fair comparison.

 

[Halifirien]

so, half, there is your "double standard". both parties in the "dont ask dont tell" policy are punishible. whether or not both parties are punished is a whole different ball of wax

You are mistaken. Hetero soldiers are not discharged simply for letting it be known they are heterosexual. Discharges only come down when gay and bi soldiers are uncovered. It is not an equal standard, no matter how much you may like it to think it is. We are selectively punishing a minority for being unable to maintain a social standard we do not require of the majority of military. We single them out to discourage enlistment and use the policy as a club to remove them from the ranks when they "step out of line."

 

[masterorion]

its good to see your selective hearing is in effect to help you try to win your argument...
it is true that hetero soldiers wont be discharged for stating their sexuality. HOWEVER, they are punishable under the UCMJ for asking ANY soldier their sexual pref. but it seems you have conveniently didnt bother to read that part. i also mentioned that in that instance, those soldiers that ask may not be punished. i have yet to ever hear of anyone be charged for asking. but im guessing the "Asking" doesnt happen often.


perhaps you should read the reason why the policy is put in place. has nothing to do with discouraging enlistment. it may be a bi-product, but it isnt the intent. those that feel they can hide it dont have a problem enlisting. and this is obvious. there are many homosexuals in the military at this point. you make it sound like they are all being discharged. when it comes down to it, it is on the shoulders of the commanding officer for that members outcome. you want to blame anyone, blame that person. or blame the person that opened their trap

so, ill end this. your right, end of story.

have a good night

 

[Celvantes]

We just had this briefing with a JAG officer, and he had a much easier way of explaining it.

The rule is not "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," at least, that's not all of it.

The prohibition is not against homosexual orientation. You can be as gay as you want in the military. The prohibition is against homosexual conduct. This is defined as homosexual acts or statements that one is a homosexual.

Why is this rule in place? Because in the view of the military, homosexual conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline. Why does the military hold this view? Let me illustrate with this example:

Remember Starship Troopers when the men and women were all showering together? If you never saw the movie, google the scene.

Ok, now picture the shitstorm that would happen if the military actually forced men and women to share the same shower facilities.

Now, understand that in certain deployed conditions communal showers are the only option for troops.

Now, imagine the shitstorm that would happen if there were openly gay military members serving in such an environment. The argument from any troop offended by it would be: (say it's a woman) if you don't make me bathe in front of men, why do you make me bathe in front of a lesbian who would be just as attracted to me as they are? The same argument holds true with male communal showers when talking about gays.

Would everyone have this problem? No, but enough would.

So what would the military do then, build separate bathing facilities for homosexuals? No, the ACLU would be all over that because that's segregation.


That is one of the many reasons homosexual conduct is considered prejudicial to good order and discipline in the military (all Navy jokes aside). If the president goes ahead and rams this particular piece of change through, there will probably be a number of lawsuits on both sides before the dust finally settles.

 

[Halifirien]

Being gay doesn't mean you can't keep your eye to yourself in the shower. Straight soldiers are showering with gay soldiers now. One of my best friends is gay and serving, and he told me it was only entertaining the first time but that he quickly get desensitized to it and just stopped caring.

Remember Starship Troopers when the men and women were all showering together? If you never saw the movie, google the scene.

Normally I'd say "Best scene in the movie," but Casper's buns of steel can't really compare to Michael Ironside growling "Something sucked his brain out."

 

[Dancingweapon]

We just had this briefing with a JAG officer, and he had a much easier way of explaining it.

The rule is not "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," at least, that's not all of it.

The prohibition is not against homosexual orientation. You can be as gay as you want in the military. The prohibition is against homosexual conduct. This is defined as homosexual acts or statements that one is a homosexual.

Why is this rule in place? Because in the view of the military, homosexual conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline. Why does the military hold this view? Let me illustrate with this example:

Remember Starship Troopers when the men and women were all showering together? If you never saw the movie, google the scene.

Ok, now picture the shitstorm that would happen if the military actually forced men and women to share the same shower facilities.

Now, understand that in certain deployed conditions communal showers are the only option for troops.

Now, imagine the shitstorm that would happen if there were openly gay military members serving in such an environment. The argument from any troop offended by it would be: (say it's a woman) if you don't make me bathe in front of men, why do you make me bathe in front of a lesbian who would be just as attracted to me as they are? The same argument holds true with male communal showers when talking about gays.

Would everyone have this problem? No, but enough would.

So what would the military do then, build separate bathing facilities for homosexuals? No, the ACLU would be all over that because that's segregation.


That is one of the many reasons homosexual conduct is considered prejudicial to good order and discipline in the military (all Navy jokes aside). If the president goes ahead and rams this particular piece of change through, there will probably be a number of lawsuits on both sides before the dust finally settles.

That's the biggest load of bullshit ever. Gay people shower with straight people everywhere and the straights know it. The gym? At school showers etc.

 

[Celvantes]

Again, you have the choice to shower at the gym or shower at home, military folks are forced to shower in a given place when they are deployed.

Are gay men showering with straight men in the military now (and likewise with lesbians and straight women)? Yes. However under the current setup, the straight troops shouldn't know it. Would most care? Probably not, but the whole point of the measure is for those who would.

One of my best friends is gay and serving, and he told me it was only entertaining the first time

And I ask, what happens if it never stops being entertaining? How would the straight troops feel if they found out after living with the guy for months?

I serve in the Air Force now, where from just asking around I know people really don't care about this. However, I've spent a *lot* of time with Marines, and I don't know if they would react the same way. I do know of a case where NCOs had to intervene to protect the life of a young guy when his unit found out he was gay. There was an honest fear that he was going to get beaten to death.

How combat effective is that unit when you've got 8 guys under arrest for murdering one of their own?

 

[Celvantes]

A bunch of officers and I were talking about this at dinner. We've had a change of heart. Being openly gay in the military is totally cool... Just so long as you let us use the term "gay" to describe retarded military policy.

 

[Halifirien]

A bunch of officers and I were talking about this at dinner. We've had a change of heart. Being openly gay in the military is totally cool... Just so long as you let us use the term "gay" to describe retarded military policy.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. If not, then I'm glad to hear it. I'm not a fan of people using the word "gay" as a negative, but I can compromise.

To go back to the previous point, I don't give a flying fuck why eight men would murder one of their own. Their combat effectiveness is worthless anyway if they have that kind of impulse control. You can't blame that on the gay guy. The problem with DADT is that we're asking gay people to keep it secret so it becomes a surprise and betrayal (sometimes) when the others find out.

I'd think it would be better to know in advance who's gay and possibly scoping you out so you can turn away from him in the shower and flash your junk to the closet case.

 

[Skaw]

You are mistaken. Hetero soldiers are not discharged simply for letting it be known they are heterosexual. Discharges only come down when gay and bi soldiers are uncovered. It is not an equal standard, no matter how much you may like it to think it is. We are selectively punishing a minority for being unable to maintain a social standard we do not require of the majority of military. We single them out to discourage enlistment and use the policy as a club to remove them from the ranks when they "step out of line."

Exactly. Let's not forget about all the photos, wedding rings(though not clear, it's obvious depending on what state they're from,) "MY WIFE/GIRLFRIEND," "MY CHILDREN" that goes between soldiers. If that's not a violation of DADT, "I'm gay" shouldn't be as well.

Honestly, anyone who is uneasy about serving besides someone different than them to the point that is interrupts their work shouldn't be allowed in the armed forces in the first place. War is too serious of a situation for juvenile mentality.

 

[neville]

If we can die protecting the country, we should be able to do so as ourselves.
That being said, *I* don't want to do it, but there are others who do!

 

[Celvantes]

We had another discussion about this at lunch today. Currently the DoD is working on a plan to get rid of don't ask, don't tell, and we're 90% sure that this is how it's going to go down:

1. DoD makes it unlawful to boot someone for being openly gay.
2. 10% of the military comes out of the closet. 95% of this group are in the Navy, and 'In The Navy' by the Village People officially replaces 'Anchors Away' as the Navy song (I'm kidding).
3. Someone complains about the shower issue I mentioned before. Or, someone complains at being assigned a gay roommate in the deployed environment and states that the military never forces men and women to bunk together, why should he have to bunk with a homosexual?
4. Military spends crapton of money building separate bathing facilities and creates separate areas to quarter homosexuals in-theater.
5. ACLU sues the government on the basis that separate facilities constitutes 'segregation.'
6. Military compromises on the bathing facilities and does away with the extra ones, separating the orientations by staggering shower times instead of building separate facilities in a deployed environment. Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted. Separate quartering facilities are still maintained under the same principle that men and women are not quartered together in-theater.
7. The issue is finally fucking settled and we can get back to more important things, like finding and killing the fuckwits who set up IEDs. Or, you know, putting a bomb through bin Laden's forehead.

Also, I was being completely serious about formally changing the meaning of the word 'gay.' It is, by far, the best and most emotionally accurate way to describe idiotic military thinking, and I'd rather be able to do it without looking over my shoulder worried that I might offend someone.

 

[Rips]

Also, I was being completely serious about formally changing the meaning of the word 'gay.' It is, by far, the best and most emotionally accurate way to describe idiotic military thinking, and I'd rather be able to do it without looking over my shoulder worried that I might offend someone.

I don't get it. What does that word have to do with a poor military idea.

Also, not to stomp on your free speech or censor you, but describing policy with that word will offend someone whether you know they're gay or not, so don't bother looking over your shoulder, they'll still hear you.

 

[Skaw]

3. Someone complains about the shower issue I mentioned before. Or, someone complains at being assigned a gay roommate in the deployed environment and states that the military never forces men and women to bunk together, why should he have to bunk with a homosexual?

"Why should I have to bunk with them ++++++s!"

Honestly, anyone who is uneasy about serving besides someone different than them to the point that is interrupts their work shouldn't be allowed in the armed forces in the first place. War is too serious of a situation for juvenile mentality.

Contrary to schoolyard belief, a homosexual is not going to bone you in the showers when you reach for the soap or put your/their dick in their/your mouth when you fall asleep.

 

[Thelona]

Contrary to schoolyard belief, a homosexual is not going to bone you in the showers when you reach for the soap or put your/their dick in their/your mouth when you fall asleep.

except for miros.




In all seriousness tho, i think its past time gays should be allowed to come out in the military, sorry but i think this whole idea that soldiers dont talk about thier personal lives/ wife/kids/ sexual conquests, is total bullshit.

Soldiers grow closer to each other then any friends, they become more then friends or even brothers, the idea that youd never hear or mention your personal life is ludicrous.

 

[Stine]

I read this article today and it brought up some points that most people don't think about when talking about this policy. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/darrah.personal.history.gay.military.experience/index.html
Not everyone who is gay in the military knew that they were when they joined. Yes, she could have left the Navy much sooner but the part about her partner possibly being the last person to find out if she died was sad. Honestly I'd rather gays in the military be free to worry about their jobs and not have to spend time worrying about people finding out that they are gay.