Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What are your opinions on the "Don't ask, don't tell." policies the that US military has had in place for many years?

Recently, there has been some upheaval and a call to remove this policy.

Some legislation went through congress, this past May, but I don't think it's permanent.



Discuss DADT: support your reasons for against this policy.


Also, I would like to see some legal suggestions to DADT, if this policy can be improved.









My personal opinion on it: repeal it, permanantly. Military personnel that persecute homo or bisexuals should be punished to the full extent. As for whether it should be military court of civilian court, I don't know. If someone with more knowledge of why it wouldn't be a corrupt situation to put them through military court, I'm all ears.

Abolish it. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

hopNAI8Pefg

OCLN4_57i-o

Of course gays should be able to serve. The question I have is what do we do about berthings? Males and females have seperate berthings, both in port and on ship. If we have openly gay males, do we now allow gays to be bunked with straights? If there are two men sharing a barracks room, should a straight male be forced to dress and undress in front of someone he knows is gay? On ships where 80 men dress and shower in front of each other, is it fair to force a straight male or female to do so in front of a gay male or female? In boot camp where showering sometimes requires twenty people nude showering together, is it fair to force a straight male to lather up in front of a gay male?

Should gays be allowed to serve? Absolutely. The real question is how we bunk. For some services, like the Navy and Marine Corps, the idea is more problematic and it becomes a logistical nightmare, not necessarily an ethical one. Currently, most services have private rooms and showers allocated to junior service members serving ashore. Deployments are very different, especially on ship.

I absolutely believe in fair and equal rights for gays and straights, but we have to fix certain issues before, I believe, it's feasible to repeal the policy.

Yes they should bunk together. Even men and women should be able to bunk together. I find it a weakness of our culture that we can't handle being around people nude. Australian Aboriginals for instance used to always go around naked and they never had any problems because they didn't have such a stupidly modest attitude.

What does it matter if someone who's gay is bunked with someone who isn't? Just because they prefer their own gender doesn't mean they're going to automatically be attracted to everyone of their own gender. How ridiculous. The only issue there is extreme arrogance and insecurities on the part of those who worry about such things.

Originally posted by Peach
What does it matter if someone who's gay is bunked with someone who isn't? Just because they prefer their own gender doesn't mean they're going to automatically be attracted to everyone of their own gender. How ridiculous. The only issue there is extreme arrogance and insecurities on the part of those who worry about such things.
By that logic, women should be forced to shower in front of men also. Obviously, men aren't attracted to everyone woman they see. Do you advocate that?

Originally posted by Kinneary
Of course gays should be able to serve. The question I have is what do we do about berthings? Males and females have seperate berthings, both in port and on ship. If we have openly gay males, do we now allow gays to be bunked with straights? If there are two men sharing a barracks room, should a straight male be forced to dress and undress in front of someone he knows is gay? On ships where 80 men dress and shower in front of each other, is it fair to force a straight male or female to do so in front of a gay male or female? In boot camp where showering sometimes requires twenty people nude showering together, is it fair to force a straight male to lather up in front of a gay male?

Should gays be allowed to serve? Absolutely. The real question is how we bunk. For some services, like the Navy and Marine Corps, the idea is more problematic and it becomes a logistical nightmare, not necessarily an ethical one. Currently, most services have private rooms and showers allocated to junior service members serving ashore. Deployments are very different, especially on ship.

I absolutely believe in fair and equal rights for gays and straights, but we have to fix certain issues before, I believe, it's feasible to repeal the policy.

Excellent post and I agree with just about everything.


As far as bunking, yeah, that can be problematic. BUT, that can easily be avoided if there are stiff penalties for harassment for either side, just like a real job.



Originally posted by Kinneary
By that logic, women should be forced to shower in front of men also. Obviously, men aren't attracted to everyone woman they see. Do you advocate that?

Wow, I did not think about it that way. I was agreeing, fully, with Peach, until I read your reply.

I have no logical reply to your above rebuttal. I can't think of anything that soundly defeats your point.


Maybe if the sexes were physically equal? I'd agree that they should bunk. As of right now, there exists a very significant sexual sexual asymmetry. Until that is resolved, one sex will be more subject to sexual assault than the other.

Gene therapy for the win?

There's only sexual assault because of our culture... there is absolutely no reason, biologically, why sexes should have any problem being nude together.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There's only sexual assault because of our culture...

I seriously doubt that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I seriously doubt that.
OK, that wasn't quite correct. I guess I should have said, showering together would only provoke sexual assault because of our culture.

Changing our culture and changing the logistics of berthing aren't really comparable. Changing our culture isn't a particularly feasible military option in this respect. An easier, cheaper, quicker, and more realistic solution would be to change the living conditions in which service members are housed.

In a perfect world, men and women and gays and straights could all be bunked together in the military. But, in a perfect world, there would also be no need for a military to begin with. So let's stop talking about 'perfect world' scenarios and start concentrating on real world ones, eh?

OK. I don't think serious problems would result in them bunking together. Personally I thought it was a more interesting topic discussing why we would even expect it to be a problem.

Because, realistically, it is. Would you force your mother, sister or daughter to shower or get undressed in front of strange men? I'd assume not.

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, that wasn't quite correct. I guess I should have said, showering together would only provoke sexual assault because of our culture.

Our culture which is so pro sexual assault?

Originally posted by Kinneary
Of course gays should be able to serve. The question I have is what do we do about berthings? Males and females have seperate berthings, both in port and on ship. If we have openly gay males, do we now allow gays to be bunked with straights? If there are two men sharing a barracks room, should a straight male be forced to dress and undress in front of someone he knows is gay? On ships where 80 men dress and shower in front of each other, is it fair to force a straight male or female to do so in front of a gay male or female? In boot camp where showering sometimes requires twenty people nude showering together, is it fair to force a straight male to lather up in front of a gay male?

Should gays be allowed to serve? Absolutely. The real question is how we bunk. For some services, like the Navy and Marine Corps, the idea is more problematic and it becomes a logistical nightmare, not necessarily an ethical one. Currently, most services have private rooms and showers allocated to junior service members serving ashore. Deployments are very different, especially on ship.

I absolutely believe in fair and equal rights for gays and straights, but we have to fix certain issues before, I believe, it's feasible to repeal the policy.

good post, but I disagree.

i appreciate the way you are going about this however, i think you may be overstating the awkwardness of bunking/showering together. My roommate freshman year of college was gay but i'm not and it never was an issue. he knew i was straight so there was no sexual tension because there never was a chance anything could happen. And hey, even if he didn't know i was straight, he probably wasn't attracted me anyways ( as much as it hurts my ego cuz like all straight men, i find myself damn attractive)

People seem to assume that gay people are attracted to everyone of their own sex, but this obviously isn't the case. So long as heterosexuals understand this, than they should have nothing to worry about. If straight people are uncomfortable about showering with gays then that discomfort is most likely created by their own perceptions of homosexuality rather than the thoughts or actions of any homosexuals.

So long as you trust our men and women in uniform to conduct themselves professionally, and so long as they trust each other to do so, there should be no problem and gay men and women should be able to serve openly.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
good post, but I disagree.

i appreciate the way you are going about this however, i think you may be overstating the awkwardness of bunking/showering together. My roommate freshman year of college was gay but i'm not and it never was an issue. he knew i was straight so there was no sexual tension because there never was a chance anything could happen. And hey, even if he didn't know i was straight, he probably wasn't attracted me anyways ( as much as it hurts my ego cuz like all straight men, i find myself damn attractive)

People seem to assume that gay people are attracted to everyone of their own sex, but this obviously isn't the case. So long as heterosexuals understand this, than they should have nothing to worry about. If straight people are uncomfortable about showering with gays then that discomfort is most likely created by their own perceptions of homosexuality rather than the thoughts or actions of any homosexuals.

So long as you trust our men and women in uniform to conduct themselves professionally, and so long as they trust each other to do so, there should be no problem and gay men and women should be able to serve openly.
As a man in uniform, I can let you know that we're people just like anyone else. The conversations we have in the workplace are just as dirty as any that go on in the civilian sector. And we talk about sex just like civilians. And we have one night stands and guys and girls who just **** for fun just like civilians. Military members are just as promiscuous as their civilian counterparts if not more so (ask anyone who's ever been to A School). I love it when civilians buy me beers and tell me thanks, but to be honest I'm just the same as anyone else with as many flaws and stupid decisions and selfish motives.

Your situation with your gay roommate, while moving, isn't the same thing. Did you ever shower naked in front of him, for example?

Once again, by the logic you're using, males and females should be forced to shower together, since not every male is attracted to every female he sees.

Again, there should not be a problem with men and women showering together. Where I live people go to a country fair where it is exceedingly common for women to go topless or some even completely nude. Some men do so as well. Nobody complains about it because everyone is comfortable about their sexuality.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
good post, but I disagree.

i appreciate the way you are going about this however, i think you may be overstating the awkwardness of bunking/showering together. My roommate freshman year of college was gay but i'm not and it never was an issue. he knew i was straight so there was no sexual tension because there never was a chance anything could happen. And hey, even if he didn't know i was straight, he probably wasn't attracted me anyways ( as much as it hurts my ego cuz like all straight men, i find myself damn attractive)

People seem to assume that gay people are attracted to everyone of their own sex, but this obviously isn't the case. So long as heterosexuals understand this, than they should have nothing to worry about. If straight people are uncomfortable about showering with gays then that discomfort is most likely created by their own perceptions of homosexuality rather than the thoughts or actions of any homosexuals.

So long as you trust our men and women in uniform to conduct themselves professionally, and so long as they trust each other to do so, there should be no problem and gay men and women should be able to serve openly.


Indeed. I find it hard to believe that a group of gay men would rape a straight guy...like a group of straight men would rape a girl. Men are bastards.

And, King Kandy, I think that sexual assault from men to women is not a cultural thing at all. To me, it's more bestial than it is culture, by far. There's lots of examples of rape in the animal kingdom, outside of humans. And some of the rape is for the very same "reasons" as humans'.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again, there should not be a problem with men and women showering together. Where I live people go to a country fair where it is exceedingly common for women to go topless or some even completely nude. Some men do so as well. Nobody complains about it because everyone is comfortable about their sexuality.

Okay, we'll only recruit soldiers from your town.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again, there should not be a problem with men and women showering together. Where I live people go to a country fair where it is exceedingly common for women to go topless or some even completely nude. Some men do so as well. Nobody complains about it because everyone is comfortable about their sexuality.
Crime shouldn't happen, either. Should we keep cops off the street?

Granted that's an extreme comparison, but a fair one, I think. There are situations that shouldn't happen, but do, and we have safeguards in place to prevent them. Repealing those safe guards doesn't make sense if the issue is present.


I actually LOLed at that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I find it hard to believe that a group of gay men would rape a straight guy...like a group of straight men would rape a girl. Men are bastards.

And, King Kandy, I think that sexual assault from men to women is not a cultural thing at all. To me, it's more bestial than it is culture, by far. There's lots of examples of rape in the animal kingdom, outside of humans. And some of the rape is for the very same "reasons" as humans'.
Of course sexual assault is not because of culture. What i'm saying is, it's our culture that would cause showering together to create a problem. I already gave the example of aboriginees, but many cultures have existed where nobody wore any clothes at all. They did not have any problems being nude together. Being uncomfortable showering with the other sex is a completely artificial construct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, we'll only recruit soldiers from your town.
I was thinking more like, "the rest of america should be more like that".

Originally posted by King Kandy
I was thinking more like, "the rest of america should be more like that".

How dare people differ!
What will happen to individuality if we don't force people to act the way you want them to?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Of course sexual assault is not because of culture. What i'm saying is, it's our culture that would cause showering together to create a problem. I already gave the example of aboriginees, but many cultures have existed where nobody wore any clothes at all. They did not have any problems being nude together. Being uncomfortable showering with the other sex is a completely artificial construct.

And here I thought you would use the bonobos vs. common chimpanzees temperaments to counter my point.

Even in the case of those two chimps...I think they rape still occurs among the bonobos, at times...it's just really really really rare.




Would you like to know that rape and molestation is highly common among Australian Aborigine and it goes back "ages" before modern man "poisoned" them with their "civility"? Yes, lots of things are in quotes by I do not intend direct meanings from their use.


In other words, I think you example is shit and it flies directly in the face of your point. However, we could be talking about two different aboriginal peoples. (As I am not aware of any aboriginal peoples that did not have rape or molestation...as that seems universal.)


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How dare people differ!
What will happen to individuality if we don't force people to act the way you want them to?

Hey, don't knock it until you've tried it!

More directly, I REALLY believe the world would be a better place if everyone was more like me. awesome

Originally posted by dadudemon
Would you like to know that rape and molestation is highly common among Australian Aborigine and it goes back "ages" before modern man "poisoned" them with their "civility"? Yes, lots of things are in quotes by I do not intend direct meanings from their use.


In other words, I think you example is shit and it flies directly in the face of your point. However, we could be talking about two different aboriginal peoples. (As I am not aware of any aboriginal peoples that did not have rape or molestation...as that seems universal.)
At this point I think you would have to almost be trying to misunderstand me. I already said (multiple times) that there is a natural tendency for rape to occur. I already said that and you have been ignoring it every time.

What I DID say was that I did not feel there was a natural tendency for NUDITY to provoke sexual assault. I did not know that rape was any more common in aboriginees, some native americans, some south american natives, etc. then there was in a culture where people are clothed. I would definitely appreciate a source if that is your claim here. If you are saying that it is a non-cultural phenomenon for people to not be able to shower with the other gender without there being sexual tension, then we would have to believe that cultures that don't use clothes, rape would be a completely pervasive thing that is constantly going on every day to the extent that it far exceeds anything that is thinkable in western culture.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How dare people differ!
What will happen to individuality if we don't force people to act the way you want them to?
Um, if it keeps people from being OK with gays in the military (meaning the military actually has less people and is less capable) then it is a definite, empirical weakness to have that attitude towards sexuality.

As this theoretical culture where nudity is no issue isn't pertinent to a realistic discussion of current military policy, perhaps we should save it for another thread?

It's very pertinent. It relates to how people would deal with bunking. And they aren't theoretical these are actual, existing cultures i'm talking about.

And you propose this culture could take hold across America in the next year? Or five years?

Originally posted by King Kandy
At this point I think you would have to almost be trying to misunderstand me. I already said (multiple times) that there is a natural tendency for rape to occur. I already said that and you have been ignoring it every time.

What I DID say was that I did not feel there was a natural tendency for NUDITY to provoke sexual assault. I did not know that rape was any more common in aboriginees, some native americans, some south american natives, etc. then there was in a culture where people are clothed. I would definitely appreciate a source if that is your claim here. If you are saying that it is a non-cultural phenomenon for people to not be able to shower with the other gender without there being sexual tension, then we would have to believe that cultures that don't use clothes, rape would be a completely pervasive thing that is constantly going on every day to the extent that it far exceeds anything that is thinkable in western culture.

No, I saw your point and you're making non sequitor points.

How can I prove that rape is higher due, specifically, to their nudity? How can you prove that it is lower? Those are non sequitor constructs.


And, it's common knowledge, to me, that rape is much higher among Australian Aboriginals.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

http://www.australian-news.com.au/aborepresent.htm



You would need to delve into the psychology of sexual assault, when "male dominance and entitlement" are not even a factor. That'd have to be a very massive, "closed environment" observation and test on humans. How could you even accomplish that? So, put humans, naked, in a shower, and tell me if any of them get raped.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I saw your point and you're making non sequitor points.

How can I prove that rape is higher due, specifically, to their nudity? How can you prove that it is lower? Those are non sequitor constructs.
These 'non sequitor points' were my entire argument. You act like i'm going on some kind of tangent here when i'm just saying the same thing as I ever was.


Originally posted by dadudemon
And, it's common knowledge, to me, that rape is much higher among Australian Aboriginals.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

http://www.australian-news.com.au/aborepresent.htm
The first source doesn't really prove much because it isn't about aboriginals. The second source is garbage. Reading that site you should have been able to tell, easily, that it is highly biased, evident in the way it demeans all of the contrary arguments, which actual valid journalists just don't do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You would need to delve into the psychology of sexual assault, when "male dominance and entitlement" are not even a factor. That'd have to be a very massive, "closed environment" observation and test on humans. How could you even accomplish that? So, put humans, naked, in a shower, and tell me if any of them get raped.
I think it would depend on where you got them from.

Jesus christ, this doesn't matter! The culture that Kandy is talking about ISN'T our culture. It's not a culture that can even be implemented in the next twenty to fifty years. It's not relevant! It's an entirely different discussion, with no bearing on the topic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
These 'non sequitor points' were my entire argument. You act like i'm going on some kind of tangent here when i'm just saying the same thing as I ever was.

I'm not acting like anything. I didn't address a non-sequitor point as it doesn't get us anywhere.



Originally posted by King Kandy
The first source doesn't really prove much because it isn't about aboriginals. The second source is garbage. Reading that site you should have been able to tell, easily, that it is highly biased, evident in the way it demeans all of the contrary arguments, which actual valid journalists just don't do.

The first source is to show you how high Australia's rape is on the list...which has an absurd and disproportionate contribution from the aboriginal peoples. (In other words, per capita, the Aboriginals rape a lot more.)

And, it took me all of 30 seconds to find those two links.

And, the second link is not garbage. I know it doesn't fit your points, very well, and that can be frustrating. But, if you're looking for something other than a site trying to bring awareness to crimes, just google search for something...or just talk to a judge, police officer, case-worker, etc. that has jurisdiction over the aboriginal peoples. Or, you could just watch Australian news.

For me, it's common knowledge. I don't know of one person that isn't aware of the horrendous sexual abuses that occur among the Australian Aboriginals. You'd be the first educated, adult I've run into that wasn't aware of that problem.



Originally posted by King Kandy
I think it would depend on where you got them from.

Well, that's entirely up to you and the psychological community to determine. I will not pretend to be aware of the dynamics of sexual assault. I'll only state that it does exist.





Well, I think we've gotten off of topic, slightly. Just take this away from my posts about this: the Australian Aboriginals are the very worst example you could think of (I can't think of another example that fits what you were trying to convey, in such a bad way. I've been trying and I can't think of another group that makes your point any wronger). Please, select another example to make your point.



Originally posted by Kinneary
Jesus christ, this doesn't matter! The culture that Kandy is talking about ISN'T our culture. It's not a culture that can even be implemented in the next twenty to fifty years. It's not relevant! It's an entirely different discussion, with no bearing on the topic.

You're right. But it does have bearing on this topic.

How can we justify living (which includes showering) facilities of the opposite sex? That came from: gays are attracted to the same sex and not all of the same sex is gay, so how can we justify having the same living facilities for both when we can't justify it for the opposite sex?


See, we must get over this bump of "opposite sex can't, so homosexuals can't for the same reasons."


Well, I think it would have to depend on statistics. I think the US is actually doing a study to determine this shit.

I mentioned tons of groups that are nude. It is also VERY pertinent that there is a direct corralation between level of poverty and level of crime... where most indigenous people definitely come up on the short end of the stick. I see no data at all that suggests a similar correlation depending on whether the culture wears clothes.

Also, aboriginals do wear clothes in modern times... so what their current status is regarding sexual abuse is actually aside from the point itself.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Also, aboriginals do wear clothes in modern times... so what their current status is regarding sexual abuse is actually aside from the point itself.

Nah, it was "tradition" that carried over after modern man tainted them. Some things persist, even after civility is introduced. I already talked about that, too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, it was "tradition" that carried over after modern man tainted them. Some things persist, even after civility is introduced. I already talked about that, too.
That's not even close to being something you can prove. Poverty and crime rates go hand in hand, and you don't see this as relevant at all to aboriginals? Not only that but you see no parallels with, for instance, blacks in the US and aboriginals?

You talked in other threads about how police are biased in regards to arrest and conviction of African Americans but you show absolutely no sign that you have given any thought to the fact that similar effects exist in Australia... instead you have a source that accuses anyone supporting the aboriginal side of the argument of being "do-gooders", "posturing", committing "emotional blackmail", should "hang their heads in shame", etc... yeah, let's see the "New York Times" use phrases like that, should show you right away that that is not a news source in any way dedicated to professionalism or accuracy.

I am not sure about the bathroom issue at all, I understand that many women want separate accommodations, however I don't absolutely see the justification for why the government should mandate it. I suppose if statistics show that rapes and assaults increase in places with unisex bathrooms, you might have a justification, but then there'd also need to be research as to what happens with straight/gay bathrooms if it is out in the open. Ideally I'd say that unisex should be the standard though and that is is up to the establishment whether to make separate bathrooms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure about the bathroom issue at all, I understand that many women want separate accommodations, however I don't absolutely see the justification for why the government should mandate it. I suppose if statistics show that rapes and assaults increase in places with unisex bathrooms, you might have a justification, but then there'd also need to be research as to what happens with straight/gay bathrooms if it is out in the open. Ideally I'd say that unisex should be the standard though and that is is up to the establishment whether to make separate bathrooms.

We're only really talking about bathrooms used by the military, in which case the government would have to make a judgment call.

Except KK, he's advocating a total cultural shift.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's not even close to being something you can prove.

Sure I can.

Lemme find an expert or some writing on Australian Aboriginals and I'll be right back.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You talked in other threads about how police are biased in regards to arrest and conviction of African Americans but you show absolutely no sign that you have given any thought to the fact that similar effects exist in Australia...

Hahahaha.

No I didn't.

What I DID talk about was some unfair examples and I DID show that African Americans are much more prone to violent crimes (two separate threads.)



Originally posted by King Kandy
instead you have a source that accuses anyone supporting the aboriginal side of the argument of being "do-gooders", "posturing", committing "emotional blackmail", should "hang their heads in shame", etc... yeah, let's see the "New York Times" use phrases like that, should show you right away that that is not a news source in any way dedicated to professionalism or accuracy.

It's pretty tough to deal with the facts when there are nay-sayers in the face of massive amounts of rape and molestation. It's despicable behavior for people to try and ignore it. Of course there will be strong language.

And it's quite laughable that you think it loses credibility just because of strong language. That's just ONE article. Just one. I dare you to stop posturing and google search the topic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Our culture which is so pro sexual assault?

Not exactly pro sexual assault, but not as against it as one may think.

Separation of men and women probably has more to do with the fact that about one in four women gets raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime, very few of those assaults actually get reported, and it's usually by someone they know.

Originally posted by Peach
Not exactly pro sexual assault, but not as against it as one may think.

Separation of men and women probably has more to do with the fact that about one in four women gets raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime, very few of those assaults actually get reported, and it's usually by someone they know.


Though knowing the "someone they know" thing, is separate bathrooms really something that will protect women?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though knowing the "someone they know" thing, is separate bathrooms really something that will protect women?

Is it full protection? No, but it's at least something.

Originally posted by Peach
Is it full protection? No, but it's at least something.

Is it really though? Are there statistics on that?

i never had a problem with homosexual men in the military but their are legitimate issues with why it would be currently unacceptable. the one main issue is good order and discipline basically logistics.

a straight man should not be forced nor ordered to room with a homosexual for one very obvious reason nor should two homosexuals room together.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is it really though? Are there statistics on that?

How would you be able to get any sort of statistic on that? "I went into a women-only bathroom and was not assaulted".

There are, however, a lot of problems when it comes to rape/assault of women within the military.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshall30jan30,0,510658.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

Originally posted by King Castle
i never had a problem with homosexual men in the military but their are legitimate issues with why it would be currently unacceptable. the one main issue is good order and discipline basically logistics.

a straight man should not be forced nor ordered to room with a homosexual for one very obvious reason nor should two homosexuals room together.

Do the world a favor and actually read the thread before commenting. There's no 'obvious' reason someone who's gay can't room with someone who's straight.

i have always had an issue with females in the marines for the various obvious reason of good order and discipline... too many times i have seen problems caused by females in the male ranks..

never hid it in this form about how i feel about women in the marines.

Originally posted by King Castle
i have always had an issue with females in the marines for the various obvious reason of good order and discipline... too many times i have seen problems caused by females in the male ranks..

never hid it in this form about how i feel about women in the marines.

Congrats for being part of the problem.

I have no promblem with it at all.I think it makes sence and if the army or whatever does not want to know if you are gay or not I don't see why it would be a promblem.

Originally posted by Peach
How would you be able to get any sort of statistic on that? "I went into a women-only bathroom and was not assaulted".

There are, however, a lot of problems when it comes to rape/assault of women within the military.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshall30jan30,0,510658.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/



Do the world a favor and actually read the thread before commenting. There's no 'obvious' reason someone who's gay can't room with someone who's straight.

You could for example look at the amount of sexual assaults committed in unisex bathrooms as opposed to separated ones.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I have no promblem with it at all.I think it makes sence and if the army or whatever does not want to know if you are gay or not I don't see why it would be a promblem.

Not wanting to know is fair enough. But then to throw you out if you find out about that trait is wrong.

i have given legitimate reasons why, from personal experience to simple logistical nightmares and one sided preparations for one group. also your links shows few of the problems.

that doesnt excuse them for their actions they should be stripped of their rank and in the brig for 20 some yrs if it was a just world i say rip off their balls and shuff it in their mouths.

my main issue is that the marines was designed purely for combat oriented MOS'es which should automatically exclude women from service. but, with modern warfare being as much bureaucratic paper pushing and non combat MOS'es now has openings for women to enlist in.

the marines is currently trying to get rid of noncombat oriented MOS'es and give them to the private sector which again would exclude women from serving due to the jobs being combat active

I guess I really don't care what they do.

Originally posted by Peach

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshall30jan30,0,510658.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/



Do the world a favor and actually read the thread before commenting. There's no 'obvious' reason someone who's gay can't room with someone who's straight. i have read the thread i am all for DADT.. i just felt like commenting about opening allowing homosexuals to room with straight men. i disagree with you about no reason why a straight man should room with a homosexual.

i have bn aware of the worse thing that can happen when such a thing happens.

you might as well allow a man and woman to room together or share joint rooms which is not allowed in the military.

like i said good order and discipline. tell me would you right now strip and share a room with a random man?

Originally posted by King Castle
i have given legitimate reasons why, from personal experience to simple logistical nightmares and one sided preparations for one group. also your links shows few of the problems.

that doesnt excuse them for their actions they should be stripped of their rank and in the brig for 20 some yrs if it was a just world i say rip off their balls and shuff it in their mouths.

my main issue is that the marines was designed purely for combat oriented MOS'es which should automatically exclude women from service. but, with modern warfare being as much bureaucratic paper pushing and non combat MOS'es now has openings for women to enlist in.

the marines is currently trying to get rid of noncombat oriented MOS'es and give them to the private sector which again would exclude women from serving due to the jobs being combat active

1. You have not given any legitimate reasons.

2. Women can and do serve in active combat.

3. Your personal misogynistic issues are off-topic.



I have before. And believe me I know it was risky.

However, as has been pointed out, two guys (even if one is gay) sharing a room is not even close to being the same as a guy and a woman sharing a room.

Originally posted by King Castle
i have read the thread i am all for DADT.. i just felt like commenting about opening allowing homosexuals to room with straight men. i disagree with you about no reason why a straight man should room with a homosexual.

i have bn aware of the worse thing that can happen when such a thing happens.

you might as well allow a man and woman to room together or share joint rooms which is not allowed in the military.

like i said good order and discipline. tell me would you right now strip and share a room with a random man?
Here's an amazing fact: Homosexual and bisexual people are not all interested in any and every man within eyesight, nor are they all libido-controlled monsters who can't control their urges.

The grand majority of the time, I'm willing to bet that if an openly gay soldier and a straight soldier who made it clear he wasn't interested roomed together, absolutely nothing would happen.

i have pointed it out in other threads in this forum. it has nothing to do with me being misogynistic but legitimate issues that arises from their presence.

either way i didnt want to derail the thread since it was off topic so i didnt get to into detail about it. but, here is the female in the military thread with some of the issues i mention.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t535178.html

back to the DADT i really dont have a problem with the policy.. i never had, the only problem that ever seems to occur is when ppl find out a person is homosexual which there are very few ways to find out.

the main one is that the homosexual actively pursues a straight man and ppl are made aware of the person's sexual orientation that way when it gets reported.

either way the homosexual is in clear violation of military regulation ignoring the fact that he is homosexual it is construed as sexual harassment and not factoring the rank difference that can also play a problem.

if a male or female military personal reported an incident with heterosexual male/female it would still be viewed the same minus the homosexual advances.

No, it is misogynistic. And I said it was off-topic and not to be brought up again. Do so again and you'll be serving a ban.

And so you don't see a problem with a policy that forces people to hide who they are because otherwise they'll get kicked out of the military?

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Here's an amazing fact: Homosexual and bisexual people are not all interested in any and every man within eyesight, nor are they all libido-controlled monsters who can't control their urges.

The grand majority of the time, I'm willing to bet that if an openly gay soldier and a straight soldier who made it clear he wasn't interested roomed together, absolutely nothing would happen.

Why do you think it is so different for a female and a male in the same scenario?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think it is so different for a female and a male in the same scenario?
Peach already offered a variety of links concerning exactly that issue.

Originally posted by King Castle
the main one is that the homosexual actively pursues a straight man and ppl are made aware of the person's sexual orientation that way when it gets reported.

either way the homosexual is in clear violation of military regulation ignoring the fact that he is homosexual it is construed as sexual harassment and not factoring the rank difference that can also play a problem.
That is not at all true. The US Army training manual, for instance, defines credible information of homosexuality as including first- or second-hand observation of spoken or written statement of homosexuality. Therefore, if a soldier admits that they are homo- or bisexual, they can be discharged under DADT. Hell, if someone reads a letter to the indivual's same-sex significant other, that's grounds for discharge.

It's discrimination, plain and simple.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Peach already offered a variety of links concerning exactly that issue.

No, she didn't, none of the articles mentions gay rape at all. One uses DADT as a starting point, but it's also not mentioning the particular issue.

you are of course correct that it takes credible information of one's homosexual orientation to get them removed.

my example was just a generic one that i have seen used. a homosexual says or does something that is construed as homosexual and it is reported to the chain of command. if the chain of command feel they can act on it they will if not they wait for more reports or simply call the person into the office and ask them straight out if they said or did what they are being accused of. usually the marine ethos is enough to get a marine to answer truthfully.

most often it can be discrimination other times the marine was in clear violation even barring his homosexual orientation.. straight or homosexual certain behavior attitude is parred from the marines by regulation all personal must act professionally and even joking and being non PC will result in similar equal punishment or response having the marine sent to the office for whatever comment made. if the person is homosexual or straight.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Here's an amazing fact: Homosexual and bisexual people are not all interested in any and every man within eyesight, nor are they all libido-controlled monsters who can't control their urges.

The grand majority of the time, I'm willing to bet that if an openly gay soldier and a straight soldier who made it clear he wasn't interested roomed together, absolutely nothing would happen.

Couldn't have said it better. (i actually tried earlier and failed)

If someone is uncomfortable being with a gay person, it isn't the gay person's fault for being gay, it's the straight person for being too closed minded and unprofessional. If someone is unconditionally made uncomfortable by being around a few gay people, than they're a bigot and while it might cause logistical problems, the people who caused these problems (said bigots) should be the ones penalized, not the gays who are just trying to do their job.

like i have said in the past good order and discipline is the answer as to why.

plus certain military laws must be changed to include homosexuality.
including the sexual position one.

the rule of law is the rule of law.

ppl want to be a part of a moral and ethical system yet do not want to live by the code that is required to live by. change the law 1st then work on logistic and then it can be allowed. as it stands it is not.

ppl think that some how its okay to room and board with members of the opposite sex and argue about how unprogressive military ppl are but dont know that rules nor regulations or even the principles that these men and women are required to live by.

who are any of you to tell a marine he and his military are closed minded and bigoted but dont know the basic housing regulations of base or the conduct required by the marines and other branches including appropriate behavior and conduct between heterosexual personal let alone a homosexual one.

if a marine is caught with a member of the opposite sex in the barracks after 9 or 10 they are punished.. if they have a member of the opposite sex with doors closed they are punished.. if they are caught sleeping with a member of ones section u best believe they are punished.. if they are caught fraternizing with a higher ranking member of their section like an Nco they are punished and best believe someone is being discharged.. you none of you factor in these things with heterosexual ppl and you thing the military is not progressive because it would not be tolerated nor given the opportunity for such thing to happen with homosexual members?

all these things can occur and would be a likely result if allowed to room and board with members whom they share a particular attraction to plus gay or not they are in clear violation of the rules above but somehow its okay b/c he is gay and the opposite person is of the same sex? no i dont think so.

yet, all you guys cry b/c u are civilians with your civilian standards and dont know nor live by the higher standard of the marine ethos and principles.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
Couldn't have said it better. (i actually tried earlier and failed)

If someone is uncomfortable being with a gay person, it isn't the gay person's fault for being gay, it's the straight person for being too closed minded and unprofessional. If someone is unconditionally made uncomfortable by being around a few gay people, than they're a bigot and while it might cause logistical problems, the people who caused these problems (said bigots) should be the ones penalized, not the gays who are just trying to do their job.
It seems like you're confusing working with a gay person with showering nude in front of a gay person.

its like being a homosexual and suing a christian/catholic church for telling you its a sin and it isnt allowed in their congregation.

what are you gonna sue for? b/c their religion says your sexual orientation is a sin?

or b/c u wanna be a part of a church that requires u not to actively and knowingly sin?

ppl cant even uphold the set principle for whatever reason and they call no fare foul for excluding me.

might as well start suing b/c u cant pass the physical requirement b/c u were born physically incapable.

Originally posted by King Castle
like i have said in the past good order and discipline is the answer as to why.

So we can train people to kill on command but we can't make them stop ****ing each other?

Originally posted by King Castle
if a marine is caught with a member of the opposite sex in the barracks after 9 or 10 they are punished.. if they have a member of the opposite sex with doors closed they are punished.. if they are caught sleeping with a member of ones section u best believe they are punished.. if they are caught fraternizing with a higher ranking member of their section like an Nco they are punished and best believe someone is being discharged.. you none of you factor in these things with heterosexual ppl and you thing the military is not progressive because it would not be tolerated nor given the opportunity for such thing to happen with homosexual members?

No, we think the military is drastically behind the times because they kick people out simply for being gay.

Originally posted by Kinneary
It seems like you're confusing working with a gay person with showering nude in front of a gay person.

i'm pretty sure i'm not

I don't know if I agree with that. Personally, I advocate for separate individual berthings and showers. The real logistical concern is how to permit this on board ship. While it it can be accomplished, we have to be ready to allocate hundreds of millions to retrofit the fleets with separate, individual berthings. This will significantly reduce the manpower available on ships and therefore increased automation is required.


So then you also advocate forcing females to shower in front of males?


Before you tear down a fence, try to understand why it's there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So we can train people to kill on command but we can't make them stop ****ing each other?



No, we think the military is drastically behind the times because they kick people out simply for being gay. we cant even stop the heteros from doing it no matter how you punish them and ppl want to add another group which is a logistical nightmare?

the principles must be upheld.. like the last thread you were on you clearly were unable to grasp what it is to have principles and live by them.

homosexual or straight certain behavior is expected if it cannot be, ppl will be handled accordingly.

the rules and principles are written in stone so to speak and in UCMJ.

these branches and some units have a higher code of morality as well as principles..

if a person cannot live up to them he never should have signed on and if being kicked out later on for failure to meet that goal it is fine with me.

Are you saying that a moral requirement to join the military is a suppression of a gay man or women's sexuality? That seems a bit extreme, and not at all realistic.

it is a code of conduct... it is military ethics and set principles...

the military standard is not to be lowered b/c the average civilian cant understand them.. it is the main difference between a soldier and a warrior.

what civilians want is to lower the bar so to speak where they think is more fair.

the bar has bn lowered thx to bush and the war on terror and allowing women to serve.. now you have high school drops ppl with violent criminal records.. women that cant even carry an ammo box..
but ppl want to keep lowering the bar just a lil more just b/c they thing its more fair...

i dont want someone who cannot live by the marine standard man or woman.. i dont mind working with a homosexual if they can do the job u dont mind bunking with a homosexual if i get to choice..

what i do mind is some one who does not meet my marine corps requirements to serve including ethos.. i dont want a liar, i dont want a phsyical weakling who was allowed in due to one sided gender exceptions.. i dont like serving with a group of pp who have at least an 80% broken ratio when entering the fleet.

i shouldnt have used the term morality sorry i should have said military ethos, principles and code of the warrior etc etc..

you lower the set standard you rob those already serving with honor and dignity of serving in an elite branch that they were once proud of

Originally posted by King Castle
we cant even stop the heteros from doing it no matter how you punish them and ppl want to add another group which is a logistical nightmare?

But gay people have been serving in the US military for a long time with little incident. I don't see how them being able to mention it changes much of anything. Evidently gay people can stop themselves from ****ing everything in sight.

Not to mention that dozens of countries have overcome this supposed "logistical nightmare".

Originally posted by King Castle
homosexual or straight certain behavior is expected if it cannot be, ppl will be handled accordingly.

Yes and that's a stupid requirement. If there was a requirement that all marines dress in bright colors while in combat you would oppose that, wouldn't you? Even if it were a principle of the USMC, it's obviously stupid.

Originally posted by King Castle
if a person cannot live up to them he never should have signed on and if being kicked out later on for failure to meet that goal it is fine with me.

Weren't you the one who said you knew a gay marine and everyone was fine with it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But gay people have been serving in the US military for a long time with little incident. I don't see how them being able to mention it changes much of anything. Evidently gay people can stop themselves from ****ing everything in sight.

Not to mention that dozens of countries have overcome this supposed "logistical nightmare".



Yes and that's a stupid requirement. If there was a requirement that all marines dress in bright colors while in combat you would oppose that, wouldn't you? Even if it were a principle of the USMC, it's obviously stupid.



Weren't you the one who said you knew a gay marine and everyone was fine with it? i said i knew two gay marines both were being kicked out for being gay one for drug abuse and the third was in the navy.

the navy, i had no problem with he was nice and many ppl liked him.. but he didnt go announcing it to ppl and if the chain of command had known about him i am sure he be kicked out but my understanding was his officer was also a homosexual... again my argument is about choice and told to room with a homosexual person. and yes, i dont care if a homosexual serves what i do care about is logistic and applying the rules fairly.

and logistics problem is how to enforce a rule about boarding with members of the opposite sex due to various problems and regulations.. the homosexual cannot be except of the rule because he is a homosexual so the problem is how do you enforce it on him?

why can i not have a woman in my room but the homosexual can have a man in his? get it?

now as for homosexual men serving i dont care, the dont ask dont tell policy is fine with me.

my problem is civilians wanting to lower my military principles without understanding a gawd damn thing about it..

hopNAI8Pefg

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Yes and that's a stupid requirement. If there was a requirement that all marines dress in bright colors while in combat you would oppose that, wouldn't you? Even if it were a principle of the USMC, it's obviously stupid.


But that's not a good example - if that was the principle of the said organisation, they wouldn't survive very long - it or the country they're serving.
Those are technical army things and basics - like not making a gun that when you shoot at the opponent you get shot as well.
Equally parading yourself to the enemy means almost imminent death and as an organisation which strives to overpower the enemy, that would just never happen.
It's like creating a corporation to deliberately make losses.

Originally posted by Kinneary

So then you also advocate forcing females to shower in front of males?


No, of course I don't believe in FORCING females to shower in front of males. But I also don't believe in excluding men from the military just because women don't want to shower in front of them. While it is lamentable that some straight men feel uncomfortable showering in front of gay men, it is not gay soldiers' fault that those straight men feel uncomfortable.

Rather than force gay soldiers to hide who they are, why don't we just educate heterosexuals so that they understand that they should not feel uncomfortable getting changed in front of gay soldiers.

I oppose "Don't Ask Don't Tell" from an ethical standpoint. However, I appreciate that you are looking at it from a logistical point of view. However, I don't think "Don't ask Don't Tell" is successful from a pragmatic standpoint. It simply doesn't solve the problem. If anything I feel it exacerbates the problem and perpetuates a culture of homophobia in the military. If straight men are uncomfortable being seen naked in front of gay men, then wouldn't it be better to know everyone's sexual orientation. That way, if someone is homophobic they can avoid showering with gays, or better still, they would hopefully learn that there is nothing to be uncomfortable about. Furthermore, if gays know who is gay and who is straight then there should be far fewer incidents because everyone knows who everyone is and learn to be ok with it.

That is the pragmatic argument I would make to counter yours. However, more importantly I feel is that Don't Ask Don't Tell is abhorrent from a moral standpoint. It attempts to solve a problem by victimizing the people who are already victims and appeasing those who are guilty of creating problem, therefore perpetuating it rather than solving it.

just like to reintegrate that i voted for the dont ask dont tell policy..

i gotta go workout since i bn riled up by this thread and ppl who cannot understand that a marine must uphold all regulations and serve with honor even if by doing so it excludes certain behavior.

you dont always get to choice what rules you will follow when you give an oath but one must do their best to uphold them with honor, courage and dignity.

i know many ppl do not know nor understand what these words mean and openly mock them.. i on the other hands swelled up with pride when i was told what as a marine i must do and was given my eagle glove and anchor in hand.

i am sure that homosexual felt the same but also a lil shame having to hide who they are .. but, again they knew what one signed up for. life isnt fair it never has bn i will not apologize for upholding my rules and regulations that i was entrusted to.. especially as an nco.

but neither will i slap away a homosexual man's hand who served his country with honor, courage and dignity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yiMuXj_ayc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfoAlJoLkZs&feature=related

Originally posted by King Castle
just like to reintegrate that i voted for the dont ask dont tell policy..

i gotta go workout since i bn riled up by this thread and ppl who cannot understand that a marine must uphold all regulations and serve with honor even if by doing so it excludes certain behavior.

you dont always get to choice what rules you will follow when you give an oath but one must do their best to uphold them with honor, courage and dignity.

i know many ppl do not know nor understand what these words mean and openly mock them.. i on the other hands swelled up with pride when i was told what as a marine i must do and was given my eagle glove and anchor in hand.

i am sure that homosexual felt the same but also a lil shame having to hide who they are .. but, again they knew what one signed up for. life isnt fair it never has bn i will not apologize for upholding my rules and regulations that i was entrusted to.. especially as an nco.

but neither will i slap away a homosexual man's hand who served his country with honor, courage and dignity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yiMuXj_ayc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfoAlJoLkZs&feature=related

nice post.

can't say I agree, but it is a perspective I had not thought of.

however, I do take issue with saying that "life isn't fair" is a defense for don't ask don't tell. True, life isn't fair, but it doesn't meant it can't be.

at least not in one regard.

I was still in the Army in 1994 when Clinton ratified DADT. It was the talk of the town among the military for months. I said then, and I'll say now that it won't really change anything if gays can serve openly. If DADT were to end tomorrow, I doubt we'll see millions of gays flocking to the nearest recruiting office.

They gays who would serve openly probably aint obvious or "flaming"; they would look and act "normal". As if some hair-stylist in Beverly Hills would suddenly apply to become a sniper just because DADT gets abolished.

I don't think we should get rid of it because it would necessarily cause more people to join the military, but hopefully, it would improve the condition of those gays already serving and help protect their job as a significant number (i now that's vague, i need to look it up) of gays have lost their jobs in the military. repealing DADT would help protect them.

if you repeal the dont ask dont tell you expose homosexuals into answering a direct answer which would still have them kicked out of the military.facepalm2

the dont ask dont tell is protection of keeping the homosexuals in the military and not having to disclose their sexual orientation..

Originally posted by King Castle
if you repeal the dont ask dont tell you expose homosexuals into answering a direct answer which would still have them kicked out of the military.facepalm2

I'm sure you must realize that people against DADT advocate repealing the "kick gays out of the military" part of the rules.

Yeah, I think most people really are fine with the don't ask portion anyways. The "don't tell or you get kicked out" is what bothers opponents of the policy.

when in uniform you are not suppose to be talking about your sexual orientation to begin with even if straight its called professionalism and can still be construed as sexual harassment and enough reason to get some one kicked out depending on the command.

sooo.. no one should be telling anyways..

pls if you guys want to make a change start with changing the UCMJ which probably wont happen any time soon.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
No, of course I don't believe in FORCING females to shower in front of males. But I also don't believe in excluding men from the military just because women don't want to shower in front of them. While it is lamentable that some straight men feel uncomfortable showering in front of gay men, it is not gay soldiers' fault that those straight men feel uncomfortable.
Why is forcing women to shower in front of heterosexual males different than forcing heterosexual males to shower in front of homosexual males? No one is saying that gays will go rabid and rape all the straights, but that's not really the issue. It becomes a quality of life issue when heterosexuals are placed in situations where they have to expose themselves and preform intimate actions in front of homosexuals.


I don't really think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not saying DADT is the solution. I'm saying that until we find a way to fix the logistical problems of privacy, I don't support repealing it. This happens in much the same way that, although I'm in favor of peace, I don't advocate disarmament of our military. We can fix the logistical issues. We can build individual rooms and showers, we can install private showers in boot camps, and as far as deployments on ships... I don't really know what the answer to that is. The point is, I want to fix the logistical issues surrounding why DADT is a policy before I'm thrust into a situation where I have to get naked in front of homosexuals.

Obviously gays should be allowed to serve openly. And obviously heterosexuals serving shouldn't be forced into lathering themselves up in front of homosexuals. We can fix both of those problems. And we should. Immediately.

the DI jargon of butts to nuts takes an even worse meaning then already implied...

Originally posted by Kinneary
W

I don't really think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not saying DADT is the solution. I'm saying that until we find a way to fix the logistical problems of privacy, I don't support repealing it. This happens in much the same way that, although I'm in favor of peace, I don't advocate disarmament of our military. We can fix the logistical issues. We can build individual rooms and showers, we can install private showers in boot camps, and as far as deployments on ships... I don't really know what the answer to that is. The point is, I want to fix the logistical issues surrounding why DADT is a policy before I'm thrust into a situation where I have to get naked in front of homosexuals.

Obviously gays should be allowed to serve openly. And obviously heterosexuals serving shouldn't be forced into lathering themselves up in front of homosexuals. We can fix both of those problems. And we should. Immediately.

I don't understand, being secretly oogled by gays is better than being openly looked at?

being leered at is still wrong when a man does it to a woman even worse if she is naked... hence, all things being equal a gay man should be held by the same rules...

Originally posted by Kinneary
I don't really think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not saying DADT is the solution. I'm saying that until we find a way to fix the logistical problems of privacy, I don't support repealing it.

Many countries let gays serve openly. Obviously ways to solve the problem already exist, so that's no excuse.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand, being secretly oogled by gays is better than being openly looked at?
The policy right now means that gays are usually 'undercover.' Essentially, the loss of privacy that we experience is leveled by the fact that you don't simply assume someone is homosexual, and therefore you generally don't even think about it. Therefore, I can take a shower with, say, Bill, and it's no issue for me. Change the scenario around, and now I know Bill is gay. Now, getting nude in front of him becomes a big issue. He and I are on the same shower schedule, and I have an issue where I am extremely uncomfortable being nude in front of him. Obviously it's something that's going to weigh on my mind. It could distract me from my job, because I'm trying to figure out if Bill was learing at me (even if he wasn't), or I'm nervous that Bill is thinking about my dick or whatever. Or maybe then I start skipping showers because I can't stomach showering with him. Now my Chief or DIVO is getting on my case because I smell because I didn't shower after PT the day before. Now not only am I stressed about Bill, I'm stressed because I'm getting yelled at at work (and until you've been yelled at by a Chief, you haven't been yelled at) and my performance marks are going down on my eval.

Or let's look at another policy right now. No one of the opposite gender in your room after taps, the policy in place because obviously you're not supposed to be having sex. Now we have two gays sharing a barracks room who like to have sex with each other (yeah yeah, not every gay person wants to have sex with the guy in his room, we're not talking like it always happens). They get to have sex with each other, but the heterosexuals can't have sex with each other? Why do the gays get special treatment? Even if they aren't having sex, there's a saying in the military - if you perceive something to be true, then it is true. You can create a lot of resentment and damage to morale by two individuals have the appearance of preferential treatment, even if they aren't getting it.

Deployments, A Schools, and boot camp are all insanely stressful without having to add another level of difficulty on top of it. Rather, we should fix the logistical problems before a great deal of stress is added on top of already stressed teenagers, who make up the vast majority of those who would be affected by this change.

This isn't some macho military 'No **** in this service!' thing, and I honestly think civilians think it is. This is a real, legitimate concern of a collective who give up an incredible amount of privacy as it is. I advocate giving the junior troops private barracks and showering facilities. Once we accomplish that, I will then support allowing gays to serve openly.

what others countries do is fine different rules and regulations it doesnt apply nor show it can be done just as easily here..

some cultures consider drinking during lunch acceptable while others like ours especially in the military dont allow it and it is punishable by the UCMJ..

i hate the whole well others are doing it... excuse.. what did your parents tell you?

different laws and standards and military code of conduct. plus logistics..

Originally posted by Kinneary

They get to have sex with each other, but the heterosexuals can't have sex with each other? Why do the gays get special treatment?


is this seriously an argument that you are making????

gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly because they get to have sex while straight men don't and it makes the straight men jealous??

*sigh*

I love you take one sentence out of context and try to build an argument around it. I think I'm going to call you Deano Jr. from now on.

Originally posted by Kinneary

This isn't some macho military 'No **** in this service!' thing, and I honestly think civilians think it is.

That actually does have a lot to do with it. A lot of DI's just don't wanna have a fairy in their presence.

Drill Instructors make up an insanely minute presence in any service.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Drill Instructors make up an insanely minute presence in any service.

But they wield a lot of influence. They're the first teachers or "intitial brainwashers" when a kid joins the Service. They make the guys mindlessly say "Yes, sir!" to anything, including if the subject is routing out gays. I still remember all of it when I was at Benning.

And when I was at Great Lakes, I never heard anything about it. Nor have any of my RDC's words really influenced me since.

Originally posted by Kinneary
*sigh*

I love you take one sentence out of context and try to build an argument around it. I think I'm going to call you Deano Jr. from now on.

In my defense, quoting one sentence out of one short paragrapgh is hardly taking things out of context. That paragraph had nothing to do with the rest of the argument you were making so i didn't address it because it was not relevent.

Now, I do apologize for ignoring the first paragraph which was about a different topic altogether and I apologize for being so hostile in my response to your last post, but I really think that your comment about it not being fair for gays to sleep together is an atrocious argument and makes no sense in the context of the rest of the argument you had been building.

But, I owe you a response to your story about Bill, so here it is.

Your hypothetical situation involving Bill highlights exactly the point most opponents of DADT are trying to make. The way you describe it, you make it sound like there was no problem until you found out he was gay. Once you found out, then the problems started.

So, we agree that gays being in the military is not the problem. It's people knowing that they are there, or rather how people react when they find out. Therefore, DADT fails even from the pragmatic perspective from which you are looking at it because it doesn't address the problem. It perpetuates it. You say we need DADT until we get something better, but nothing is going to improve so long as DADT is still in practice because by the very nature of what it is, it avoids addressing the issue.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
In my defense, quoting one sentence out of one short paragrapgh is hardly taking things out of context. That paragraph had nothing to do with the rest of the argument you were making so i didn't address it because it was not relevent.

Now, I do apologize for ignoring the first paragraph which was about a different topic altogether and I apologize for being so hostile in my response to your last post, but I really think that your comment about it not being fair for gays to sleep together is an atrocious argument and makes no sense in the context of the rest of the argument you had been building.

But, I owe you a response to your story about Bill, so here it is.

Your hypothetical situation involving Bill highlights exactly the point most opponents of DADT are trying to make. The way you describe it, you make it sound like there was no problem until you found out he was gay. Once you found out, then the problems started.

So, we agree that gays being in the military is not the problem. It's people knowing that they are there, or rather how people react when they find out. Therefore, DADT fails even from the pragmatic perspective from which you are looking at it because it doesn't address the problem. It perpetuates it. You say we need DADT until we get something better, but nothing is going to improve so long as DADT is still in practice because by the very nature of what it is, it avoids addressing the issue.

From my post:

This isn't some macho military 'No **** in this service!' thing, and I honestly think civilians think it is. This is a real, legitimate concern of a collective who give up an incredible amount of privacy as it is. I advocate giving the junior troops private barracks and showering facilities. Once we accomplish that, I will then support allowing gays to serve openly.

The Marine Corps has already announced it is beginning to build single-room barracks for its enlisted personnel to prepare for the repealing of the policy. The solutions are on the way. As the military is right now, no I do not think it should be repealed. In a few years when we have converted to single rooms, I will support it begin repealed.

i wish we had single rooms when i was in..

also lets talk about the funding many branches like the army, airforce and navy can afford to build them and not effect their overall performance but the marines only get a small amount of money from the navy to continue operations...

i also find it amusing how civilians think it is a simple homophobic concern and dont factor in the actual overall issues of money as well as overall equal obligation of regulations... which is my main concern how do you treat everyone equal without any form of favoritism in an institution that has set rules in place that a particular group would have to be given special preference.. a lot of marines would be mad.. hell a lot of marines get mad when ppl are given undeserved awards due to politics it wont be any different when homosexuals openly serve.

I fully support DADT. With it removed, its only a matter of time before someone, either straight or a homosexual, will cause a problem that cant be ignored.
It may be wrong of the antagonist to think the way they do about the other, but it is amazingly foolish to think that everyone is going to have a peaceful mentality about it.

As for the "issues should be brought to the surface and dealt with" argument, that may have some truth to it, but don't expect to handle these kinds of issues without some collateral damage.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
I fully support DADT. With it removed, its only a matter of time before someone, either straight or a homosexual, will cause a problem that cant be ignored.
It may be wrong of the antagonist to think the way they do about the other, but it is amazingly foolish to think that everyone is going to have a peaceful mentality about it.

As for the "issues should be brought to the surface and dealt with" argument, that may have some truth to it, but don't expect to handle these kinds of issues without some collateral damage.
That line of thinking is the same line of thinking that people used to endorse 'separate but equal.' Obviously there is still racial tension, but deciding not to give equal rights to a segment of the population because of something they cannot control is ridiculous. Backward, regressive logic.

Originally posted by Kinneary
That line of thinking is the same line of thinking that people used to endorse 'separate but equal.' Obviously there is still racial tension, but deciding not to give equal rights to a segment of the population because of something they cannot control is ridiculous. Backward, regressive logic.

Are you saying that I believe that way, or are you merely builiding off my comment?

Originally posted by Peach
1. You have not given any legitimate reasons.

2. Women can and do serve in active combat.

3. Your personal misogynistic issues are off-topic.



I have before. And believe me I know it was risky.

However, as has been pointed out, two guys (even if one is gay) sharing a room is not even close to being the same as a guy and a woman sharing a room.


Women are not allowed to serve in the INFANTRY..be it Marines or Army. In the Army...all 11B's(Infantry) are trained at Ft. Benning...a male ONLY Basic Training Station. Women CAN serve in combat RELATED fields...security detail, for one. However, they can not classify as Infantry in any of the Army's 11 series MOS's.


Also, if you've never served...then, you don't know how things like homosexuality affect the morale of the troops. Homosexuality still isn't acceted by the majority of the U.S. population...especially among most young male soldiers...who tell dirty jokes(many gay one's at that). If open homosexuals were housed together with straight men, too many disciplinary problems would result. The gay men would be harrassed beyond reason, and it isn't rational to court-martial or give non-judiciary Article 15's to an entire platoon, company, or half a damn battallion, for that matter.

As a man who served, I agree with Don't ask, don't tell. It would create too many problems in the Armed Forces.

give her one, oorah!!!

or is it hooyah for you?


some ppl dont want to look at the logistical nightmare they just want to toss their opinion and make it true and call everyone else names.

most ppl cant grasp the military concept of equal application of the rules and no favoritism which is why the dont ask dont tell saves a lot of headaches.

and your right on the button of a bunch of young kids and the gay jokes which is only half of the jokes..
as one vet to another i shake your hand.. b/c i dont salute unless i know you are just lazy and sit behind a desk..

Until majority of population accepts homosexuality, there will always be clashes especially within armed forces.

I think a collective mind frame needs to change, not only few individuals at the top.

see a lot of ppl think the population social standard mirrors the military ethics and sadly it does not nor should it.

military reqs are strict for a reason to make you better then a civilian.

come tomorrow if marijuana was legal it would still not be allowed in the military and i am fine with it b/c the standards are different.

some of the reqs have bn around for as long as the marine corps itself.. we live by those codes to honor our marine corps not the other way around where we choice which ones to take out b/c we dont agree.

if the day comes that gays can openly serve they will have to change the rooming situation and if they can do that i am fine if not then it shouldnt be allowed.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars

As a man who served, I agree with Don't ask, don't tell. It would create too many problems in the Armed Forces.

I 2nd that.

Originally posted by King Castle
military reqs are strict for a reason to make you better then a civilian.

I'm sure you didn't mean that to be homophobic but... wow, that was insanely homophobic.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The gay men would be harrassed beyond reason, and it isn't rational to court-martial or give non-judiciary Article 15's to an entire platoon, company, or half a damn battallion, for that matter.

There must be ways to deal with harassment other than expulsion.

For goodness sake we can overcome the taboo against killing but we can't break a person down until he stops harassing people?

nah in the military we refer to civilians regularly as nasty, garbage or sh$# bags regardless of sexual orientation but, overall its mainly attitude and standards.

anyways not everyone is broken into killing most want to get some when they join... also i wasnt broken i just played along that way i didnt get singled out. i was smart.

but i like to think i was a very tolerant man and even i made homosexual jokes in my 1st year in plus i also picked on the nancy marines who didnt act like a marine is suppose to. actually after a while it wasnt picking it was correcting all these soft spoken marines who i had a suspicion might be homosexual.

also military discipline is very strict few options but after a while it would be expulson or briq time after losing rank.. there really arent second chances in the military other then very special occasions. zero tolerance

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm sure you didn't mean that to be homophobic but... wow, that was insanely homophobic.



There must be ways to deal with harassment other than expulsion.

For goodness sake we can overcome the taboo against killing but we can't break a person down until he stops harassing people?

It's not just a problem with the lower ranks of the military. High ranking NCO's and CO's look negatively at homosexuality and do contribute to the problem. I know countless E-7's and higher that would give hell to an openly gay soldier. Drill Sergeants, Instructors, etc...lol...all I need to say is take a look at Gunny Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket. His attitude still mirrors what DS's and DI's do today. Trust me, they would make an openly gay recruit want to go AWOL.

Our culture still has to change dramatically for homosexuality to be acceptable in the Armed Forces. We still have a long way to go. Look how long it took African Americans to gain Civil Rights. We had to go through a Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow Laws, and a Civil Right's movement to get where we are today..and there are still many people who still advocate "separate" but "equal" when discussing black/white issues. The Gay Rights movement hasn't had nearly as much time to mature..and, in my opinion, it will take much longer because of our Christian culture..and the viewpoint of homosexuality as a sin.

In sum, right now..in today's Armed Forces..a homosexual will not be given a fair chance, and the persecution he/she will receive will be horrible. It would even be horrible to allow them to be put in that situation.

we had one staff Sgt that was accused of being gay and that wasnt very cool for him... he opted for legal admin and lawyers.. after that whether he was gay or not which i would have pegged him for a yes his life wasnt the same with the accusing eyes and whatnot.

Originally posted by King Castle
we had one staff Sgt that was accused of being gay and that wasnt very cool for him... he opted for legal admin and lawyers.. after that whether he was gay or not which i would have pegged him for a yes his life wasnt the same with the accusing eyes and whatnot.


I would imagine not..lol

i was all why did it have to be a hispanic? and started thinking about my friend making gay jokes about hispanics..facepalm

i was all why couldnt it have bn a white guy or an asian maybe even blk always a hispanic..

also him wanting to teach MA and wrestle aka grapple started to make more sense after the accusation.

5ihtX86JzmA in his defense he was married to a hot chick but ppl had bn sayin he did it for the money and to cover up his homosexuality

Originally posted by LLLLLink
With it removed, its only a matter of time before someone, either straight or a homosexual, will cause a problem that cant be ignored.

That already happens with DADT in place: gays are beaten or abused and straights and closet gays are the ones doing it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Until majority of population accepts homosexuality, there will always be clashes especially within armed forces.

I think a collective mind frame needs to change, not only few individuals at the top.

Yup. I'd say that pretty much captures the entire thread's answer.

I'd take it a step further and say that the "change" must come from the military and the population, both, before any progress can be made.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In sum, right now..in today's Armed Forces..a homosexual will not be given a fair chance, and the persecution he/she will receive will be horrible. It would even be horrible to allow them to be put in that situation.
That's like saying blacks never should have been allowed to attend integrated schools because they were often beaten for doing so. Progress comes when people are forced to accept changes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That already happens with DADT in place: gays are beaten or abused and straights and closet gays are the ones doing it.



Yup. I'd say that pretty much captures the entire thread's answer.

I'd take it a step further and say that the "change" must come from the military and the population, both, before any progress can be made.

Yes, I agree. But we must remember that USA is a huge country, with many different people and many with different opinions and such change will not happen without a shit storm.

Perhaps education? But as I understand some parents may not want their children to be talked to about homosexuality. It's just one of those social things that may, actually, take time.

Gradualism just doesn't work. All the top people in the civil rights movement recognized this and understood that changes had to happen NOW, or they never would.

I support DADT

Originally posted by majid86
I support DADT
I could have guessed that since you seem to support anything homophobic.

how is supporting DADT homophobic?

it allows for equal treatment and a person's sexual orientation shouldnt be discussed while in uniform to begin with.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I could have guessed that since you seem to support anything homophobic.

Im not homophobic but i still have the right to voice my opinion on this subject.
Gays are better off keeping their sexuality to themselves, it will save them a hell of alot discrimination.

But what their do in their personal lives is none of my business, they are still human beings.
When i was in hospital last year suffering from a severe bloodclot, it was an openly gay doctor that helped save my life & and thank him from the bottom of my heart.

Originally posted by King Castle
how is supporting DADT homophobic?

it allows for equal treatment and a person's sexual orientation shouldnt be discussed while in uniform to begin with.

It doesn't allow of equal treatment at all. If a straight man's sexuality is revealed he gets to stay, if a gay man's sexuality is revealed he gets thrown out.

Originally posted by majid86
Gays are better off keeping their sexuality to themselves, it will save them a hell of alot discrimination.

Yeah! And women should stay in the kitchen, it will save them from a lot of black eyes.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Gradualism just doesn't work. All the top people in the civil rights movement recognized this and understood that changes had to happen NOW, or they never would.

this.

social change by definition is always unpopular (if it waren't than it wouldn't be a change because it would be there already). social progress is not an organic process that happens on its own, it is as King said, a constant struggle not something that "roles in on the wheels of inevitability" the status quo of a society natural perpetuates itself.

Therefore we can't just sit around waiting for people to become more tolerant before we can repeal DADT, we need to actively pursue social equality. Just as the government had to push forward on integrated schools even though it was unpopular, so too must they push forward to accept openly gay people into the military. we have to go against the popular opinion in order to protect and ensure the rights of the minority.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It doesn't allow of equal treatment at all. If a straight man's sexuality is revealed he gets to stay, if a gay man's sexuality is revealed he gets thrown out.



Yeah! And women should stay in the kitchen, it will save them from a lot of black eyes.

No i support women in the military 100% and eventually gays as well.
These things take time to be accomplished and at the moment i support DADT but hopefully in the future openly gay people will be fully allowed to join the military with no discrimination at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It doesn't allow of equal treatment at all. If a straight man's sexuality is revealed he gets to stay, if a gay man's sexuality is revealed he gets thrown out.



Yeah! And women should stay in the kitchen, it will save them from a lot of black eyes. yes, it does. it allows one to join without disclosing sexuality although some recruiters will knowingly ask anyways.

but, once in you are treated the same, same rules apply to you as others. if you are caught with a man it is a different matter as it is a violation of marine corps reqs which states how sexual intercourse should be conducted..

ask yourself how would ones sexual orientation be revealed in the 1st place in the military with strict rules? some one would have to already be in violation of regulations at some point.

either way.. i meant that gay or straight if u dont ask then ppl dont know and preference is not made for one or the other nor would it allow for discrimination

Yup, break the way things are and do it now. Always. Contemporary social movements seem to have lost the sense of urgency or at least the capacity to inspire it in mainstream society.

Originally posted by majid86
No i support women in the military 100% and eventually gays as well.
These things take time to be accomplished and at the moment i support DADT but hopefully in the future openly gay people will be fully allowed to join the military with no discrimination at all.

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied.""

-Martin Luthor King Jr.

You've fully convinced me, from this point on i DONT support DADT too bad i cant change my vote though.
Thank you for that

i wonder what MLK would say when his speeches are used to equate the homosexual struggle?

was he even pro gay marriage or homosexuality?

Originally posted by King Castle
i wonder what MLK would say when his speeches are used to equate the homosexual struggle?

was he even pro gay marriage or homosexuality?
That isn't the point, the point is that change happens when demanded, not when left to gradualism.

I think he would be proud

He probably would yes. Unlike that other ******* that parades in aids victims funerals saying god hates ****.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That isn't the point, the point is that change happens when demanded, not when left to gradualism. it is when ppl are using other ppl's speeches to promote their cause. its the same as creationist using albert eistein out of context quotes to promote their views.


this has got me wondering and even taking points away from the homosexual movement for using a great man's quote for their movement.

You mean the nutjobs who carry signs saying 'GOD HATES F4GS!'?

Originally posted by King Castle
it is when ppl are using other ppl's speeches to promote their cause. its the same as creationist using albert eistein out of context quotes to promote their views.


this has got me wondering and even taking points away from the homosexual movement for using a great man's quote for their movement.
You are just being foolish... I only sought to prove ONE THING, which is that gradualism doesn't work. I never said the gay rights movement was moral or said MLK would think so. I used the quote, for that, so how about you actually discuss the CONTENT of my point before I report you for trolling.

You both have valid points and there is no need to insult each other

Originally posted by King Castle
it is when ppl are using other ppl's speeches to promote their cause. its the same as creationist using albert eistein out of context quotes to promote their views.


this has got me wondering and even taking points away from the homosexual movement for using a great man's quote for their movement. Creationists and einstein have nothing whatsoever to do with this. King's point about social change is being correctly used by the gay movement.

Originally posted by majid86
No i support women in the military 100% and eventually gays as well.
These things take time to be accomplished and at the moment i support DADT but hopefully in the future openly gay people will be fully allowed to join the military with no discrimination at all.

My point is that your attitude perpetuates exactly the problem you claim you want to see eventually fade away.

"Women's rights would be great, but they should shut up about it because guys will beat them up."

"Gay rights would be great, but they should shut up about it because guys will beat them up."

Originally posted by King Castle
it is when ppl are using other ppl's speeches to promote their cause. its the same as creationist using albert eistein out of context quotes to promote their views.

No, it really isn't the same at all. Those MLK quotes aren't out of context. Even if MLK was viciously homophobic the arguments presented still apply to the gay rights movement.

Originally posted by King Castle
this has got me wondering and even taking points away from the homosexual movement for using a great man's quote for their movement.

You're penalizing the gay rights movement because Kandy used a quote in order to explain his position? That's utterly pathetic.

Originally posted by King Castle
it is when ppl are using other ppl's speeches to promote their cause. its the same as creationist using albert eistein out of context quotes to promote their views.


this has got me wondering and even taking points away from the homosexual movement for using a great man's quote for their movement.

i don't think he's doing it to promote a cause so much as illustrate a point. whether or not MLK would support gay marriage is irrelevent as the principles behind what he said about achieving equality for african americans can be applied to gays today. i don't think king kandy is talking about one cause or another, but simply the mechanism for social change. king kandy claims that gradualism doesn't work and there is a long and established precedent to support his view.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Gradualism just doesn't work. All the top people in the civil rights movement recognized this and understood that changes had to happen NOW, or they never would.


Gradualism will not work as well in the military sector as it would in the civilian sector. Also, what are the limits of openly allowing the enlistment of gay recruits? Should gay transvestites be allowed to show up to basic training and share living quarters with male recruits? Or would they be housed with the female recruits? If a man decided to have a sex change while in service...specifically a combat(11 series MOS)..would that soldier be forced to re-classify to another MOS, since females are not allowed to serve in an 11 series MOS? Also, what gay recruits/soldiers are allowed to qualify for an 11 series MOS? If the gay male recruit didn't exhibit any signs of femininity, would that be the qualifier? If the gay male recruit was "flaming"(kind of like the guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), would that disqualify him from serving in the Infantry?(Since he obviously acts like a female).

If these gay recruits were allowed to join, then feminist movements would be provoked to action...calling for females to be allowed to serve in the Infantry.

Also, if all of these things were allowed, how would that affect recruiting? The Army likes to set a quota of how many enlistees it signs each year. With normal straight males who do not want to openly serve with homosexuals, would the Army's recruiting quota drop tremdously?

In a war time situation, let's say a gay soldier was ordered to be part of a fire team to invade houses, looking for insurgents. Let's say the other members of the fire team despise homosexuality, which is highly probable. If any insurgents hostily engaged that small fire team, would the gay soldier receive any "firing" cover to allow him to retreat to safety..if it came down to that?

You mention the integration of schools, but that is much safer on black kids than for gay males to be on a battlefield who run the risk of being left behind by members of their own squad.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Gradualism will not work as well in the military sector as it would in the civilian sector. Also, what are the limits of openly allowing the enlistment of gay recruits? Should gay transvestites be allowed to show up to basic training and share living quarters with male recruits? Or would they be housed with the female recruits? If a man decided to have a sex change while in service...specifically a combat(11 series MOS)..would that soldier be forced to re-classify to another MOS, since females are not allowed to serve in an 11 series MOS? Also, what gay recruits/soldiers are allowed to qualify for an 11 series MOS? If the gay male recruit didn't exhibit any signs of femininity, would that be the qualifier? If the gay male recruit was "flaming"(kind of like the guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), would that disqualify him from serving in the Infantry?(Since he obviously acts like a female).

If these gay recruits were allowed to join, then feminist movements would be provoked to action...calling for females to be allowed to serve in the Infantry.

Also, if all of these things were allowed, how would that affect recruiting? The Army likes to set a quota of how many enlistees it signs each year. With normal straight males who do not want to openly serve with homosexuals, would the Army's recruiting quota drop tremdously?

In a war time situation, let's say a gay soldier was ordered to be part of a fire team to invade houses, looking for insurgents. Let's say the other members of the fire team despise homosexuality, which is highly probable. If any insurgents hostily engaged that small fire team, would the gay soldier receive any "firing" cover to allow him to retreat to safety..if it came down to that?

You mention the integration of schools, but that is much safer on black kids than for gay males to be on a battlefield who run the risk of being left behind by members of their own squad.

Well, I am not sure anyone is arguing that gays should be outed. People just don't want them to lose their job if it comes out that they are gay and to be able to get that job if they are.

It could be a DA policy instead...

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Gradualism will not work as well in the military sector as it would in the civilian sector.
Um, that's sort of my point. Except, gradualism NEVER works.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Also, what are the limits of openly allowing the enlistment of gay recruits? Should gay transvestites be allowed to show up to basic training and share living quarters with male recruits? Or would they be housed with the female recruits? If a man decided to have a sex change while in service...specifically a combat(11 series MOS)..would that soldier be forced to re-classify to another MOS, since females are not allowed to serve in an 11 series MOS? Also, what gay recruits/soldiers are allowed to qualify for an 11 series MOS? If the gay male recruit didn't exhibit any signs of femininity, would that be the qualifier? If the gay male recruit was "flaming"(kind of like the guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), would that disqualify him from serving in the Infantry?(Since he obviously acts like a female).
You're really overthinking this. No, of course not. Just because you "act like a girl" (and that can be said about some straight people as well) doesn't mean that you should be put in the female division. That would be preposterous. Just have males in male and females in female.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
If these gay recruits were allowed to join, then feminist movements would be provoked to action...calling for females to be allowed to serve in the Infantry.
Oooh, how horrible.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Also, if all of these things were allowed, how would that affect recruiting? The Army likes to set a quota of how many enlistees it signs each year. With normal straight males who do not want to openly serve with homosexuals, would the Army's recruiting quota drop tremdously?
That's a lame excuse. If people don't want to serve with gays, then let them not enter. White soldiers never wanted to be serving with black ones, it was FORCED by the government and guess what, people got used to it.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In a war time situation, let's say a gay soldier was ordered to be part of a fire team to invade houses, looking for insurgents. Let's say the other members of the fire team despise homosexuality, which is highly probable. If any insurgents hostily engaged that small fire team, would the gay soldier receive any "firing" cover to allow him to retreat to safety..if it came down to that?
Once again, that's like the preachers who told MLK he shouldn't protest in Birmingham because it would provoke the police into attacking them. And people died in that protest, or were severally injured, so it's not "safer" like you think it is. If a straight male breaks protocol because of a gay coworker, then he should be punished just like if he had done it to a straight one.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You mention the integration of schools, but that is much safer on black kids than for gay males to be on a battlefield who run the risk of being left behind by members of their own squad.
No, it really is not. Many blacks were killed during the civil rights movement. And even if it is, it doesn't change the principal... you think the civil rights movement would have stopped if the violence against them was expanded? It would only have strengthened their resolve.

Indians under Gandhi suffered more deaths than US troops in the Iraq war, I suppose you think they should have called it off as well.

actually military men/women are suppose to maintain a certain lvl of bearing and attitude and being extremely feminine in uniform can be a punishable offense by the UCMJ article 134 if ever there was a violation that would be it.. gotta love the strict military code and standards.

Originally posted by King Castle
actually military men/women are suppose to maintain a certain lvl of bearing and attitude and being extremely feminine in uniform can be a punishable offense by the UCMJ article 134 if ever there was a violation that would be it.. gotta love the strict military code and standards.
OK, but if the person was gay they would be completely expelled, so that still doesn't change my point. IF that is the case, feminine gays should just be made to follow said protocol.

look, i have no problem with homosexual serving. my problem is how can you treat everyone the same and keep track of there sexual attractions and urges.

that is why we separate men and women.

men and women are attracted to each other so we separate them in the barracks men dont room with women period.

this would have to also apply to homosexual it doesnt matter if they are attracted to their room mate or not you do not put a homosexual with a straight man period. you have to respect both men's privacy.

now there are ppl who think tough get over it. this isnt civilian world this is military world where good order rules... as such everything must be equal and right now only way to keep a measure of this is by not knowing or asking about a person's sexuality. if the housing and intimate needs can be figured out and equally respected then let gay men serve openly..

Yeah, DADT is basically the equivilant of telling women they have to be like "Mulan" and pretend to by guys, or else they'll be expelled. If your problem is differing sexuality, then why should we allow women but not gays?

women are roomed separately a gay man is not and i dont think it will be possible at least not till we start rooming ppl individually and the Boot camp hazing changes with shared showers and whatnot.

also we dont do naked hazing alongside women and if we did there would be a massive sexual harassment charges in capital hill.

also the military has very strict barracks rules about having ppl of the opposite sex in a person's room. even regulations of overnight stays and sexual adventures.

if we apply the rules to everyone then the homosexuals should also follow the rules and it would be impossible to apply it fairly

also i personally dont like women in the military as they are a distraction and changes operations due to stupid logistics.

so far as the rules about not having sex, you could just have a gay man room with a strait man and have the strait guy not be a bigot.