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.
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.
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.
i'm pretty sure i'm not
No, we think the military is drastically behind the times because they kick people out simply for being gay.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaoswe 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?
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.
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.
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 Chaosi 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.
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?
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..
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.