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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Kinneary
WI 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 [b]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. [/B]
I don't understand, being secretly oogled by gays is better than being openly looked at?
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?
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??
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.
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.