Don't ask, don't tell (DADT).

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.

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).

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

yes, but then you can also use that rational as a lesbian rooming with a straight man/gay man..

it doesnt work military is suppose to be about equal application of the rules..

even though women requirements are far more laxing then men..

The question I suppose is whether the separation of men and women is based on attraction or on something else, perhaps incidents of rape.

2 gay navy men raped a man in iraq while they were suppose to be treating him.

also the gay rape myth in the military is prevalent also hilarious and sad when you hear it may have happen to some.

also disgusting when you find out that it has happen and it isnt just a rumor

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, that's sort of my point. Except, gradualism NEVER works.

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.

Oooh, how horrible.

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.

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.

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.

Not to get off topic with this strawman argument, but there were more black people killed in the U.S. prior to the Civil Rights movement. If you consider the post Civil War reconstruction era and the introduction of Jim Crow laws, then you'll notice a heavier trend in violence toward African-Americans than during the Civil Rights movement itself. I'm sure there are hundreds, maybe thousands of instances where Negroes were just strung up by a noose because they drank out of a white water fountain..or were caught messing around with a white woman. Many were strung up without doing anything..other than just being Black. The Civil Rights movement was just the culmination of all of that. Yet, even after the Civil Rights movement, many people still consider blacks inferior to whites. Racial divisions will ALWAYS exist...it can not be permanately cleansed.

On the same note, homosexuality will NEVER be accepted by ALL of the population....even if forced by LAW. In fact, homosexuality is a more tender subject than African-Americans and the Civil Right's movement. Being black is not a sin...yet homosexuality IS considered to be sinful. As long as this country continue to has evangelistic roots, Civil Rights for gays will be much tougher to pass through legislation than it was to accept the equality of African-American's.

In the Army..one of it's core values is to "Place the Mission First". If troop morale is put into jeapordy with any type of gay rights legislation, then the Army would view the "Mission" as being put in jeapordy. If you've ever served in the military, then you know what I'm talking about. If straight soldiers have a problem serving with gay soldiers, then the mission could be at risk..and the military will not have that. The Armed Forces care more about the success of a mission than the individuality of its ranks. They want a functional team. The only way gays could work right now is to separate "gay" companies or batallions, but then trouble would arise if they happen to be attached to another division as support personnel.

There are too many variables...I don't see it succeeding right now..even with legislation.

most cant understand the "Good order and discipline" and what that implies.

they would knowingly destroy unit cohesion for their personal beliefs of equality while ignoring anothers.

jeopardizing overall morale, order and discipline.

they think it doesnt cost money to house male and females separately that there is infinite amount of money in the military for housing and can provide whatever is needed they view homosexuals as already serving and it wont cost any money or disrupt daily operations.

women regular women disrupt daily operations b/c a man cant keep it in their pants and chase after them crushing...

PFC's fighting with Sgts over women.. now a Homosexual may not have the same effect it may be the complete opposite. a military person does not want to work or room with him it makes him feel uncomfortable.. his feelings also matter not just one side of the issue.

he calls in sick or is slow to perform his duties.. the homosexual becomes annoyed at him and makes the issue worse.. this is just the mild response the not the violent problems that is more likely to occur.

good order and discipline is out the window.

you have marines accusing each other of sexual harassment b/c he over hears or the other is sharing his weekend conquest which neither should be doing anyways.

the claim is legitimate and now you have marines being punished gay and straight some shown the door depending on command..

its a logistical nightmare.

Originally posted by King Kandy
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?

That's not true. Woman who serve are allowed to have long hair and wear earrings while on duty.

If DADT is ever lifted, I don't think it will really affect anything. We wont see thousands of gays rushing to the recruiting office.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's not true. Woman who serve are allowed to have long hair and wear earrings while on duty.

Isn't it supposed to be kept above the chin though? Been on bases before, never seen hair below the chin.

not up on women reqs but sounds about right.

wait, i think it is actually above the shoulder.

Originally posted by Robtard
Isn't it supposed to be kept above the chin though? Been on bases before, never seen hair below the chin.

Yeah, it was to be worn up (while on duty), it can be any length tough. And the earring can only be studs, no hoops or any dangling earrings.

all i know, that during uniform inspection and whatnot gay men should excel.

show up on monday with a nice fresh haircut, nice trim nails no scruff or missed shaving spots... fresh shirt, nicely ironed uniform...

clean boots.

man they would so rock when it came to making sure the their ribbons are at the right height and spacing, buttons on the uniform arent loose.(green alphas)