Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-19 19:19
Problem is, Courier, your discomfort is your problem, not the gay man's, no?
In this case, its not homosexuals who shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, but homophobics who shouldn't be allowed, since its not their fault your performance is suffering, but yours.
I mean, I honestly don't enjoy the idea of gays either and I tend to stand neutral in a discussion like this but as far as your reasoning goes, it just makes you sound whiny and the whole topic feels personal. Besides, if gays shouldn't be allowed to serve the military, I don't really know why they're allowed to serve any other job force. Less life threatening, yes, but every job is just as economically important and god forbid we let their open gayness distract other employees from doing their jobs.
gentrone wrote on 2010-12-19 19:44
I don't see why you should either enjoy or not enjoy the 'idea of gays'. It's something neutral, you see. That's like saying you don't enjoy the idea of Asian people living in America.
Byte wrote on 2010-12-19 20:05
Quote from Cucurbita;253107:
Problem is, Courier, your discomfort is your problem, not the gay man's, no?
In this case, its not homosexuals who shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, but homophobics who shouldn't be allowed, since its not their fault your performance is suffering, but yours.
I mean, I honestly don't enjoy the idea of gays either and I tend to stand neutral in a discussion like this but as far as your reasoning goes, it just makes you sound whiny and the whole topic feels personal. Besides, if gays shouldn't be allowed to serve the military, I don't really know why they're allowed to serve any other job force. Less life threatening, yes, but every job is just as economically important and god forbid we let their open gayness distract other employees from doing their jobs.
This act was not so gays could not serve in the military, it was so no one could ask and no one could tell if you were/are gay. Idc if you're gay, but I'd rather not know.
Intex wrote on 2010-12-19 20:24
Quote from Courier;253147:
This act was not so gays could not serve in the military, it was so no one could ask and no one could tell if you were/are gay. Idc if you're gay, but I'd rather not know.
That's just the same as the "gay person will distract me" reasoning. Again you're making it sound way to simple to hide your sexuality. People in the military find comfort in contact and connections with their loved ones. Gay people cannot see their significant others or even their children with DADT in place. They have to constantly be paranoid and on watch to make sure no one knows about who they love. It sound pretty selfish to force others to be depressed for months on active duty just so that you can be less paranoid.
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-19 22:35
Quote from Courier;253147:
This act was not so gays could not serve in the military, it was so no one could ask and no one could tell if you were/are gay. Idc if you're gay, but I'd rather not know.
It bothers you to know someone is gay but it doesn't bother you to know that the man you're with MIGHT be gay?
300 million people in America.
About 10 million people openly gay, probably some more in hiding.
1 out of 10 men who do not identify themselves as gay have had gay sex.
Sorry if I'm making you more paranoid, but thats how it is.
Knowing a person is gay bothers you, but knowing that one out of every 30 men is gay but is in hiding doesn't?
Not liking gay is one thing and completely understandable. But if its affecting your work, then like I said before, its not his problem, its yours. I thought this was America where people can be open about their beliefs.
You can be open about your beliefs. I'm not going to force "you should like gays" on you. But you shouldn't force YOUR beliefs on to gay people and tell them not keep it inside. If it bothers YOU, its not THEIR problem.
Arus wrote on 2010-12-19 23:00
Quote from Courier;253071:
You guys took my opinion out of proportion. It would affect the way [FONT=Palatino Linotype]I[/FONT] did my job, not the way he did.
No one read your post the other way. And I'd question why you're in the military in the first place if you're able to let simple differences get in the way of your ability to act as part of a unit.
As for anyone trying to justify what I think is wrong, you can go **** yourself, because I'm not poking in your business telling you that you shouldn't be gay/straight/white/black/purple/blue/w.e.
Why would you even post an opinion on a controversial topic if you're just going to act that way when people offer their own points of view? And it's not like your first post had any
offensive stereotypes or anything.
The topic IS: "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" not, "Oh Byte doesn't like Gays."
Except concerns like yours are one of the reasons this policy was even up for debate. YOU are being addressed specifically in these posts because YOU decided to represent the opposition to the repeal of DADT and the "majority of other men in the military" when you made that post. I honestly don't see how you couldn't expect the reactions you've received considering the subject of the thread and DADT's intricate tie to the public opinion of LGBT people. Please don't play the victim.
Roy Mustang wrote on 2010-12-20 16:44
I'm going to chime in and say...if Congress didn't do it, then the courts might have done it. It's why the Pentagon itself suggested this to congress and pushed it forward for a vote after doing thorough polls on the matter.
It was either be forced by the court to do it at which point they would have no way to plan it out in advance or go the legislature route and have time to plan it out and prepare troops for it.
So in the end, this would have happened in the end anyways...
I wonder if I can weasel out of a draft if I say it's against my religion to kill...but that's another story >.>
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-20 18:17
Quote from kingofrunes;254351:
I wonder if I can weasel out of a draft if I say it's against my religion to kill...but that's another story >.>
Loses all credibility because its against Christianity to kill but they have plenty of those in the military.
wolfram wrote on 2010-12-20 18:25
With DADT repealed, it will change how the military operates internally.
The DADT policy was originally a compromise that permitted homosexuals to serve their country without disrupting the combat effectiveness of the military. Nearly two decades after its implementation, it is working. Ultimately, a person’s sexual preference is not relevant to the mission of the armed forces. Our Soldiers should be singlemindedly focused on accomplishing the mission. If that is the case, why permit open homosexuality knowing the negative consequences and implications? What is the urgent, pressing need for Soldiers to identify themselves by sexual preference? Of course, it is likely that the answer to these questions is that doing so advances a political agenda, the combat effectiveness of the armed forces be damned.
I. Always Place the Mission First.
When a young recruit is shipped to Basic Combat Training, one of the first things that he or she learns is to recite the Soldier’s Creed by heart and on demand. This creed includes, in its most basic form, a succinct statement of the Soldier’s most basic purpose and the ultimate mission of our country’s armed forces: “I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.â€
All military policy, procedure, and doctrine should be developed and implemented with this most basic purpose in mind. If there is any institution that should stand and be beyond the reach of political correctness or ideology, it is the armed forces. The armed forces are not and should not be a testing or proving ground for sociopolitical experiments or movements. Policy decisions should be made and implemented based exclusively on their effect on combat strength and readiness. This principle applies equally to all sides, and this article is authored with this rule in mind.
Unfortunately, the issue of DADT has become the target of political demagoguery. The gay community wrongly views the policy itself as homophobic or discriminatory. The contrary, of course, is true. The DADT policy was a compromise enacted to remove outright discrimination and to allow gay Americans to serve their country. It is necessary because of the nature of the military as an organization.
Integrating gays into the military presents many of the same challenges and difficulties as the integration of women. As such, an overview of issues relating to mixed gender service would be a helpful introduction to the more difficult issues of open homosexuality.
II. Mixed-Gender Issues.
To understand the prohibition on mixed-gender combat units and its relationship to DADT, it is important to understand how the military operates at the micro- level. The most basic maneuver unit in the Army infantry is the squad. A squad is a group of approximately nine Soldiers, broken into two teams of four and led by a squad leader, usually a staff sergeant. These nine Soldiers are expected to act as a brotherhood that eats, sleeps, lives, entertains, works and trains as a single cohesive unit and consciousness. In a healthy squad, the members know each other better than they know their own families, and they operate seamlessly as a warrior brotherhood. The squad is the cornerstone of the Army’s combat structure and a healthy, effective squad is a combat multiplier.
Women are prohibited from serving in the combat arms because under most circumstances they do not integrate well into the squad structure. As the old axiom goes, men are from Mars, women are from Venus. The 1992 book authored by John Gray is based on the true notion that men and women are as different as beings from other planets. Men and women communicate differently, have different emotional needs, solve problems differently, have different biological functions and medical needs and, most basically, are sexually attracted to each other. Under the most ideal of conditions and circumstances, introduction of females into a combat squad presents an obstacle to the healthy functioning of the team. Under less than ideal conditions, the introduction of a female Soldier into a squad will undermine and cripple its effectiveness.
The relationship between gender and homosexuality is direct and immediate. It boils down to sexuality. Most if not all of the issues introduced by mixed gender units would also be present with open homosexuality.
Here are some of the ways that integration of the sexes leads to a breakdown in discipline, order and morale in a military unit:
Logistical Impracticality. In a deployed environment (as well as mobilizations or other times leading up to a deployment), teams and squads often share the same immediate living space. This makes it easy for the leaders to supervise their Soldiers, disseminate information, account for equipment, and otherwise effectively manage the unit’s affairs. Females, for obvious reasons, are housed separately and are often forbidden from ever entering the male Soldiers’ living space (and vice versa). This requires separate living quarters, separate latrines (bathrooms), and separate showering tents. This is not always practical or even feasible in a forward deployed environment.
Loss of Unit Cohesiveness. In environments where communication is often the “Hey You!†word of mouth (there are many places the Army deploys where cell phone service does not exist), the phenomenon of separate living space instantly introduces unnecessary complications. Not only are the leaders unable to closely supervise their Soldiers, but they are also unable to maintain continuous accountability of their unit’s weapons and other equipment. Direct leadership becomes indirect as communication with the opposite sex is made by runner or telephone and meetings must occur at inconvenient locations.
Fraternization and Sexual Tension. It is impossible to prevent men and women from doing what men and women do with each other. Men and women who are sexually attracted to each other will engage in sexual behavior with one another. When this occurs within a squad, or even between Soldiers in the same platoon or company, the result is jealousy, inappropriate superior/subordinate relationships, preferential treatment, adultery, unplanned pregnancies, and general competition among the men for the attention and affection of the females. It is not uncommon to see schoolyard drama play out among male Soldiers, who should be singlemindedly focused on their mission, over the affection of a female. If this occurs within a squad, the result is disaster. Mixed gender units are also prone to sexual harassment complaints and incidents, whether justified or not. The ultimate consequence over time is a general degradation of discipline, morale, battle focus mindset, and combat strength and effectiveness.
III. Homosexuality.
There is no question that there are currently gays that serve in the military. Most gays likely perform the duties and tasks of an individual Soldier well and without any problem.
The military is very different from any civilian workplace or organization, however. Even when compared to professions in the civilian world that could be considered ’similar’ like firefighting or police work, military service involves unique circumstances and challenges. In the civilian world, everyone goes home at the end of their shift. When military units are deployed, however, especially at or near the beginning of a conflict, Soldiers are often required to live in extremely uncomfortable situations, very close to each other, for extended periods of time. This makes segregation of the sexes - or by sexual preference - impractical or impossible.
All of the problems associated with mixed gender units discussed above also apply to the issue of open homosexuality. Allowing gays to serve openly injects sexual tension and labeling into the living quarters. This is unacceptable. It is not difficult to understand why a person would be uncomfortable showering in an open bay next to a person who may be sexually interested. The sexes are segregated for exactly this reason. Requiring women to sleep, shower, and live in extremely close proximity to men would be unconscionable. It should be no different for heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Unlike the problem of mixed gender, however, the issue cannot be solved by simply housing gays separately since doing so would be placing them with others of their stated sexual preference (who also share the same-sex preference). The only solution would be to house every open gay Soldier individually - a luxury that even field grade officers don’t always enjoy in deployed environments, and which would be logistically impossible.
Unless you have ever served at the company level or below in a combat arms unit, you cannot possibly understand all the reasons that integration of open gays would be a disaster. The closest analogy to how Soldiers interact amongst each other in combat units at the squad level is that of a professional sports team in the locker room. The difference is that on a sports team you are playing for points, while in the military the game is life or death. Military policy decisions of this nature should be made based upon the cold analysis of their effect on combat strength and effectiveness, not on the basis of political correctness.
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-20 18:32
Read the whole thing, understood. But that just means they need to make some other changes than just letting gays serve openly.
I'd elaborate to my counter argument, but I'll leave it with this.
This is ****ing America. We live in a land of the free. We fight for freedom yet those who fight for it are having problems and are being silenced.
**** that.
Besides, America uses more money than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD COMBINED on their military. Making some small changes won't be too difficult for America to adjust to.
Kaeporo wrote on 2010-12-20 19:35
It's quite obvious to me that none of you have military experience. This **** isn't a big deal.
Osayidan wrote on 2010-12-21 00:02
It's not like if the guy next to you is going to try to have sex with you while you're under fire in a trench somewhere.
Kazuni wrote on 2010-12-21 01:56
Just because you have a sexual preference doesn't mean you're going to be checking out everyone. A gay person isn't going to give all the males around them elevator eyes and try to get into bed with them.
So your fear is that they're going to hit on you? What if you hit on a girl and find out they're lesbian?
Why should someone else's sexual preferences be suppressed just for your comfort? They're the same person either way. Whether you know or you don't know shouldn't affect your behavior around them.
Phunkie wrote on 2010-12-21 02:10
Quote from Courier;253071:
You guys took my opinion out of proportion. It would affect the way [SIZE="4"][FONT="Palatino Linotype"]I[/FONT][/SIZE] did my job, not the way he did. I don't tell you guys how to act, so don't try to push it on me. I'm allowed to view things the way I want and I think you guys should respect that. The "dont ask dont tell" policy, would make others who have the same views as me, to do their job worse, that's all I'm saying.
As for anyone trying to justify what I think is wrong, you can go **** yourself, because I'm not poking in your business telling you that you shouldn't be gay/straight/white/black/purple/blue/w.e. I couldn't give a **** as long as you don't try to push something on me. Okay?
The topic IS: "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" not, "Oh Byte doesn't like Gays."
It's sad.
If you were saying this about black people, everybody would jump on you for being racist.
But since it's about gay people, you can get away with it because it's "something you don't like." Nonetheless, it's still very offensive and like I said, there is no justification for that disapproval or "discomfort" that gay people cause you.
Also Byte, you have never been in the military so I really, really, really doubt that you'd worry about who's checking you out in your underwear while you're getting dressed. Also, if they do check you out,
it's not the end of the world. Learn to take a compliment instead of shunning all the good people in the world.
As for anyone trying to justify what I think is wrong, you can go **** yourself, because I'm not poking in your business telling you that you shouldn't be gay/straight/white/black/purple/blue/w.e. I couldn't give a **** as long as you don't try to push something on me. Okay?
Just like it's not good to be racist, it's not okay to be a homophobe. And you will hear this over and over again, you should not be a homophobe. That is wrong. And you should educate yourself on who gay people really are.
Your way of thinking is obviously flawed.
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-12-21 02:16
Quote from Phunkie;254916:
Just like it's not good to be racist, it's not okay to be a homophobe. And you will hear this over and over again, you should not be a homophobe. That is wrong. And you should educate yourself on who gay people really are.
Your way of thinking is obviously flawed.
Eh. I don't know if I'd go as far as that.
I mean, if you put it that way, then this topic becomes a LOT more controversial. We'd go a lot further than just Gays. A LOT further.
And the general topic of the thread. Its not "obvious" nor is it a flaw. Otherwise the world wouldn't be so split on the discussion. To think one's thought is obviously flawed is to be flawed.
This isn't math. The problem isn't as simple as an equation where the answers are right in front of you. The ambiguity of the situation makes it really difficult for everyone.
However I do indeed believe Byte's logic is a bit flawed here. Not knowing doesn't make the situation better. And people have the right to bear their orientation of beliefs anywhere here in America. While I'm hearing "don't force your pro gay beliefs on me", what I'm actually hearing is "I'm forcing my anti-gay beliefs on you".
Doesn't seem like it, because they're not telling gay people to stop being gay.
But to silence them is to force your beliefs on them.