End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Ok, storey420, so you’re saying because IN THE PAST the military has been used for social experiments, that somehow means it’s a good idea? Good heavens man, we’re supposed to learn from our mistakes, not intentionally repeat them. People say “oh well our military is good so obviously what we’re doing is working”…bullshit. Who’s to say it couldn’t be that much BETTER and actually somewhat efficient if we didn’t use the force DEFENDING OUR NATION for testing new fucking ideas? Flawed logic. [/quote]

My point is that he is saying the military isn’t the place for social experiments and I’m saying that historically the military has been THE place for social experiments (these examples, LSD experiemnts, etc.)
You are right in that we should learn from our mistakes, so just to be clear your position is that integrating other races and women was an absolute mistake and weakened our fighting force. Gotcha. Please tell me you have at least served and have some actual perspective on this.
Oh and you are right we could always improve the efficiency of our fighting forces and we are and guess what one of those huge advancements is? Technology. Technology that doesn’t require the strength of a grunt but intelligence. Some of the women I served with were extremely intelligent and did their job better than anyone around them. Not every job in the service is charging uphill with a bayonet.

222

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

At the same time, with people being allowed to be openly gay, it could be argued that this only gives people who will discriminate against homosexuals more ammunition with which to discriminate.

And bear in mind, we are currently downsizing the USMC (don’t know about the other services), so losing people isn’t exactly a major concern right now.

Once again, I am simply speaking in practical terms. None of this emotional bullshit so many people get wrapped up in the instant DADT gets mentioned. Let’s please keep this above emotions so we can be productive. (You’ve been ok thus far)[/quote]

You’re right in a sense, but keep in mind that if people do discriminate more due to an open gay policy, they can still be held accountable for violating military standards of conduct. I’m less concerned about that than about people being able to force the discharge of a soldier because they find out he is gay, and dislike him for some reason unrelated to his actual performance as a soldier. That’s wrong, and it hurts our military effectiveness.

It may be the case that the USMC is downsizing, but doesn’t it make more sense to lose the less competent soldiers than to lose some of your best just because they happen to be gay? Also, as noted in the article about Arabic translators that I posted, there are cases where we aren’t downsizing, and need qualified personnel to perform critical tasks directly related to the safety and effectiveness of our military.

223

Maybe we need our own Janissaries? XD

224

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Ok, storey420, so you’re saying because IN THE PAST the military has been used for social experiments, that somehow means it’s a good idea? Good heavens man, we’re supposed to learn from our mistakes, not intentionally repeat them. People say “oh well our military is good so obviously what we’re doing is working”…bullshit. Who’s to say it couldn’t be that much BETTER and actually somewhat efficient if we didn’t use the force DEFENDING OUR NATION for testing new fucking ideas? Flawed logic. [/quote]

My point is that he is saying the military isn’t the place for social experiments and I’m saying that historically the military has been THE place for social experiments (these examples, LSD experiemnts, etc.)
You are right in that we should learn from our mistakes, so just to be clear your position is that integrating other races and women was an absolute mistake and weakened our fighting force. Gotcha. Please tell me you have at least served and have some actual perspective on this.
Oh and you are right we could always improve the efficiency of our fighting forces and we are and guess what one of those huge advancements is? Technology. Technology that doesn’t require the strength of a grunt but intelligence. Some of the women I served with were extremely intelligent and did their job better than anyone around them. Not every job in the service is charging uphill with a bayonet.[/quote]
I did not say integrating women and blacks was a mistake.

Historical issue with blacks in the military: discrimination based on race.

Historical issues with women in the military: them being physically weaker than men, potential problems of a sexual nature.

Historical issues with gays (openly) in the military: discrimination based on sexual orientation, potential problems of a sexual nature.

If you agree with the gist of this^^^, then we can agree that there are valid reasons to not want gays and women in the military. I’m not saying we shouldn’t. I’m saying the pros and cons need to be carefully weighed. Honestly, I’m still not sure whether or not it’s best for women to be serving. Not saying that out of sexism, but just like with regard to gays serving…it causes practical problems. Women ARE on average weaker than men. Our physical fitness tests have lower standards for them, yet they get paid the same wages as their men counterparts. The point of the military is NOT to give everyone an equal shot at a job. It’s to get the job done as efficiently as possible. Granted, we don’t always do a good job of that as it is…but is intentionally “hiring” physically inferior people for the same job positions efficient in ANY way, if you’re able to hire stronger people of equal intelligence? I’m just throwing that out there for thought, not because I think we should kick all women out of the military or anything like that.

Along the lines of gays, my point on difficulty in housing for Marines (and other service members) stands uncontested AFAIK.

FWIW, I’m active duty, Marines. And I do have a technically challenging job.

225

I wouldn’t say your point is uncontested. Gays serve openly in militaries of other countries, and housing hasn’t been an issue in those countries.

You might argue that those soldiers are less homophobic than some of our soldiers, and would probably be right. So there are two options:

  1. Disallow gays from serving their country because of the homophobia of certain soldiers, or

  2. Allow gays to serve their country, and inform those soldiers that are homophobic that they can either follow military policies or find another line of work.

It’s a given that DADT is going away, so looks like it will have to be #2.

226

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Ok, storey420, so you’re saying because IN THE PAST the military has been used for social experiments, that somehow means it’s a good idea? Good heavens man, we’re supposed to learn from our mistakes, not intentionally repeat them. People say “oh well our military is good so obviously what we’re doing is working”…bullshit. Who’s to say it couldn’t be that much BETTER and actually somewhat efficient if we didn’t use the force DEFENDING OUR NATION for testing new fucking ideas? Flawed logic. [/quote]

My point is that he is saying the military isn’t the place for social experiments and I’m saying that historically the military has been THE place for social experiments (these examples, LSD experiemnts, etc.)
You are right in that we should learn from our mistakes, so just to be clear your position is that integrating other races and women was an absolute mistake and weakened our fighting force. Gotcha. Please tell me you have at least served and have some actual perspective on this.
Oh and you are right we could always improve the efficiency of our fighting forces and we are and guess what one of those huge advancements is? Technology. Technology that doesn’t require the strength of a grunt but intelligence. Some of the women I served with were extremely intelligent and did their job better than anyone around them. Not every job in the service is charging uphill with a bayonet.[/quote]
I did not say integrating women and blacks was a mistake.

Historical issue with blacks in the military: discrimination based on race.

Historical issues with women in the military: them being physically weaker than men, potential problems of a sexual nature.

Historical issues with gays (openly) in the military: discrimination based on sexual orientation, potential problems of a sexual nature.

If you agree with the gist of this^^^, then we can agree that there are valid reasons to not want gays and women in the military. I’m not saying we shouldn’t. I’m saying the pros and cons need to be carefully weighed. Honestly, I’m still not sure whether or not it’s best for women to be serving. Not saying that out of sexism, but just like with regard to gays serving…it causes practical problems. Women ARE on average weaker than men. Our physical fitness tests have lower standards for them, yet they get paid the same wages as their men counterparts. The point of the military is NOT to give everyone an equal shot at a job. It’s to get the job done as efficiently as possible. Granted, we don’t always do a good job of that as it is…but is intentionally “hiring” physically inferior people for the same job positions efficient in ANY way, if you’re able to hire stronger people of equal intelligence? I’m just throwing that out there for thought, not because I think we should kick all women out of the military or anything like that.

Along the lines of gays, my point on difficulty in housing for Marines (and other service members) stands uncontested AFAIK.

FWIW, I’m active duty, Marines. And I do have a technically challenging job. [/quote]

I see your point but given this argument then all air force personnel should be paid less than Marines or Army for that matter given their low physical fitness standards.
I agree that the initial integration will have hiccups. Nobody wants to seeing flaming homos on base but I don’t think you’d have too many “fags” and it would be just regular folks who happen to be gay.

227

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Maybe we need our own Janissaries? XD[/quote]

Great idea.

228

The goal isn’t to burst into people’s homes and bust them for watching Auntie Mame, but to mark out habitual sexual behavior as radically different from one’s status as a black person or an Arab. A purely libertarian society that only protected individual rights might let homosexuals form contracts and call them “marriages,” but it would also permit every citizen to react to homosexual behavior by avoiding it – if need be, by not hiring someone, or not letting him rent one’s home. In a truly free country, people have the right to make such arbitrary decisions. We do not live in such a free country. We want, and expect, the state to wipe every runny nose and kiss every booboo. We want a big, intrusive government that imposes its values on the citizenry. Right now, those values, which will soon be shoved down our throats, are radically secular and hedonist. We face a massive, thrashing Leviathan whose tentacles are everywhere. We must harness the beast and ride it, lest it crush us.

229

In other words, you don’t mind the government “imposing its values on the citizenry” as long as they are YOUR values. Fortunately, the majority of people share the values of the government, and support the right of gays to protect their country like anyone else.

230

I never had a problem with homosexuals serving in the military. They should have the same opportunity as anyone else to fight and die for their country. But, they should absolutely NOT share the same barracks with other normal men. Can you imagine if a heterosexual man could share the female quarters? Pretty similar except that the average homosexual man has sex with both men and women. A fact that not many gay men like to talk about. Anyway under the right conditions I see no problem with it.

(Yes I said “normal” isn’t that something?)

231

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I never had a problem with homosexuals serving in the military. They should have the same opportunity as anyone else to fight and die for their country. But, they should absolutely NOT share the same barracks with other normal men. Can you imagine if a heterosexual man could share the female quarters? Pretty similar except that the average homosexual man has sex with both men and women. A fact that not many gay men like to talk about. Anyway under the right conditions I see no problem with it.

(Yes I said “normal” isn’t that something?)[/quote]

Pretty much what I’ve been saying, but nobody has an answer for it. And that’s my biggest problem, living quarters. Once that issue is solved, I won’t really have further issues with the repeal of DADT. Frustratingly, I have yet to hear a SINGLE good answer to that problem. But no no, apparently I MUST be a homophobe…gets infuriating.

232

Did you not read my post? The answer is for soldiers with an issue to grow up. Integrated barracks works fine in other countries, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work here as well.

233

[quote]forlife wrote:
Did you not read my post? The answer is for soldiers with an issue to grow up. Integrated barracks works fine in other countries, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work here as well.[/quote]

Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they haven’t “grown up.” You should be more compassionate, open-minded, and understanding. Ye of infinite tolerance.

234

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Did you not read my post? The answer is for soldiers with an issue to grow up. Integrated barracks works fine in other countries, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work here as well.[/quote]

Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they haven’t “grown up.” You should be more compassionate, open-minded, and understanding. Ye of infinite tolerance. [/quote]

I would never judge someone for being straight. I only ask for the same respect in return. And those unwilling to offer that respect don’t deserve mine.

235

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Did you not read my post? The answer is for soldiers with an issue to grow up. Integrated barracks works fine in other countries, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work here as well.[/quote]

Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they haven’t “grown up.” You should be more compassionate, open-minded, and understanding. Ye of infinite tolerance. [/quote]

I would never judge someone for being straight. I only ask for the same respect in return. And those unwilling to offer that respect don’t deserve mine.[/quote]

Then shut your hole with telling people to “grow up.”

Some people are ok with it, some people aren’t. It is not your place to tell someone who doesn’t think along the same lines as you to grow up.

Again, these are people who are willing to serve and die for our country, they should also be allowed to not be ok with living with someone of the opposite orientation if that is their sentiment.

Ya know, equality n shit.

Where I come from, you give respect to get respect. The same bullshit you keep preaching, yet you feel compelled to tell someone to grow up. Dude you grow up, trying to tell a grown ass person what to do.

236

[quote]forlife wrote:
Did you not read my post? The answer is for soldiers with an issue to grow up. Integrated barracks works fine in other countries, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work here as well.[/quote]

Yeah, just grow up. So what if the soldier in the bunk over you wants to have sex with you. If you grow up then everything will be okay. Keep in mind that it’s not about your rights or even comfort and safety. It’s all about homosexuals having rights.

Forlife you are truly a closed minded asshole.

237

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Where I come from, you give respect to get respect.[/quote]

Agreed.

As I’ve said, if someone acts inappropriately, they should be punished according to strict sexual harrassment standards.

But if that doesn’t happen, soldiers should respect one another and focus on getting their job done, regardless of their orientation.

238

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Where I come from, you give respect to get respect.[/quote]

Agreed.

As I’ve said, if someone acts inappropriately, they should be punished according to strict sexual harrassment standards.

But if that doesn’t happen, soldiers should respect one another and focus on getting their job done, regardless of their orientation.
[/quote]

I agree with your general sentiment, as I’m sure you understand by now. What’s most important is doing whatever it takes to get the job down in the most efficient manner possible. After all, this is our country’s military we’re talking about, a pretty important organization, yknow?

Are you saying there’s a lot of other counties that have men and women living in the same barracks? You have to remember, America is a VERY lawsuit oriented country. The potential for countless sexual harassment lawsuits (on both ends) is unacceptably high imho.

For one thing, in our military, you can get charged with sexually harassing a woman if you stare at her for too long/in a way that makes her uncomfortable. Whether you agree or disagree with that rule, that’s how it is. Now apply that same standard to gay/straight guy/gals…let that sink in. The grey areas are simply too vast, and that situation is just begging for unfair judgments. This isn’t all about ideals, we don’t live in an ideal world or country. It’s about making the best of the situation we currently have, and over time, trying to improve that situation, making it closer to ideal.

239

And wtf? “growing up” apparently = complete disregard for someone that doesn’t want to have to worry about beign raped/hit on by his [same sex] roommate?

I guess we should also try to create as many dark, dreary alleyways in cities as possible, and tell women who are afraid to walk down them to just “grow up”? I know you’ll claim that’s totally different, but the basic premise is the same. Intentionally creating easily avoidable situations where sexual misconduct is a concern is always a bad idea, period.

240

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
And wtf? “growing up” apparently = complete disregard for someone that doesn’t want to have to worry about beign raped/hit on by his [same sex] roommate?

I guess we should also try to create as many dark, dreary alleyways in cities as possible, and tell women who are afraid to walk down them to just “grow up”? I know you’ll claim that’s totally different, but the basic premise is the same. Intentionally creating easily avoidable situations where sexual misconduct is a concern is always a bad idea, period. [/quote]

I guess you missed the memo H4M,

You have to agree with homosexuals, or else you are a homophobe. You have to go out of your way, no, scratch that, you have to go more than out of your way to accommodate homosexuals or you are a homophobe.