Gays in the Military

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person. Being paid is not a qualifier of an assassin. The first assassins were muslims who killed Leaders and Generals of their enemies (mainly Christians) - there can be an ideological basis for the assassin’s deed without pay. Thus your comparative - while understandable - is not accurate.

An assassin is a specific type of killer. A soldier is another type of killer altogether.

[/quote]

So the soldiers helping with the Haitian relief are killers? Weird. I guess putting them out of their misery is as good and giving them relief from it.[/quote]

my point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you

you missed that one by a mile

22

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person. Being paid is not a qualifier of an assassin. The first assassins were muslims who killed Leaders and Generals of their enemies (mainly Christians) - there can be an ideological basis for the assassin’s deed without pay. Thus your comparative - while understandable - is not accurate.

An assassin is a specific type of killer. A soldier is another type of killer altogether.

[/quote]

So the soldiers helping with the Haitian relief are killers? Weird. I guess putting them out of their misery is as good and giving them relief from it.[/quote]

my point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you

you missed that one by a mile
[/quote]
actually it looks about 3.5 inches on my screen :slight_smile:

23

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

Would you feel safe if armed Chinese soldiers were delivering aid to the US?

The empire is crumbling and I am having fun watching it.[/quote]

Which empire?

24

Name an other country with an occupying military in every country on earth.

25

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Name an other country with an occupying military in every country on earth.[/quote]

We have military in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Somalia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran? I am thinking also Russia, but really not too sure about that one. I would guess there are a bunch of African Nations I am missing also.

I see your point because we do have military in every strategic country in the world. We can start fighting on any theatre at 100% in about 2-3 days, if not sooner.

26

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Name an other country with an occupying military in every country on earth.[/quote]

I hear that bandied about a lot, but I need something other than liberal or libertarian scare sites to back it up. Are they counting the jarheads guarding embassies? That sure would make it a lot easier to come up with that number.

You should also define what you mean by occupying. Just because we have forces there (mostly at the behest of the host country) doesn’t mean we’re occupying these countries like they’re Vichy France or something.

mike

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do relief workers need to wear uniforms and carry weapons?[/quote]

Monopoly of defense, if the Red Cross and the CRS were allowed to hire Xe or any number of defense companies you wouldn’t have the nurses and doctors carrying the weapons.

28

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t think joining the Military is stupid. This cock-lick can say what he wants because of the military. Military is a noble calling and I respect and appreciate anybody who makes that decision. I don’t give a shit if there are gays in the military.
I did like the ban though for this reason; if I were to get drafted, in my well spent youth, I would have told them I am gayer than a football-bat. I would have expounded on how much I’d love being in a barracks full of sweaty young men. [/quote]

Huh?

So the military is a noble calling that you respect, but in your cowardice you’d lie about your sexuality to avoid joining it?

And you post this on an internet forum you interact with daily?

29

My understanding of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is that if there were a series of openly homosexual soldiers in the military, it would be ‘bad for moral’. In that these gay dudes, while probably able to fight at least as well as the next grunt, would be endlessly hazed by hetero soldiers.

And while, theoretically, you could put something in the Military Code of Justice about not doing that, it would be difficult to enforce, because a lot of military-type people I’ve met hold moderate to strong feelings about the inappropriateness of male homosexual conduct. The will to enforce the rule would break down a few steps below the top, and in total, a different policy would ruin the combat-effectiveness of the military.

30

What if there were a lot of military-type people that held moderate to strong feelings against blacks? Would that justify banning blacks from the military due to the risk of ruining combat effectiveness?

31

[quote]Otep wrote:
My understanding of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is that if there were a series of openly homosexual soldiers in the military, it would be ‘bad for moral’. In that these gay dudes, while probably able to fight at least as well as the next grunt, would be endlessly hazed by hetero soldiers.

And while, theoretically, you could put something in the Military Code of Justice about not doing that, it would be difficult to enforce, because a lot of military-type people I’ve met hold moderate to strong feelings about the inappropriateness of male homosexual conduct. The will to enforce the rule would break down a few steps below the top, and in total, a different policy would ruin the combat-effectiveness of the military.
[/quote]

That’s pretty much the argument. It’s a silly argument and not based in reality, but that generally sums it up.

Kind of like what Pat said though, the one thing I very much liked about DADT was that I knew several straight guys who were complete shitbirds that had no business in the Corps that got out by saying they were gay. But then again they were mortarmen, and perhaps hanging around 81mm tubes all day long made them actually gay.

That’s a nice side effect but I’d rather see a better system for letting guys out of their contracts simply because they wanted out.

The idea that it would break down morale is somewhat true, but very avoidable. It wouldn’t be a matter of letting gay guys in that does it. There wouldn’t be violence against gays or anything like that outside of isolated incidents. No, morale would be hurt because then the PC police would come out. Marines would start to get counseled for saying that something was gay. They’d get counseled for telling someone to stop acting like a fag. They’d be counseled for pantomiming gay stuff. This would break down esprit de corps. It happens in units with women all the time.

You have to understand the military to know what I’m talking about. My experience is pretty much just that of a Marine grunt, but I can honestly say that the Marine Corps is the gayest bunch of straight guys you’ll ever meet. It’s all the place when I have heard the most racist stuff ever, while at the same time being the least-racist organization I’ve associated with.

So long as gays don’t look for special treatment, they’ll be fine. But when the first gay Marine’s mommy calls her congressman because her gay son got called a cocksucker for screwing something up, you’ll see the our fighting ability degrade.

mike

32

[quote]forlife wrote:
What if there were a lot of military-type people that held moderate to strong feelings against blacks? Would that justify banning blacks from the military due to the risk of ruining combat effectiveness?[/quote]

…You aren’t seriously asking me to consider the US military having a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy regarding the color of a man’s skin, are you?

33

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
My understanding of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is that if there were a series of openly homosexual soldiers in the military, it would be ‘bad for moral’. In that these gay dudes, while probably able to fight at least as well as the next grunt, would be endlessly hazed by hetero soldiers.

And while, theoretically, you could put something in the Military Code of Justice about not doing that, it would be difficult to enforce, because a lot of military-type people I’ve met hold moderate to strong feelings about the inappropriateness of male homosexual conduct. The will to enforce the rule would break down a few steps below the top, and in total, a different policy would ruin the combat-effectiveness of the military.
[/quote]

That’s pretty much the argument. It’s a silly argument and not based in reality, but that generally sums it up.

Kind of like what Pat said though, the one thing I very much liked about DADT was that I knew several straight guys who were complete shitbirds that had no business in the Corps that got out by saying they were gay. But then again they were mortarmen, and perhaps hanging around 81mm tubes all day long made them actually gay.

That’s a nice side effect but I’d rather see a better system for letting guys out of their contracts simply because they wanted out.

The idea that it would break down morale is somewhat true, but very avoidable. It wouldn’t be a matter of letting gay guys in that does it. There wouldn’t be violence against gays or anything like that outside of isolated incidents. No, morale would be hurt because then the PC police would come out. Marines would start to get counseled for saying that something was gay. They’d get counseled for telling someone to stop acting like a fag. They’d be counseled for pantomiming gay stuff. This would break down esprit de corps. It happens in units with women all the time.

You have to understand the military to know what I’m talking about. My experience is pretty much just that of a Marine grunt, but I can honestly say that the Marine Corps is the gayest bunch of straight guys you’ll ever meet. It’s all the place when I have heard the most racist stuff ever, while at the same time being the least-racist organization I’ve associated with.

So long as gays don’t look for special treatment, they’ll be fine. But when the first gay Marine’s mommy calls her congressman because her gay son got called a cocksucker for screwing something up, you’ll see the our fighting ability degrade.

mike[/quote]

This makes sense.

34

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Name an other country with an occupying military in every country on earth.[/quote]

We have military in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Somalia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran?[/quote]

We do.

35

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
My understanding of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is that if there were a series of openly homosexual soldiers in the military, it would be ‘bad for moral’. In that these gay dudes, while probably able to fight at least as well as the next grunt, would be endlessly hazed by hetero soldiers.

And while, theoretically, you could put something in the Military Code of Justice about not doing that, it would be difficult to enforce, because a lot of military-type people I’ve met hold moderate to strong feelings about the inappropriateness of male homosexual conduct. The will to enforce the rule would break down a few steps below the top, and in total, a different policy would ruin the combat-effectiveness of the military.
[/quote]

That’s pretty much the argument. It’s a silly argument and not based in reality, but that generally sums it up.

Kind of like what Pat said though, the one thing I very much liked about DADT was that I knew several straight guys who were complete shitbirds that had no business in the Corps that got out by saying they were gay. But then again they were mortarmen, and perhaps hanging around 81mm tubes all day long made them actually gay.

That’s a nice side effect but I’d rather see a better system for letting guys out of their contracts simply because they wanted out.

The idea that it would break down morale is somewhat true, but very avoidable. It wouldn’t be a matter of letting gay guys in that does it. There wouldn’t be violence against gays or anything like that outside of isolated incidents. No, morale would be hurt because then the PC police would come out. Marines would start to get counseled for saying that something was gay. They’d get counseled for telling someone to stop acting like a fag. They’d be counseled for pantomiming gay stuff. This would break down esprit de corps. It happens in units with women all the time.

You have to understand the military to know what I’m talking about. My experience is pretty much just that of a Marine grunt, but I can honestly say that the Marine Corps is the gayest bunch of straight guys you’ll ever meet. It’s all the place when I have heard the most racist stuff ever, while at the same time being the least-racist organization I’ve associated with.

So long as gays don’t look for special treatment, they’ll be fine. But when the first gay Marine’s mommy calls her congressman because her gay son got called a cocksucker for screwing something up, you’ll see the our fighting ability degrade.

mike[/quote]

I derive from your post that a certain level of using anti-homosexual mocking behaviour seems necessary to retain discipline in the military. Or more precise, the necessity for it not to be challenged.

Of course I understand that the military will always be a hotbed of strong language - and I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that. But I think it’s questionable to weigh up putting dedicated soldiers’ careers (and livelyhoods) at risk for admitting whom they’d prefer to love, in order to defend a perceived necessity to apply some discipline enhancing swearing.

I also question the validity of this argument in general, as there are armies out there who don’t have ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ - and they seem to be doing just fine. I think this is just the struggle to get a rather conservative enclave of society in line with - the people they are there to defend.

Makkun

36

[quote]makkun wrote:

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
My understanding of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is that if there were a series of openly homosexual soldiers in the military, it would be ‘bad for moral’. In that these gay dudes, while probably able to fight at least as well as the next grunt, would be endlessly hazed by hetero soldiers.

And while, theoretically, you could put something in the Military Code of Justice about not doing that, it would be difficult to enforce, because a lot of military-type people I’ve met hold moderate to strong feelings about the inappropriateness of male homosexual conduct. The will to enforce the rule would break down a few steps below the top, and in total, a different policy would ruin the combat-effectiveness of the military.
[/quote]

That’s pretty much the argument. It’s a silly argument and not based in reality, but that generally sums it up.

Kind of like what Pat said though, the one thing I very much liked about DADT was that I knew several straight guys who were complete shitbirds that had no business in the Corps that got out by saying they were gay. But then again they were mortarmen, and perhaps hanging around 81mm tubes all day long made them actually gay.

That’s a nice side effect but I’d rather see a better system for letting guys out of their contracts simply because they wanted out.

The idea that it would break down morale is somewhat true, but very avoidable. It wouldn’t be a matter of letting gay guys in that does it. There wouldn’t be violence against gays or anything like that outside of isolated incidents. No, morale would be hurt because then the PC police would come out. Marines would start to get counseled for saying that something was gay. They’d get counseled for telling someone to stop acting like a fag. They’d be counseled for pantomiming gay stuff. This would break down esprit de corps. It happens in units with women all the time.

You have to understand the military to know what I’m talking about. My experience is pretty much just that of a Marine grunt, but I can honestly say that the Marine Corps is the gayest bunch of straight guys you’ll ever meet. It’s all the place when I have heard the most racist stuff ever, while at the same time being the least-racist organization I’ve associated with.

So long as gays don’t look for special treatment, they’ll be fine. But when the first gay Marine’s mommy calls her congressman because her gay son got called a cocksucker for screwing something up, you’ll see the our fighting ability degrade.

mike[/quote]

I derive from your post that a certain level of using anti-homosexual mocking behaviour seems necessary to retain discipline in the military. Or more precise, the necessity for it not to be challenged.[/quote]

What’s behaviour?

No, I’m actually not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that guys rib each other. For every gay joke there’s some dude being told that we’re putting him on point because we know how sneaky Mexicans are.

Genuine racism isn’t tolerated in the military. Stuff that would seem racist to the outside world happens all the time in the military though. Equally true for gays. No one is saying that homophobic behavior should go unchallenged. I’m saying that things will be okay so long as they don’t expect to be treated different than anyone else. That means they’re going to be made fun of for being gay…though generally it will be all in good fun.[quote]

Of course I understand that the military will always be a hotbed of strong language - and I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that. But I think it’s questionable to weigh up putting dedicated soldiers’ careers (and livelyhoods) at risk for admitting whom they’d prefer to love, in order to defend a perceived necessity to apply some discipline enhancing swearing.[/quote]

No one is saying that. I’m saying no one gets special treatment.[quote]

I also question the validity of this argument in general, as there are armies out there who don’t have ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ - and they seem to be doing just fine. I think this is just the struggle to get a rather conservative enclave of society in line with - the people they are there to defend.

Makkun
[/quote]

And so it will always be with any outside group.

mike

39

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What if there were a lot of military-type people that held moderate to strong feelings against blacks? Would that justify banning blacks from the military due to the risk of ruining combat effectiveness?[/quote]

…You aren’t seriously asking me to consider the US military having a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy regarding the color of a man’s skin, are you?[/quote]

Obviously not, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic. You don’t ban minority groups that are a “risk to ruining combat effectiveness” when that “risk” is driven by ignorance and hatred. Instead, you eradicate the bigotry by educating people and holding them accountable for treating others fairly.

40

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Name an other country with an occupying military in every country on earth.[/quote]

We don’t have one either. But your larger point may be one of the first legitimate points you’ve made about the U.S. military. Ever. I don’t think we need a continuous presence in every country we currently. This is one of the things being looked at as military spending is examined.

Still doesn’t end any validity to your larger anti-military view. Oh, and ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell?’ I have no problem with it at all. I have two good friends in the military. They say that there are gays who are all but open already. And it doesn’t cause any “disruptions.”