- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's totally different and you know it is. There is no way to compare a person's lover to their best friend. I don't **** my best friend. I don't stare deep into his eyes in the wee hours of the morning and declare my undying love to him.
That's because you didn't serve. How can you speak intelligently about operational risk management and the military when you know little to nothing about either one?
No, it does not exist. Gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. If your scenario already existed there would be no need to change anything.
No, it does not exist. Gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. If your scenario already existed there would be no need to change anything.
Disagree. Though the type of feelings may be different, the degree may not.
Irrelevant, and don't pull the "holier than thou, you didn't serve" bs on me.
I can speak intelligently on things that I have not experienced.
If this were not the case for scenarios in this forum, then excuse yourself from this thread, since, not being having served in the military as one who is gay, you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter.
Just because they are not allowed to serve openly does not mean they do not serve...which they do.
My scenario certainly can exist.
I knew gays who, for all intents and purposes where openly gay, and I got out before DADT. One guy brought his boyfriend to squadron family functions. We all knew he was gay. Just because technically something is not allowed does not mean that it is not done sometimes.
You can disagree all you like, but it doesn't change the absolute fact that watching your lover die is in no way comparable to seeing your best friend die.
I am not in love with my best friend. I do not think about him when I go to sleep and when I wake up. My heart doesn't beat out of my chest when he walks into the room naked. It's not the same, and you know it's not. I refuse to believe you cannot see the utter difference between a best friend and a lover.
I'm not pulling any "holier than thou bs" on you. I'm simply stating a fact. You know little to nothing about operational risk management, military methodology, and the makeup of combat units, therefore you are not in a position to speak intelligently about the effects a policy change would have on them.
But you cannot speak intelligently on things you don't know anything about. What do you know about a Marine or Army infantry unit? How are you able to speak intelligently about them?
I have extensive experience serving in a Marine infantry unit, therefore I am in a position to speaking intelligently about how it would react to such a policy change. Whether or not I'm gay has absolutely no bearing on my ability to speak intelligently about the reaction and perception of a Marine infantry unit to the policy change in question.
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? The difference between serving openly and just serving?
Yes, but it didn't exist in my neck of the woods.
What works for one unit may not work for another. Can we at least agree on that?
How about your best friend?
What is the IDF policy on gays in the military? Just in case you where wondering, it's been allowed since 1993. Somehow, miraculously, they have been spared all the problems with it you think we will have. In fact, they are one of, if not the absolute best military force in the world soldier for soldier.
This is not relevant based on what I commented on. You stated that someone would cease combat/defense to attend to one they were close to, in your example their lover. My contention is that when someone you are close to is injured in combat, it doesn't matter what the relationship is. If they are someone you care a lot about, as a professional, one would act professionally.
I was in the military and I can tell you that is not true. The dorms are not segregated by floors. Women can live next to men, they can eat with them, shower with them, and sleep in each other's rooms together.
Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.
Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.
The military is not a monolith. What works in one unit may not work in another. Just because you were able to serve openly in your unit does not mean it would have worked the same way in a Marine infantry unit.
I think the problem here is pride - can't say I blame you either. I sure as hell wouldn't want to hide my sexuality from others but the military isn't about what we want to do, it's about what we have to do.
Perhaps you are right, perhaps nothing bad will happen at all, but why should we take the risk? So gays don't have to swallow their pride? Hell, all I did was swallow my pride, day in and day out.
We all make sacrifices, Alex. That's just the nature of the business.
What years did you serve in the United States military?
Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.
Yet when we look at military forces that have abolished the ban, we see none of these results.
Now there are 2 other people in this thread who have supported the claim I made about gender integration. Both served in the military, 3 including me.
Are you going to question all of our service?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/51330-gay-west-point-grad-testifies-before-army-22.html#post1058116669
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/51330-gay-west-point-grad-testifies-before-army-24.html#post1058116999
Sir, let me be as plain as I can. NOWHERE in the military do males and females share the same latrine/showers/rooms. They don't do sleep-overs, or any of that sort of thing. The ONLY time that a male and female soldier can share billets, is if they're married. Yes, they do share dining facilities. I never said otherwise.
1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault while in the service. Do you SERIOUSLY think that the services are going to allow males and females to use, simoltaniously, the same showers? I don't even think will happen in a dream world.
You're not going to be pinchin' a loaf and some chick walk in to use the latrine. You're not going to be taking a shower and a female cruise in to take a showe with you. It ain't gonna happen, unless a male and female soldier are doing something they shouldn't be.
There are males and female areas, period.
Anyone that says different, I have to seriously question the varacity of their claiming to have actually served in the military.
Sorry. Feelings are feelings. They may take a different form, but their intensity, in that context is still as intense. The context may be different, but, for me, the intensity would be the same.
That's bull****. You are certainly pulling the holier than thou crap. I certainly understand these concepts well enough to speak on them. Your dismissals are irrelevant. Perhaps you should check your objectivity.
Again, this is irrelevant. We are speaking about human interactions and relationships in times of stress and in times of working together. I have a hell of a lot of experience in that area. I can certainly speak intelligently on this issue.
You are not gay and do not know how you would react in the scenario presented. Therefore, according to your logic, you cannot speak intelligently on this scenario.
Sure. And since they do, show when this scenario has created widespread problems.
Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Absolutely true. However, this was back around 1990. Attitudes and policy have changed dramatically since then. The military and the country as a whole are much more accepting of gays today than they where then.
I was not the only openly gay member of the military, I have known plenty of others in many other units. The mission was never compromised.
Absolutely right, the military is about what we have to do, as I did everyday for 4 years. It isn't about sex, it isn't about finding a lover, it isn't about gawking at someone in the showers. The men and women I served with understood this, they knew what they were there for so it did not matter that I was gay. We were all able to focus on the mission when we had to.
Above the issue of sexuality, the military expects every member to respect every other member, that is what they have to do.
There is no risk, gays already serve and nothing bad has happened. That "social experiment" has drawn its conclusion for a long time now.
What really gets me about all of this is that people who believe the military will crumble if DADT were repealed are insulting all the men and women that I served with. All of them were outstanding members for being able to focus on their missions without distractions, including a gay man next to them.
From my experience, anyone who believes that the military will crumble if gays are serving openly are the ones who cannot focus on what is important in the service, so they are the ones who do not belong in the military.
And how many of them were serving in a Marine or Army infantry unit?
It's too bad that not everyone in the military shares your sentimentality.
You must stop pretending like all military units are the same. What works for one unit may not work for another. The current policy permits discretion and flexibility. You were allowed to serve openly because it didn't affect the cohesiveness and discipline of your unit; I say bravo to you and your unit, but, as I said earlier, perhaps it wouldn't have worked the same way in apdst's or my unit. In fact, I could guarantee you that it wouldn't have worked the same in my unit. Are you going to ignore this fact?
Nowhere have I implied that gays serving openly within the military will result in its downfall. My concern is a partial degredation of cohesiveness and discipline within specific units, namely infantry units.
As I stated earlier, I was trained in combat situations.
If a member is in a combat situation, should they be thinking about what the guy next to them is thinking about sexually? If so, that is the person who does not belong in the military because they are the one who cannot focus on the mission. Everyone I came across felt this way.
Where in any military mission does it say, "Think sex during combat"?
Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.
Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.
I agree with you that the military as a whole has become more accepting of gays, but I must disagree that this trend has made any significant headway within infantry units.
I also agree that - in an ideal situation - this policy would be enacted and our gay brothers and sisters could serve openly, but until I feel the primary combat units within the military are representative of societal attitudes towards gays I must communicate my reservation about any policy changes which would engender possible complications in the way of unit cohesiveness and discipline.
Basically, I think we should wait a little longer before we decide to rock the boat. I also think that in depth studies into the prevailing attitudes -as it concerns gays - of infantry units should be produced before I will waver in my opposition.
You are only looking at one facet of military life. In the Marines, we had seven month build-ups prior to a deployment. We lived together and we trained together during this seven months. My experience with the Marines tells me that your openness would have presented numerous complications among the unit. Why do you continually ignore this fact?
What if the leadership of that unit isn't aware than they're lovers?
apdst said:What's the policy going to be if those lovers file a complaint, saying they're being picked on because they're gay and their rights to date anyone they want is being violated?
apdst said:What if there's some torrid love triangle and one member of the triangle decides to ice the competition?
apdst said:What if there's some kind of lover's spat, over a broken heart in the middle of a battle?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?