The largest population living with HIV (45%) comprised men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by persons infected through high-risk heterosexual contact (27%)...
I wonder what some other military experts say on this. You know about the Rand Corp study for the Pentagon which stated that it DADT could be eliminated with no problems, as you and I have discussed that, so we will skip it even though it is the most authoritative look at the subject.
Although the present findings can inform military policy and practice, it is important to consider these findings in light of some limitations. Specifically, as is the case with many survey studies, the present findings may reflect self-report bias. Perceptions and reports of military personnel are important and typical sources of data for informing military policy and practice. But studies that assess objective, observable indicators of cohesion and readiness and the actual presence of gay and lesbian service members would be useful. Such research would require identifying and linking lesbian and gay service members with the observed units, but DADT is a challenge to such research. An additional limitation is that the present data are cross-sectional. Thus, interpretations about direction of causality among the variables of interest cannot be made. The current policy precludes gathering of accurate identifying information about gay and lesbian service members or those who have served with them. Thus, tracking participants over time to collect longitudinal data that allow examination of prospective links among the variables of interest is not possible. To address the limitations of the present study, efforts within the military to gather systematic data from randomly drawn samples about the presence of lesbian and gay personnel and their impact on objective indicators of unit cohesion, readiness, morale, and effectiveness would clearly be useful. Empirical data are critical for informing military policy and practice, and the present study represents a step in addressing the paucity of data addressing the rationale underlying DADT.
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/randstudy(3).pdf
Lets go to Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the JCS:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?_r=1
Then we find out that there are alot more military "brass" in favor of it's repeal 104 retired military brass against 'don't ask-don't tell' - CNN.com
Then there is the famous Zogby poll of servicemembers who served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan: Zogby International
I have a world of respect for Colin Powell, but that does not mean I think he is always right, and in this case, I think he is dead wrong.
I have not seen any evidence that repeal of DADT and allowing gays to serve in the military will lead to any problems.
Further, as we already know, gays are in the military, and lets go back to that Zogby poll one more time:
Get that? Almost half already know some one they think is gay, and yet we still have the most effective military in the world, and all the morale and discipline problems that some predict just are not there.
It's a silly, childish policy.
If our military is so terrified of gay people openly serving (and they're already serving from the closet) then maybe we need stronger people in our military.
And if it weren't for our military ending segregation, another policy that people were terrified of ending, Colin Powell would have never reached the rank of General. He would have been a cook or a Supply Officer somewhere back behind the lines.
Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military - gays are no exception. Serving isn't about some Hollywood ideal of flags waving and people being proud of their individuality. It's about winning and protecting the country, period. If DADT helps to serve that end, and I think it does to some extent, then it's a sacrifice any gay patriotic American should be willing to make.
I mean, I sure as hell wasn't "myself" when I was in the Marines. No, I was a damn pawn who did what he was told when he was told to do it, but that's what I signed up for, so who am I to bitch?
And you're basing this on what, exactly? Your extensive military expertise?
This is laughable. Who's going to replace these weaklings? You?
It's a lot harder to conceal your blackness than it is your sexuality. Anyway...
Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military - gays are no exception. Serving isn't about some Hollywood ideal of flags waving and people being proud of their individuality. It's about winning and protecting the country, period. If DADT helps to serve that end, and I think it does to some extent, then it's a sacrifice any gay patriotic American should be willing to make. I mean, I sure as hell wasn't "myself" when I was in the Marines. No, I was a damn pawn who did what he was told when he was told to do it, but that's what I signed up for, so who am I to bitch?
I'm certain our military service members are smart enough and tough enough to deal with gay men and women.
What is wrong with removing DADT? Gays and lesbians already serve. Who cares if everyone knows their gay??? They're not going to suddenly go bat-**** crazy and start raping all of the straight people.
You seem to assume vast numbers of our service members will immediately demand a discharge if we end don't ask don't tell. Can you please show proof of this mass exodus that you fear?
I'm not sure what that means. The "blackness" was never the problem with desegregation in the military. It wasn't literally about skin color. And you know that. The problem was racism. The problem wasn't with blacks, the problem was with the whites.
The problem is not created by gays in the military; the problem comes from all the straight people in the military acting like teh gay is catching. OH NOESSS!!!!
:roll:
More than half of those living with HIV did not contract it through homosexual activities.
Well done, sir!
Of course, you do realize that sodomy =/= HIV (just as sodomy =/= gay), right?
Ah. Fair enough. Billet = Barracks.
So a soldier can't be forced to be a "roommate" (can we agree on that?) with a soldier of a different sex. I completely understand that.
But what does that have to do with a gay soldier? They're not a different sex. A woman rooming with a gay woman is not the same as a woman rooming with a man. Why would you be against a straight soldier sharing a room with a gay soldier?
If a gay soldier isn't comfortable sharing living quarters with a straight soldier, or vice versa, then it's that soldier's right to refuse to do it. It's that soldier's right just like it's a female soldier's right to refuse to share living quarters with a male soldier.
Why do I even bother. Here is a hint: 10 USC Sec. 654 01/06/97 just like I said. Now, you are right, you cannot prove a negative, but you claim that Obama cannot do something, so there must be something(see, a positive) preventing him from doing it. Care to show what that positive something is? No one else is making this claim, so what do you know that no one else does?
I already did, little one. Try thinking about what the words mean as you move your finger across the screen...
But, see, this is not a discussion about sodomy. This is a discussion about the President's wish to get rid of an ignorant and bigoted military rule (DADT).
Your only/best argument in support of DADT ("the only thing you need to know") is that sodomy is a crime in the military.
BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SODOMY.
YOU ARE.
What we have here is a group of people discussing the idea of getting rid of arcane, discriminatory military rules, and you jump up and shout "ZOMG!! SODOMY!!#!"
There's the connection right there. See it? DADT. DADT. DADT. DADT. SODOMY!!
So, back to my earlier point: Once we have a baseline reading of incidents of straight sex on the job, we can then properly judge/prosecute all those icky, perverted gay soldiers.
Since this is your big argument ("SODOMY!@@! ARGGH!@!") please verify for us how often straight people hump like bunnies at every opportunity, even while on the job in the military, so we have a real basis for comparison.
Or, y'know, you could forget about sodomy being a strictly gay thing.
Yes, I know. About 25% from high risk heterosexual contact. Wonder why they don't call it high risk homosexual contact? It just seems funny.......it's been estimated 5% of the population is gay. So....2.5% are homosexual men, however, they account for 45% of Aids cases, 75% of all Aids cases are male. Why is that?
Then why is it far more male gays contract HIV?
Fair enough.
So why would a straight soldier be uncomfortable sharing a room with a gay soldier?
For the same reason that a gay soldier might be uncomfortable sharing quarters with a straight soldier. That door can and will swing both ways.
You lost me. What does "that door swings both ways" mean?
They're both men. Last time I checked they have the same parts. Granted not all parts are the same size... :mrgreen:
You keep insisting that a [homophobic] straight soldier will the one to request different billets. All I'm saying, is that it might not necessarily be a straight soldier who makes that request. Hence, the door swings both ways.
I know that. But I want them to admit that. Gays aren't the problem, they never have been. The perception of others toward gay people is the problem.
And did you notice it's never about gay women? The concern seems to be about gay men. I wonder why that is?
[about his cousin Ray having made a homophobic remark]
Ron White: I said "We're all gay, buddy. It's just to what degree are you gay." And he goes, "That's bull****, man. I ain't gay at all." And I go "Yeah, you are. And I can prove it." He goes "Fine. Prove it."
I go, "All right. Do you like porn?" He says "Yeah, I love porn. You know that." I said, "Oh, and do you only watch scenes with two women?" And he goes, "No, I'll watch a man and a woman makin' love." And I say "Oh, and do you like the guy to have a flabby, half-flaccid penis?" And he goes "No, I like big, hard, throbbing ****..."
[he trails off]
But still I'd like an answer on what exactly will go wrong if we end DADT? I realize you're in favor of ending it, but would you care to take a guess?
It's not a discussion about sodomy
however the military law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military is Article 125.
Okay. That's fine. But I don't think any of that is a reason to keep DADT.
And I never once used the word homophobic in any post. I'm simply trying to figure out why ending DADT is a bad thing. That's it.
Glinda:1. Because girl-on-girl sex is hawt (so, therefore not as gay as guy-on-guy sex?). Silly, but there it is. Straight guys watch gay porn all the time and I assume they'd like to keep doing so, so... vilify gay men, but give gay women a pass. Probably they imagine they'll accidentally stumble onto a couple of gay female soldiers having a pillow fight in their pretty white undies, and a nipple will inadvertently be exposed in the melee. Wouldn't want to see that possibility eradicated, now, would we?
Probably they imagine they'll accidentally stumble onto a couple of gay female soldiers having a pillow fight in their pretty white undies, and a nipple will inadvertently be exposed in the melee....
I think it's exactly why DADT is the most practical policy to deal with gays in the military. Do your job, keep your sex life private--as it should be--and everybody's happy.
Yes. I've already explained that to you.
So why did you bring it up? Why is the fact that "sodomy is a crime in the military" the ONLY thing I need to know about DADT?
Uuuhhh what were we talking about?
:lol:
Does the same apply to heterosexuals?
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?