• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

Should gays be allowed to serve openly gay in the military?

  • yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%
  • no

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Total voters
    51

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,190
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I would be very sad if I had to live anywhere but with my family.

Which has nothing to do with the question.

But if I had to, and there was no choice... I wouldn't care whether my roomies were gay, straight, bi, male, or female.

So if you got drafted and they put you into a barracks with a bunch of men and you were told to strip and go take a shower with them you wouldn't mind at all? I find that hard to believe.

If anyone put their hands on me without my consent (gay, straight, bi, male, or female) I'd report them to the authorities, and they'd be in trouble.

How about it they just oggled you and watched you with sexual interest?
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How about it they just oggled you and watched you with sexual interest?

/shrugs.

What else is new?

I think it would be informative for men to spend one day as a female.
They would swiftly get over the notion that being "ogled and watched with sexual interest" is something anyone has the right to be free from.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
/shrugs.

What else is new?

I think it would be informative for men to spend one day as a female.
They would swiftly get over the notion that being "ogled and watched with sexual interest" is something anyone has the right to be free from.

The more I think about it, whether or not gay soldiers look at straight soldiers in the shower is irrelevant. The current policy at least creates a ‘useful fiction’ that the shower is completely heterosexual.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,190
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
/shrugs.

What else is new?

I think it would be informative for men to spend one day as a female.
They would swiftly get over the notion that being "ogled and watched with sexual interest" is something anyone has the right to be free from.

So what are you saying, this is something the military should be doing? Let's do that now, whenever some new female recruits arrived at Parris Island send them to the male showers so the guys can watch.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,190
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The more I think about it, whether or not gay soldiers look at straight soldiers in the shower is irrelevant.

Well it's not and it's an issue to be dealt with not dismissed out of hand. I don't for a second believe you would want to have to shower in front of men everyday, get dressed take care of all you personal hygiene needs etc. in front a bunch of men who find you sexually attractive as men would do.

Nor would it be good for unit cohesion if men or women are having affairs with, or are sexually or otherwise emotionally attracted to those they are serving with in a unit. That has no place in a military unit.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well it's not and it's an issue to be dealt with not dismissed out of hand. I don't for a second believe you would want to have to shower in front of men everyday, get dressed take care of all you personal hygiene needs etc. in front a bunch of men who find you sexually attractive as men would do.

Nor would it be good for unit cohesion if men or women are having affairs with, or are sexually or otherwise emotionally attracted to those they are serving with in a unit. That has no place in a military unit.

Perhaps, you just entered the thread and didnt see any of my other posts. Being in the military, I understand how having openly-gay personnel in the military would have a very negative impact on the overall effectiveness and I am firmly against the transition at the current time.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The shower "issue" is just a red herring and is a ridiculous argument.

If you go to a gym and shower at a gym...there are probably gay people there. Should gay people be banned from gyms?

And as far as gay men checking everybody out in the shower....it draws upon a lot of assumptions. It assumes that all gay men are going to spy on guys in the shower - which is not true. It assumes that straight men don't check out other guys in the shower - which is not true. It assumes that DODT eliminates this problem - which is doesn't.

Again...the only difference b/w allowing gays to serve openly in the military has to do with honesty. I believe honesty is the best policy. Pretending to be straight to be in the military is what DODT requires....and service based on deceit is a less desirable quality I would believe than is honesty.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The shower "issue" is just a red herring and is a ridiculous argument.

As a heterosexual man, I should not have to expose my body to a gay man in the shower. Do you believe that women soldiers should be forced to share showers with heterosexual men?

If you go to a gym and shower at a gym...there are probably gay people there. Should gay people be banned from gyms?
I guess you feel going to the gym and being in the military are identical. Let's think about this. A) I go to the gym all the time and I am yet to hear anyone parading around saying they were gay. B)If they did, I could choose not to shower and go elsewhere (unlike the military)

And as far as gay men checking everybody out in the shower....it draws upon a lot of assumptions.
As I said, whether or not gay soldiers look at straight soldiers in the shower is irrelevant. The current policy at least creates a ‘useful fiction’ that the shower is completely heterosexual, but I will flatter you.

It assumes that all gay men are going to spy on guys in the shower - which is not true.
I dont think anyone has ever said that all gay men would always spy.
It assumes that straight men don't check out other guys in the shower - which is not true.
Hrmmm..................................... ?

It assumes that DODT eliminates this problem - which is doesn't.
I think DADT is working quite well and is a very good compromise.

Since you think DADT is so bad, why dont we just go back to the traditional policy which recognizes that homosexuality is simply incompatible with military service.
Again...the only difference b/w allowing gays to serve openly in the military has to do with honesty. I believe honesty is the best policy. Pretending to be straight to be in the military is what DODT requires....and service based on deceit is a less desirable quality I would believe than is honesty.
No one is being dishonest or pretending anything. They are simply not expressing their sexuality one way or the other.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think DADT is working quite well and is a very good compromise.

I don't think it's working all that well, if gays are serving openly despite it, and nobody cares (haven't we had several people in this very thread state that they either served with open gays or are gay themselves and served openly?).
In that case, it could be that the majority has outgrown the need for such discriminatory legislature... I mean, if it's largely just being disregarded, that would be an indication it's not necessary anymore, I would think.
Would it be okay if archaic laws were still on the books that blacks had to ride in the backs of buses, as long as everybody pretty much just ignored these laws?
All it takes is one racist jerk who feels "uncomfortable" sitting next to a black person and decides to invoke their 'right" to be free from having to sit next to blacks.
Such a discriminatory "right" should not be there to invoke in the first place.
It causes the majority to feel an undeserved sense of entitlement, which is detrimental to society in the long run.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think it's working all that well, if gays are serving openly despite it, and nobody cares (haven't we had several people in this very thread state that they either served with open gays or are gay themselves and served openly?).
I think it's working very well. Haven’t the witch hunts been reduced, and the number of discharges fallen in comparison to the old policy?

Since you think DADT is so bad, why dont we just go back to the traditional policy which recognizes that homosexuality is simply incompatible with military service?

We have heard people say that. I dont want to question anyone's integrity, but being in the service, I find it hard to believe.

In that case, it could be that the majority has outgrown the need for such discriminatory legislature... I mean, if it's largely just being disregarded, that would be an indication it's not necessary anymore, I would think.
I would agree that if that were the case, one could assume as you did, that the indication is it's not necessary. However, I find it very very hard to believe and dont know one single person that has ever said they were gay in any of the commands I've been at.

Would it be okay if archaic laws were still on the books that blacks had to ride in the backs of buses, as long as everybody pretty much just ignored these laws?
All it takes is one racist jerk who feels "uncomfortable" sitting next to a black person and decides to invoke their 'right" to be free from having to sit next to blacks.
Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. Blacks do not choose to be black, but gays can choose not to act gay.

Such a discriminatory "right" should not be there to invoke in the first place.
It causes the majority to feel an undeserved sense of entitlement, which is detrimental to society in the long run.

Let me ask you 1069, should HIV positive soldiers be able to continue to serve?
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
/shrugs.

What else is new?

I think it would be informative for men to spend one day as a female.
They would swiftly get over the notion that being "ogled and watched with sexual interest" is something anyone has the right to be free from.

and there's the rub, IMO
women are more comfortable with open expression of emotions, particularly amongst other women
Women are also subjected, unfortunately, to ogling
and while it is not right, and i am guilty of doing it, it is something they are accustomed to it
Men are somewhat Neanderthals regarding that, myself included
I think women serving openly gay would not be an issue in the womens barracks, for that reason
However, it is a completely different situation for men, well most men, I would venture to say
the feminization of men has also resulted in Uber men who overcompensate for the recent onslaught of women trying to get men to be 'more in touch with their emotions' or as some call it 'being feminized'
And i would venture to guess that the military appeals to the more manly type man, who would therefor be more uncomfortable than the avg guy about being around gays, especially in their living quarters

:twocents:
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me ask you 1069, should HIV positive soldiers be able to continue to serve?

I think employers should be prevented from discriminating against those with any chronic illness or condition, as long as the condition does not incapacitate them or prevent them from doing their job.
Then again, the military has been known to discriminate against those with asthma and all sorts of other relatively benign, medically-controllable conditions, so i don't know.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think employers should be prevented from discriminating against those with any chronic illness or condition, as long as the condition does not incapacitate them or prevent them from doing their job.
Then again, the military has been known to discriminate against those with asthma and all sorts of other relatively benign, medically-controllable conditions, so i don't know.

What is your opinion on it?

Why are these other issues not being protested against?
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
and there's the rub, IMO
women are more comfortable with open expression of emotions, particularly amongst other women
Women are also subjected, unfortunately, to ogling
and while it is not right, and i am guilty of doing it, it is something they are accustomed to it
Men are somewhat Neanderthals regarding that, myself included
I think women serving openly gay would not be an issue in the womens barracks, for that reason
However, it is a completely different situation for men, well most men, I would venture to say
the feminization of men has also resulted in Uber men who overcompensate for the recent onslaught of women trying to get men to be 'more in touch with their emotions' or as some call it 'being feminized'
And i would venture to guess that the military appeals to the more manly type man, who would therefor be more uncomfortable than the avg guy about being around gays, especially in their living quarters

:twocents:


Very interesting point DJ. I havent ever thought about it like that.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is your opinion on it?

Why are these other issues not being protested against?

I guess because in draft-time, people want to be able to use these same relatively benign conditions to stay out of the military.
At least, they have used all sorts of excuses in the past to stay out: flat feet, asthma, back trouble, overweight, underweight, hemmorhoids (didn't Rush Limbaugh stay out of Vietnam because of that?), whatever.
None of which would necessarily incapacitate someone from serving in the military.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I guess you feel going to the gym and being in the military are identical. Let's think about this. A) I go to the gym all the time and I am yet to hear anyone parading around saying they were gay. B)If they did, I could choose not to shower and go elsewhere (unlike the military)

I never said they were exactly the same thing. The point I was making is that if you shower at the gym, unless it has enclosed showers, there is a likelihood that you are going to be seen by gay men. I think its just something that we have to deal with. Now if you are approached sexually or propositioned...I think that is different.



spook said:
As I said, whether or not gay soldiers look at straight soldiers in the shower is irrelevant. The current policy at least creates a ‘useful fiction’ that the shower is completely heterosexual, but I will flatter you.

So...."ignorance is bliss?"




spook said:
Hrmmm..................................... ?

You disagree? You don't think that straight guys look at other guys for comparison purposes or curiosity? If so, you haven't done much reading...there are many many many accounts of this. Even I will admit that I have compared myself to my friends....Does this make you as uncomfortable as showering with a gay man?


spook said:
I think DADT is working quite well and is a very good compromise.
Ignorance IS bliss

spook said:
Since you think DADT is so bad, why dont we just go back to the traditional policy which recognizes that homosexuality is simply incompatible with military service.

Just because I think DADT is a terrible policy it doesn't mean that I think we should go back to a worse one. Here's a concept - why don't we try for a better policy. One that promotes honesty and tolerance.

spook said:
No one is being dishonest or pretending anything. They are simply not expressing their sexuality one way or the other.

Don't fool yourself. In order to hide a person's homosexuality they will have to pretend to be straight. In other words "I don't mind gay people ....as long as they act straight in public"
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess because in draft-time, people want to be able to use these same relatively benign conditions to stay out of the military.

At least, they have used all sorts of excuses in the past to stay out: flat feet, asthma, back trouble, overweight, underweight, hemmorhoids (didn't Rush Limbaugh stay out of Vietnam because of that?), whatever.
But isnt that discrimination? What about all the people with flat feet, asthma, back trouble, overweight, hemorroids, heart murmors, HIV postive, etc etc that want to join?
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I never said they were exactly the same thing. The point I was making is that if you shower at the gym, unless it has enclosed showers, there is a likelihood that you are going to be seen by gay men. I think its just something that we have to deal with. Now if you are approached sexually or propositioned...I think that is different.

Would you agree that it is a completely different scenario? Military setting and gym setting arent comparable. Also, how many times have you been in the gym and heard people just announcing they were gay? Is this a common occurance for you? Does it happen sometimes? Ever?

So...."ignorance is bliss?"
Pretty much.

You disagree? You don't think that straight guys look at other guys for comparison purposes or curiosity? If so, you haven't done much reading...there are many many many accounts of this. Even I will admit that I have compared myself to my friends....Does this make you as uncomfortable as showering with a gay man?
I dont think they do it in the shower. If I am working out with my buddy, we can compare different muscle groups. See who is kicking the other's *** in biceps or traps or whatever. We certainy dont do it in the shower and not in a sexual way.

Ignorance IS bliss
Havent the witch hunts been reduced, and the number of discharges fallen in comparison to the old policy?

Just because I think DADT is a terrible policy it doesn't mean that I think we should go back to a worse one. Here's a concept - why don't we try for a better policy. One that promotes honesty and tolerance.
What makes it so terrible? Are you one of the select few military-ignorant people that feel personal desires come before military effectiveness? Again, DADT doesnt promote dishonesty. They do not need to claim to be hetero.

Don't fool yourself. In order to hide a person's homosexuality they will have to pretend to be straight. In other words "I don't mind gay people ....as long as they act straight in public"

See above.


Also, what is your opinion about military personnel being discharged due to being HIV + or people unable to join because of it? Discrimination, right?
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,190
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The shower "issue" is just a red herring and is a ridiculous argument.

Nope you're just trying to dismiss it, and it's not just the shower but the overall intimate living conditions the military endures.

If you go to a gym and shower at a gym...there are probably gay people there. Should gay people be banned from gyms?

There may be but if there is a sign outside saying gay shower I certainly would not want to go there for mine.

And as far as gay men checking everybody out in the shower....it draws upon a lot of assumptions. It assumes that all gay men are going to spy on guys in the shower - which is not true. It assumes that straight men don't check out other guys in the shower - which is not true. It assumes that DODT eliminates this problem - which is doesn't.

You're assuming reality doesn't exit. If I were in a shower with a lot of women, especially in shape women of course I would be checking them out and then of course my wife would want to know what I was doing in their in the first place. And no straight men to not sexually check out other men. Maybe you but not me.

Again...the only difference b/w allowing gays to serve openly in the military has to do with honesty.

Nope, it's a lot more than that.

I believe honesty is the best policy.

OK then let me serve with a womens battalion. I'll be honest that I would enjoy it. So that makes it OK?

Pretending to be straight to be in the military is what DODT requires....and service based on deceit is a less desirable quality I would believe than is honesty.

I believe you don't know what does or doesn't make for a good military unit.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Would you agree that it is a completely different scenario? Military setting and gym setting arent comparable. Also, how many times have you been in the gym and heard people just announcing they were gay? Is this a common occurance for you? Does it happen sometimes? Ever?

Yes....absolutely I agree that they are too seperate scenarios and I am not making a comparison. What I am saying is that if that is the rationale behind DADT I think it is ridiculous. The reason being is because if we shower in public, be it in the military, at a pool, at a gym...there is a good chance that a gay person might see us. Maybe that bothers you. I accept it, unless of course there is unwanted propositioning or sexual behavior which is a different story.
Do people at my gym go around announcing they are gay? Of course not, but I live in Los Angeles....I know for a fact that I have been in the showers with gay men...and consequently I didn't notice any of them leering at me.





spook said:
I dont think they do it in the shower. If I am working out with my buddy, we can compare different muscle groups. See who is kicking the other's *** in biceps or traps or whatever. We certainy dont do it in the shower and not in a sexual way.
.

Maybe thats true...but there are a lot of straight men that will check out other guys....and its not a "sexual" thing. As I said, I don't think its uncommon, especially in high school (younger days) for guys to compare themselves to friends or other guys to see how they measure up. I doubt that most men straight or gay can say that they have never looked at another guys dick...it doesn't mean that they want to get it on.


spook said:
Havent the witch hunts been reduced, and the number of discharges fallen in comparison to the old policy?

I don't know the latest stats. I do know that in the first 3-4 years the numbers actually went way UP. I think eventually they reduced...I do know that there have been a significant number this year, but how it compares, I won't claim to have that knowledge. I think it would be interesting to know how many were based on conduct v. words.


spook said:
What makes it so terrible? Are you one of the select few military-ignorant people that feel personal desires come before military effectiveness? [

Why does it have to be mutually exclusive?
I believe that the military would be just as effective, if not more, if gays were allowed to serve. I have read numerous accounts of extremely highly qualified people who were discharged.
How does taking skilled people and discharging them make us more effective?

spook said:
Again, DADT doesnt promote dishonesty. They do not need to claim to be hetero.

See... I don't buy this premise. I think if you have a group of guys sitting around talking about things that guys do...and if a gay person doesn't pretend to be heterosexual, they would be outed in a minute. Again I have read accounts of people being discharged under DADT, not for conduct or verbalization because they were suspected of being gay. They were then "asked" by their superiors ( in violation of the policy) and were discharged for honestly answering the inquiry.
Again I ask....how does rewarding dishonesty and punishing honest make us more effective?



spook said:
Also, what is your opinion about military personnel being discharged due to being HIV + or people unable to join because of it? Discrimination, right?

This reminds me of when Magic Johnson first announced he was HIV + and you had a number of players in the league saying they would refuse to play against him. Eventually, though education, their fears were alleviated.
In answer to your question, I would say that they should be able to join as long as they are able to perform the duties.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes....absolutely I agree that they are too seperate scenarios and I am not making a comparison. What I am saying is that if that is the rationale behind DADT I think it is ridiculous. The reason being is because if we shower in public, be it in the military, at a pool, at a gym...there is a good chance that a gay person might see us. Maybe that bothers you. I accept it, unless of course there is unwanted propositioning or sexual behavior which is a different story.
If you agree (as you rightfully should), why are you continuing to discuss it? You said so yourself, military isnt the same as the gym so your point has no merit.

Do people at my gym go around announcing they are gay? Of course not, but I live in Los Angeles....I know for a fact that I have been in the showers with gay men...and consequently I didn't notice any of them leering at me.
No merit.

Maybe thats true...but there are a lot of straight men that will check out other guys....and its not a "sexual" thing. As I said, I don't think its uncommon, especially in high school (younger days) for guys to compare themselves to friends or other guys to see how they measure up. I doubt that most men straight or gay can say that they have never looked at another guys dick...it doesn't mean that they want to get it on.
Speak for yourself there.

Why does it have to be mutually exclusive?
I believe that the military would be just as effective, if not more, if gays were allowed to serve. I have read numerous accounts of extremely highly qualified people who were discharged.
How does taking skilled people and discharging them make us more effective?
Just curious: have you served in the military? Which do you feel is more important, effectiveness or personal desires?

I disagree completely. There are many different arguments I could use here but think about it this way: If 23% of the military were to refuse to serve next to openly gay people, we would need that 23% filled with openly gay people to maintain the current numbers. Not going to happen.

See... I don't buy this premise. I think if you have a group of guys sitting around talking about things that guys do...and if a gay person doesn't pretend to be heterosexual, they would be outed in a minute.
That's a negative. How would they be outed? I am not going to ask and they arent going to tell.

Again I have read accounts of people being discharged under DADT, not for conduct or verbalization because they were suspected of being gay. They were then "asked" by their superiors ( in violation of the policy) and were discharged for honestly answering the inquiry.
Again I ask....how does rewarding dishonesty and punishing honest make us more effective?
I am not aware of every situation. If this has happened in the past, the superior should be punished due to violation of the current policy. At the same time though, the gay person violated the policy by telling him. IF I were gay and my superior asked me I would simply say "Sir, I am not confirming or denying that I am gay and you are in violation of the DADT policy." and proceed to utilize my chain of command to have the situation delt with.
Either way, I am sure these cases are rare and violators should be punished.

This reminds me of when Magic Johnson first announced he was HIV + and you had a number of players in the league saying they would refuse to play against him. Eventually, though education, their fears were alleviated.
In answer to your question, I would say that they should be able to join as long as they are able to perform the duties.
Again, this is a totally different situation. Again I ask you, would you agree that basketball and the military are totally different situations?

I am pretty much flabergasted that you would allow HIV+ to serve as long as it doesnt affect their ability to perform their duties. I guess it's easy for you to say if your not in the military and it doesnt concern you.

Let's say that was the case and this HIV+ person chose the CS rating (cook). Somehow, his blood gets into the food and people become infected. Now what?
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
learn to be normal if you want to be respected. I simply do not celebrate diversity unless it represents normality. I admire people of many races and cultures that emulate my normality...

So basically you want a world of people who look, act, and think like you.

And you have the arrogance to claim that that would be better than the world we have now? Christ.:shock:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If 23% of the military were to refuse to serve next to openly gay people, we would need that 23% filled with openly gay people to maintain the current numbers. Not going to happen

You have offered zero evidence that 23% of people would refuse to serve. If anyone cared about their country so little that they would refuse to serve it because of the possibility that there might be one or two gay people in their unit, that's pathetic.
That's a negative. How would they be outed? I am not going to ask and they arent going to tell.

Did you completely forget the example earlier in the thread of the person who WAS tried and kicked out despite never admitting being gay? The one who was outed anonymously?

I am pretty much flabergasted that you would allow HIV+ to serve as long as it doesnt affect their ability to perform their duties. I guess it's easy for you to say if your not in the military and it doesnt concern you.

Let's say that was the case and this HIV+ person chose the CS rating (cook). Somehow, his blood gets into the food and people become infected. Now what?

What if a straight person in the military (with any one of 200 other communicable diseases, perhaps picked up from a foreign hooker) does the same thing?

Hell, for that matter, why don't we ban HIV+ people from everything? Cause if they're such a risk to us in the military, they're probably an equal risk in civilian life. Maybe we could put them all on an island or something.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
You have offered zero evidence that 23% of people would refuse to serve. If anyone cared about their country so little that they would refuse to serve it because of the possibility that there might be one or two gay people in their unit, that's pathetic.


Did you completely forget the example earlier in the thread of the person who WAS tried and kicked out despite never admitting being gay? The one who was outed anonymously?



What if a straight person in the military (with any one of 200 other communicable diseases, perhaps picked up from a foreign hooker) does the same thing?

Hell, for that matter, why don't we ban HIV+ people from everything? Cause if they're such a risk to us in the military, they're probably an equal risk in civilian life. Maybe we could put them all on an island or something.

Ahhh, New York, this is why I like you so much! You are my hero! :2bow:
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have offered zero evidence that 23% of people would refuse to serve. If anyone cared about their country so little that they would refuse to serve it because of the possibility that there might be one or two gay people in their unit, that's pathetic.

Check this out:
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., Oct. 10 (AScribe Newswire) -- Data from a new poll of potential U.S. military recruits has set off debate among scholars and other military experts about whether allowing gay troops to serve openly would undermine recruiting efforts. According to the results of the survey, 76 percent of potential military recruits said that lifting the ban on openly gay service members would have "no effect" on their decision to enlist. Twenty-one percent of respondents said that lifting the ban would decrease their chance of enlisting, while only 2 percent said it would increase their likelihood of joining the military.
link
So just to spell it out for everyone, think of it like this.

It would have no positive or negative impact on 76% of people.
It would have a negative impact on 21% of the people.
It would have a positive impact on 2% of the people.
In conclusion, there would be an overall negative impact of 19% on the people.

Also, here is another link that I find very interesting.

When you, if you do this [a communal shower situation) with a man who professes that kind of orientation, I find it morally and personally
unacceptable.... I find it morally, morally incorrect. This is an act of rebellion.
against the God I believe in. This is an act of rebelling I am sorry, old, I am 32 years and I cannot divorce myself of who I am as of this day, or what I believe.... Now, I came into this service because yes, I was not lied to, and I knew that there were no gays, openly, allowed in the military.

But I will testify in front of this committee today and say that I hope, if Mr. Clinton decides to lift the ban and allow gays through, then also with that measure he gives us our outright release from active duty. Because Al Portes will refuse... to serve with gays in the military

This is from here

Did you completely forget the example earlier in the thread of the person who WAS tried and kicked out despite never admitting being gay? The one who was outed anonymously?

As I said in the post immediately below that one:

SpooK said:
I am not aware of every situation. If this has happened in the past, the superior should be punished due to violation of the current policy. At the same time though, the gay person violated the policy by telling him. IF I were gay and my superior asked me I would simply say "Sir, I am not confirming or denying that I am gay and you are in violation of the DADT policy." and proceed to utilize my chain of command to have the situation delt with.
Either way, I am sure these cases are rare and violators should be punished.


What if a straight person in the military (with any one of 200 other communicable diseases, perhaps picked up from a foreign hooker) does the same thing?

Hell, for that matter, why don't we ban HIV+ people from everything? Cause if they're such a risk to us in the military, they're probably an equal risk in civilian life. Maybe we could put them all on an island or something.

Interesting, but military has more complex issues than in the civilian world. link

It is important to note that some analyses conflate HIV and AIDS, assuming all soldiers who are HIV positive will not be able to perform their duties because of AIDS. Thus, the security implications of HIV may be less than initially perceived, especially for militaries relying on conscription, because many soldiers who are HIV positive will have completed their duty by the time they develop symptoms of AIDS. Also, contrary to arguments that HIV will worsen national security is the idea that higher rates of HIV among militaries could have a beneficial strategic effect by constraining “offensive military plans in bellicose countries” [ 9]. Decreased military effectiveness may make some countries more likely to turn to nonmilitary means to resolve conflicts and promote their interests. However, there is no available evidence to date that HIV has inspired or foreclosed armed conflict. The strategic impact of high HIV prevalence on the armed forces remains complex and dependent upon other country-specific factors.
 
Top Bottom