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.