President to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

[heavyguns1/1]

As if ignoring the recommendations of our Generals wasn't enough to boost morale, maybe this will help.

WTF

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9000/9183106/Obama_reaffirms_will_end_dont_ask_dont_tell

:mad:

[Princeps Belli]

I don't really care what people do in their private life, but this homosexuality thing has gone over the top; the reason is this, I think: the more one makes his or her practices acceptable in the public eye; the more one can feel that his or her practice is acceptable. Therefore, sexual practices, which should normally be left to those practicing, is pushed onto the whole social infrastructure. I don't have too many weird fetishes, but if I did, I would keep them in the bedroom where they belong. I wouldn't run around trying to convince everyone that my sexual conduct was appropriate and justifiable. "Don't ask; don't tell" is a reasonable enough policy. It privatizes sexual conduct. Even the Romans made homosexuality illegal in their great military, as the rest of society indulged in such habits.

I will haphazardly state that homosexuality seems to appear in Imperialistic societies, and something of the passion may be the cause of their ruin. The Greeks did not appear to originally be homosexual, but they ended up being gross homosexual pedophiles. It was an accepted practice in their culture. Rome, too, did not originally engage in open homosexual activity, but as their empire grew, they developed notorious sexual passions of all sorts. We, today, all over the world, have loosened the bounds on our sexual practices, but to make everyone accept them, I think it is a crime. History has not been kind to the Romans and Greeks in their ways of such nature. I doubt that it will be kind to America, if it is at the forefront of such things. It will begin to look like another despotism.

If one is interested, I recommend De Tocqueville. He does a good job at recognizing Democratic Despotism. His chapters on equality versus liberty and on the family prove to be a great articulation of principles. Highly recommended.

[Princeps Belli]

Sorry for the double post

[RickyRecon]

I could care less if someone serving is gay. I could care less if they are "open" about it. So long as they hump a ruck, shoot a rifle and serve with honor.

I am worried about using the military as a social experiment. I also think that if this happens you can expect everything to become even more cripellingly (sp?) PC.

Lastly, I think using a theological argument against homos is self defeating as the argument only matters to those that hold the theology.

Just my two cents.

[Lannister]

President to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Great..!!

There were obvious homosexual people in EVERY unit I served in during my 8 years of service who did their jobs without complaint.

DADT was only a farce/distraction anyway...

I couldn't care less what a servicemember wants to do sexually/legally on their own time.... as I too would/could be considered a heretosexual deviant by those with a puritan bent... :redface: :biggrin:

As long as they can "Shoot, Comunicate, Move on up"when it counts... then they are ok as far as I was concerned...

[CarnageWhiskey]

This will not be good for the military.
It has the potential to dissolve the order, discipline, and readiness within a unit.
If anybody has a behavior, habit, or lifestyle that does that I am immediately against it.

Stand by for more male on male sexual crimes within the military as a whole.
Now every sexual crime on a female is being treated seriously.
Not long ago they were swept under the rug, because commanders were fearful of the PC crowd.
I have a feeling the same would happen for the same reason.

Regarding sexual attitudes being accepted by society, pedophilia ,in my opinion, will be forced to be accepted under the similar preface that homosexuality used.

[alelks]

The only problem I have is this.

If you're not gay your sure can't shower with females. Well if you are gay then you shouldn't be able to shower with other males that are not gay. I'll be damned if I'm going to be in the shower with someone I know is gay, it's just not going to happen because you know he's definitely looking at me and my junk thinking God only knows what.

Nope, not going to happen.

If you're going to get rid of the don't ask, don't tell policy then make all showers coed. At least give us straight guys a level playing field.

[BOFH]

As to gays in the military, I don't care. If you care, well...get off your moral/religious fucking high horse. If you can run and gun, I don't care if you take it in the ass in your spare time.

Hell, UCMJ rules regarding sexual practices are the most idiotic things I've ever read anyway. C'mon now...If you want to be legalistic, every Soldier who has ever gotten a BJ has broken a rule just as severe as the "no gays," rule...it all falls under "Sodomy," according to the UCMJ, if I remember correctly...

As for the whole shower thing...who cares? Personally, I choose to believe that I would be unattractive in every way to any gay man. That is enough to set my mind at ease.

And last, about pedophilia being forced on society:
Nonsense.
Homosexuality is considered "wrong," because our society and our entire moral code are shaped by Bible-thumping hypocrites. It hurts nobody, except the guy who CHOOSES to take it in the ass. Simple as that.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is considered immoral and reprehensible by any logical person on the face of the planet.

The difference there is the difference between "absolute morality," the things that EVERYONE knows to be wrong, and "religious morality," the things a 2000 year old book says are wrong.




Back to the original subject, gays in the military, I have one more thing to say: Just like they shouldn't have to change their lifestyle to accomodate me, I refuse to change my behavior to accomodate them. I will continue to joke around, call people "fags," and whatever else I feel like doing, offensive or not. If someone wants to get sensitive about it, well...sucks for me, then, because I'm sure I'll get in trouble every other day or so.

[FroggyRuminations]

The only problem I have is this.

If you're not gay your sure can't shower with females. Well if you are gay then you shouldn't be able to shower with other males that are not gay. I'll be damned if I'm going to be in the shower with someone I know is gay, it's just not going to happen because you know he's definitely looking at me and my junk thinking God only knows what.

Nope, not going to happen.

If you're going to get rid of the don't ask, don't tell policy then make all showers coed. At least give us straight guys a level playing field.

The only other place where you have to shower with homos is in prison. The social experimentation in the military is a luxury that we don't have in a time of peace. We are not in a time of peace.

Re: "There's gays in every military unit I served in." Not in my experience their wasn't. Being a homo in NSW would be an extremely hostile environment and would have a very negative impact on unit integrity. I don't know about some Motor T unit where you are changing tires and shit, but I don't see how it could possibly turn out well in the Teams.

Before anybody gets uppity about that last statement, be advised that you are on SOCNET, not Motor T net and to us SOF operators that shit (meat gazing homos in your platoon, A-Team, etc.) isn't going to fly.

[Dirtpuppy]

\you know he's definitely looking at me and my junk thinking God only knows what.

Dont flatter yourself. Most gay people aren't raging sexual addicts who foam at the mouth when genitalia are visible. If they are, heteros are as just as guilty as they are when they see such things they are sexually attracted to. Homosexuality is being attracted to the same gender, not having an uncontraollable sexual appetite. My brother came out a few years ago, after being married and having a kid. Why? Because, he was pressured into living the "normal" lifestyle. After 41 years of living a lie, he decided he had enough. He knew all along he was attracted to males, but could not open up due to fear of rejection in his career and social connections. Hes an Air Force vet and a hard working person, he did not choose to be attracted to men, its the cards he was dealt. Me, being the dick that I am, asked every question I could fathom regarding my naivety towards homosexuality and found out that they're just like heteros, the only difference is they're just attracted to the same gender. Now, are those that overdo it and make them look unfavorably? Of course, but same goes for heteros. My family did not crucify him, we accepted it, its who he is. And if he ever finds a partner that can be mutually understanding and love fills their relationship, why knock it? He doesnt wave a rainbow flag, march in parades or preach for gay rights. I believe in gay/lesbian rights now just as people of color needed rights from being discriminated against in the 1960's.
Not too long ago it was absolutely forbidden to have relations outside the same race (white-black, brown-white, brown-black) and now we all know (for most people) that it doesnt matter what race people should be to find love and happiness or raise a family, so shouldn't it matter what gender people are to find such happiness. If a homosexual family can raise a child free from drugs or alcohol or sexual abuse why stop it?
Ive seen heterosexuals disrupt the military workplace due to their "relations" outside and sometimes in the office that find their way back to their performance and they are dealt with. Either keep that shit off duty or we'll arrange it to where it does not affect overall mission objective.

[Massgrunt]

Great..!!

There were obvious homosexual people in EVERY unit I served in during my 8 years of service who did their jobs without complaint. :tongue: You were a Ranger? *rimshot*

[bobofthedesert]

IMHO this is going to be a problem in combat arms units. The kind of people who select an Infantry MOS are not generally tolerant of homo's. I know I'm not. I personally would not want to have anyone in my platoon I knew to be gay. FUCK THAT.

Please don't anyone try and tell me how badass (NPI) the Spartans
were.........:rolleyes:

[Lannister]

If I'm understanding this correctly...
A servicemember can be expected to maintain discipline and professionalism while under fire and in the most extreme circumstances.... but expected to just lose his shit cause a tonsil-jockey is standing next to him in formation...:confused:

I'm not into felching... but if Joe Snuffy, E-4 is... should I now NOT maintain my military bearing...??

Blaming a breakdown in discipline and individual professionalism on the personal sexual preferences of the dude standing in formation next to me seems kinda weak IMO...

Just a few thoughts...

Lannister

[Lannister]

I'll be damned if I'm going to be in the shower with someone I know is gay, it's just not going to happen because you know he's definitely looking at me and my junk thinking God only knows what...

You DO realize that you have already been in plenty of showers with Gay dudes... don't you...???



:tongue: You were a Ranger? *rimshot*

NOPE...!!!!

Not even close...;)

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I could care less if someone serving is gay. I could care less if they are "open" about it. So long as they hump a ruck, shoot a rifle and serve with honor.

I am worried about using the military as a social experiment. I also think that if this happens you can expect everything to become even more cripellingly (sp?) PC.

Lastly, I think using a theological argument against homos is self defeating as the argument only matters to those that hold the theology.

Just my two cents.I completely agree on all points.

[BOFH]

If having a fag in the unit causes a breakdown in unit professionalism...then the unit wasn't very professional to start with.

[Ranger1]

:tongue: You were a Ranger? *rimshot*

You should just go ahead and paint a BIG target on your forehead. If you thought the "Last Cowboy" stuff was bad....:cool:

[Massgrunt]

You should just go ahead and paint a BIG target on your forehead. If you thought the "Last Cowboy" stuff was bad....:cool:

Lol... do your worst!

About DADT and all that, I think it's a bad idea to repeal it. We had a gay sergeant in my platoon. He was probably the only sergeant in the Marine Corps that was a rifle team member, working for a corporal who had probably half the time in the Corps that he had. n my time in the platoon he went from squad leader to team leader to team member. He had zero credibility with anyone, and was totally ineffective as a leader. I have no idea what it was like for him before everyone found out he was gay, he probably was never all that great anyway. But right or wrong, a homosexual is going to have zero effectiveness in an infantry unit.

[Princeps Belli]

Homosexuality is considered "wrong," because our society and our entire moral code are shaped by Bible-thumping hypocrites. It hurts nobody, except the guy who CHOOSES to take it in the ass. Simple as that.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is considered immoral and reprehensible by any logical person on the face of the planet.

The difference there is the difference between "absolute morality," the things that EVERYONE knows to be wrong, and "religious morality," the things a 2000 year old book says are wrong.


I understand where you are coming from, but please, don't dismiss the ancients, as if they are outdated. A document that was written over 2500 years ago still has great weight. If one reads it and reads carefully, one will recognize its great benefit. Our Founding Fathers learned statesmanship from Biblical teachings and Plutarch. Most of us have neither read the Bible in a real way, nor have we seriously looked at the ancients.

Today, we find a great deal of "individualism." We are less literate and less learned than those of yesteryear. All one has to do is look at the writing of two generations past. Fuck Bible-thumping and high-minded, sitting on the mountain moralism. Just read the book as it is and actually read it. Most people that talk about Biblical moralism don't know shit about the Bible. They've never actually read it. It's not "Amen" series of books. It requires poetic interpretation, an analysis of symbolism, and a freethinking mind; the Bible is a library of books, and those books deserve thoughtful consideration.

Today, I see people that live off of Christian principles, but they would sooner die than acknowledge that fact. It's just like the idiots that quote Darwin; they've never read him. How can one actually know what he is trying to say without reading him?

I like what FroggyRuminations has to say: Re: "There's gays in every military unit I served in." Not in my experience their wasn't. Being a homo in NSW would be an extremely hostile environment and would have a very negative impact on unit integrity. I don't know about some Motor T unit where you are changing tires and shit, but I don't see how it could possibly turn out well in the Teams.

My opinion is this: you want to be gay; do it on your own time and in your own place. Don't go about trying to convert people into accepting homosexuality. How our beloved America has changed, AND NOT FOR THE BETTER. I don't even trust my own fellow citizen, and the homosexuality issue has further divided us. Team ethics require the sincerest person. I have "cuddled" with many fellow men because of cold, but I would have a hard time doing so if I thought that there sexual tendencies in that experience.

[NWPTrainer]

Working in the fitness industry in Portland, Oregon really opened my eyes to homosexuality. I've worked with a lot of gays and lesbians and even befriended a few. I'm not gay and think that taking another man's dick up your ass, or putting your own up another man's ass is some sick shit.

That having been said, a lot of the anti-gay bias in the military, even in combat arms, is fucking stupid.

Just because a guy is gay does NOT mean he's looking at your junk. Or, does every single straight woman you've ever met gaze longingly at your meat and dream of choking on it too? What makes you think a gay guy is? Are you really that arrogant? I was, until a gay guy I worked with pointed that little social fact out to me...and I'm a good-looking sonofabitch!:biggrin:

As far as it leading to breakdown of order and good discipline, as Irishsquid pointed out...If having a Tinkerbell in your unit causes people to lose their military bearing, you have WAY THE FUCK bigger issues than having a Tink around!

The fact is there are gay men (and quite a few bulld dykes!:eek:) that would, physically, be an asset to a combat unit. They are big, strong, fast, and fit. They are aggressive.

That's really the underlying problem. People see "flamers" and assume all gays are that way, and it just ain't so. Being gay does not mean a man is weak or effeminate. I worked with a former 0311 that is gay and now out of the closet. He's a hard-ass, proud Marine.

It's none of my business who somebody else is sleeping with. It's between them, their partner, and their God/Concience/etc.

[Old_Starlight]

This will not be good for the military.
It has the potential to dissolve the order, discipline, and readiness within a unit.
If anybody has a behavior, habit, or lifestyle that does that I am immediately against it.

Stand by for more male on male sexual crimes within the military as a whole.
Now every sexual crime on a female is being treated seriously.
Not long ago they were swept under the rug, because commanders were fearful of the PC crowd.
I have a feeling the same would happen for the same reason.

Regarding sexual attitudes being accepted by society, pedophilia ,in my opinion, will be forced to be accepted under the similar preface that homosexuality used.

Apart from the Australian Defence Force falling behind in latest training techniques in recent decades (lack of positive deployments along with slavish adherance to tradition, but that's a whole other rant), the policy of legalising homosexuality did none of the above for our Army or society.

Of all the outstanding soldiers I have ever worked with, one was a lesbian and another was gay. They never pushed themselves upon anyone and they represented Her Majesty's Uniform in an exemplary manner. They also represented themselves as consumate professionals.

One of the biggest shit bags (other than me :biggrin:) was straight and was guilty of sexual assault on more than one occassion before one of the girls had the guts to make a complaint!

As others here have said, if they can run and gun, I want them on my side!

My 0.05 dirhams worth.

[BOFH]

My opinion is this: you want to be gay; do it on your own time and in your own place. Don't go about trying to convert people into accepting homosexuality.

That much, I can certainly agree with. Gay OR straight, your private life should remain at home. When you go to work, nothing matters except work.

As for the Bible, I'll simply say that I was, at one time in my life, a Baptist Sunday-school teacher, music minister, and youth minister. I attended a Bible college, and have read the Book, cover-to-cover, many times. I think, for the most part, it's a wonderful book, full of great advice. I'll refrain from judgement on whether or not it is divinely inspired...because it really doesn't matter.

My point is simply this: Trying to take morals derived from religion, and make them law...that's no different than the Sharia law hardline Muslims want. We live in what is supposed to be a secular nation...let's keep it that way. If you can't give me a LOGICAL reason why something is right or wrong, then I'm not interested. I don't care what any book says, or how anyone feels about it. Logically, I can say that homosexuality goes against the concept of human evolution...but that's fine with me...if people want to eliminate their genes from the gene pool, I won't complain. What I can't see, logically, is why homosexuality is morally wrong.

religion shouldn't have ANY bearing on law, and law shouldn't have ANY bearing on religion...and that's really all there is to it.

[BOFH]

What you said...

Agreed, 100%

I've known quite a few gays in the military...some openly, some not so much. Some were even combat arms, and 1 or 2 were, in fact, SOF guys.

[NWPTrainer]

My point is simply this: Trying to take morals derived from religion, and make them law...that's no different than the Sharia law hardline Muslims want. We live in what is supposed to be a secular nation...let's keep it that way. ...



religion shouldn't have ANY bearing on law, and law shouldn't have ANY bearing on religion...and that's really all there is to it.

Thank you! The relation between Biblical law as the Law of the Land in this country and the concept of Sharia law in the Muslim world always seemed irrevocably linked to me, but to apparantly no one else.

As an atheist (no, I'm not one of THOSE people, I don't care if your kid prays in school...), I find the concept of basing MY morals on YOUR religious mythology almost morally repugnant! (I'm not addressing anyone in particular, the "you" is a generalization.

If you don't want Ali Baba telling you how to live, why the fuck should you be able to tell me how to live?

(Of course, now someone is going to point out that my being an atheist is WHY I don't have a problem with gays in uniform. So be it, although I had the same view when I was a practicing Catholic.)

[The Fat Guy]

religion shouldn't have ANY bearing on law, and law shouldn't have ANY bearing on religion...and that's really all there is to it.

Hmmmm,

Thou shalt not steal

Thour shalt not murder

Thou shalt not Lie

Thou shalt not touch the ass of your neighbors wife...


Those sound like good all around rules to me and I think some of them are illegal if you don't follow them.

My opinion on the legal / theological side of this is if its illegal, men will hold you accountable, if its immoral, its not man's job to hold you accountable, Its God's. If you want to take a chance and smoke a pole and pretent that God will not care, drive on. Just don't A, feel obligated to tell me about it and B, Damn sure don't think you are going to make me welcome you into open arms because some neauvaux wave liberal government passed a law.

The govt. can hold me accountable for not complying with the law, God will hold me accountable for what I think about it. If you don't believe in God, then under my theory, you have nothing to worry about for smoking pole or condoning the activities of those that do.

[Ole crusty bastard]

When, even at my age, I first look at a female, I am imagining several things and most of them are of a sexual nature. You can say how professional gays are or would be, but if their feelings and thoughts are comparable to mine, except turned around 180 degrees, one of his first thoughts would be of a sexual nature too. I don't care how many laws are passed about sexual harassment, this is my thought process.

The pressures of a combat situation don't need to be complicated by the additional pressures of your dick thinking it doesn't have to wait for that three day pass or your next leave. It wouldn't be fair for the straight guy.

[NWPTrainer]

Hmmmm,

Thou shalt not steal

Thour shalt not murder

Thou shalt not Lie

Thou shalt not touch the ass of your neighbors wife...




While those are (fundamentally) part of the ten commandments proclaimed by Mosaic Law, they can hardly be said to be simply "religious." They fall under the same "Laws of Survival" that the Jewish (and Muslim for that matter) prohibition against eating pork (or "laws" against homosexuality and sodomy) fall under...they were for the survival of a small tribe/group of people in the desert.

"'God' made these laws" was a way to ensure the survival of the group...

"Thou shalt not steal" cause it might piss your buddy off and he'll kick the shit out of you for it, or even kill you over it. That means one less sword to fight off invaders. It was a "law" in most, if not all, primitive societies.

"Thou shalt not murder," again, it's all about maintaining manpower for fighting off the neighboring clans. Otherwise, war would fall under that category too...

"Thou shalt not lie" because it builds mistrust and if you can't trust the guy next to you to tell you where the fish were biting, how the fuck can you trust him on anything more serious? Kind of like Maj. Rogers' Rule on not lying to Officers or other Rangers...

"Thou shalt not touch the ass of your neighbor's wife..." See "Thou shalt not steal..." above....

"Thou shalt not commit sodomy (ass-fucking for those that are not sure...it has nothing to do with fellation [blowjobs])." Cause if Jim is fucking Bob, then there is a pretty good chance neither of them is fucking Julie or Jane, in which case, Julie and Jane aren't producing kids who would grow up to be warriors and hunters for the clan/tribe/group.

Although the ten commandments are "Biblical Law" they are not "religious" laws because they transcend ALL religions. So, it goes back to, using religion as a crutch argument against something that makes you uncomfortable is just that...a crutch.

It would seem to me that Christians- of ALL people- should be TOLERANT of others. Just because you think it's sinful and disgusting (and again, I DO find it physically repugnant.), what happened to not casting stones? As I understand the Christian ethos (and I WAS raised Christian, and have read the book several times), it's not man's place to judge, as was stated.



OCB, are you seriously saying that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN you look at you are thinking of fucking? Wow....how do you not walk around with a hard-on? Sure I see women everyday that I could find myself sexually attracted to, but I don't AUTOMATICALLY imagine them naked! Isn't that a sex addict? (not that there is anything wrong with being a sex addict, IMO...)

[GPC]

I'm against it, but eventually it will be accepted.After a rough transition period.I can imagine that after Pres.Truman de-segregated the armed forces there were problems.I'm not pulling the race card either just using that as a example.

[SOTB]

I don't really care what people do in their private life, but this homosexuality thing has gone over the top....Bullshit. I love it when people state; "I don't care, BUT...." Only to be topped by "you're an idiot if you can't see that God's word (whichever god you believe in) is the cat's meow."

Open homosexuality in the military probably isn't going to be a great thing. My thoughts are more in line with how those people will be treated by non-homos, but the previous comments regarding sexual discrimination or harassment are damned valid (IMO). Calling someone a fag in the squadbay may now result in an article 15, plus 2 months of mandatory cultural training.:rolleyes:

I do think the worries of open cock-sucking in formation are the examples of simpleton IQs at work. PDAs have been uncool and unacceptable (or were when I was in) between heteros, I don't see why homos would be any different or want there to be any difference (ie, weren't PDA restrictions originally considered by heteros for heteros? So wouldn't it stand to reason that homos would not appreciate PDAs, either?).

I'm glad that I don't have to deal with this situation, as I am no longer in uniform. I would have bitched as much as anyone else that doesn't want to shower with someone they think is getting aroused with all of the nakedness. But at the same time, I have had literally hundreds of admitted homos working for me in some pretty dangerous locales -- and they worked FINE. Doing just as dangerous work than any grunt does. No open PDAs or unacceptable behavior. Certainly no more than heteros show. So I'm in the position of having to admit that my experience has shown me that gays can work just as hard and ethically as straight people. That leaves me with little to offer in the form of an argument against their being allowed in the military (although, as stated previously, there are already many IN the military), except my thoughts that at least initially it is going to be a royal PITA (no pun intended).

But please, let's leave the logical arguments out of this thread and get back to stating why higher deities will be displeased with America's direction and how we'll all be punished for letting things get this far....

[Purple36]

Dont flatter yourself. Most gay people aren't raging sexual addicts who foam at the mouth when genitalia are visible. If they are, heteros are as just as guilty as they are when they see such things they are sexually attracted to. Homosexuality is being attracted to the same gender, not having an uncontraollable sexual appetite. My brother came out a few years ago, after being married and having a kid. Why? Because, he was pressured into living the "normal" lifestyle. After 41 years of living a lie, he decided he had enough. He knew all along he was attracted to males, but could not open up due to fear of rejection in his career and social connections. Hes an Air Force vet and a hard working person, he did not choose to be attracted to men, its the cards he was dealt. Me, being the dick that I am, asked every question I could fathom regarding my naivety towards homosexuality and found out that they're just like heteros, the only difference is they're just attracted to the same gender. Now, are those that overdo it and make them look unfavorably? Of course, but same goes for heteros. My family did not crucify him, we accepted it, its who he is. And if he ever finds a partner that can be mutually understanding and love fills their relationship, why knock it? He doesnt wave a rainbow flag, march in parades or preach for gay rights. I believe in gay/lesbian rights now just as people of color needed rights from being discriminated against in the 1960's.
Not too long ago it was absolutely forbidden to have relations outside the same race (white-black, brown-white, brown-black) and now we all know (for most people) that it doesnt matter what race people should be to find love and happiness or raise a family, so shouldn't it matter what gender people are to find such happiness. If a homosexual family can raise a child free from drugs or alcohol or sexual abuse why stop it?
Ive seen heterosexuals disrupt the military workplace due to their "relations" outside and sometimes in the office that find their way back to their performance and they are dealt with. Either keep that shit off duty or we'll arrange it to where it does not affect overall mission objective.

I've been in for over 24 years and have served with both gay male and female soldiers. The ones that I knew of were squared away and never caused problems. I also know of combat arms folks, including a friend in SF, who came out after retiring. They hid it their entire 20+ career. No one knew-even their teammates.

The most common behavioural problem has been between male/female. (One could argue that's because of DADT-but I'm not so sure)

I'm not arguing for or against...but I don't think the world will end or that the military will be destroyed. Gays love their country and want the opportunity to serve. I'm ok with that.

[Purple36]

....
It would seem to me that Christians- of ALL people- should be TOLERANT of others. Just because you think it's sinful and disgusting (and again, I DO find it physically repugnant.), what happened to not casting stones? As I understand the Christian ethos (and I WAS raised Christian, and have read the book several times), it's not man's place to judge, as was stated.


I don't think you can go too far wrong if you live by Micah 6:8

[Looon]

It all depends on what the definition of "openly gay" means. IMO

I don't care one way or the other as long as they leave me the fuck alone in regard to their sexuality.

If this passes, you can guarantee that some (10%) rule, will try to 'fly' around the barracks.......full on flamers.

In my personal experience while being around homosexuals, it's been about 50/50. Half were quiet and didn't give a fuck and kept there lifestyle private just like a considerate individual should. The other half would try to shove it in your face on a regular basis and it was all they talked about. Saying shit like "you know what the difference between a straight man and a gay man is? A six pack of beer!"

Some will push it in an 'over the top' manner. Guaranteed. Especially since they are already considered a "protected class" of 'people', when referring to hate crimes. They gay card will be thrown at everyfuckingturn whether it's deserved or not (by some). Passed over for promotion? Throw a gay card.

Part of the openly gay culture is for some to dress in drag. How well would that go over in the barracks?

My brother in law is gay and I spend quite a bit of time around him and his significant other. They look down on those that 'fly' around and try to act like women. It's a fucking act and part of 'shoving it' in your face.

10% rule.

[Lannister]

If I'm in the showers... how can I discover that someone gay has been aroused by my nakedness... without having been dick watching in the first place...??????:confused:

Seems like I'd have to be scanning johnsons in the shower to determine who was turned on...

When I was in...
I generally just got in the shower, washed myself, and got out.
I didn't spend any time intently gazing at dudes to see if they were gazing at me... and then looking at their cocks to see if they were aroused... as THAT seems like homo behavior to me...;)

[Mraughh]

It dosen't bother me. I remember two guys in D Bat (artillery) got caught fucking and were tossed out when I was in. At least that was the rumor going around the companies.

Since getting out, I've met alot of gays & lesbians through work, from all branches of the armed forces who are squared away individuals.

Personally I'm going to invest stock in soap on a rope. Figure I'll make a killing :biggrin:

[Flying Pig]

I don't think you can go too far wrong if you live by Micah 6:8

And then theres always Leviticus 20:13 :eek:

I dont think its going to happen. Eventually? Probably, but like everything else, he was telling that particular crowd what they came to hear.

[poison]

Dunno, I think dadt is a good policy. There will always be 'hidden' gays, as many here have said, and this allows them to to what they need to do (serve AND suck dick :rolleyes: ) while not inconveniencing anyone else.

I had a roommate come out while living with me, 15 years ago. Painful to watch, it was hard for him with respect to family and friends. How did it affect me? He asked me one time if I had ever considered a man. I told him to fuck off, and he said 'just checking'. The guy is the best athlete I know, in ironman shape year round, and he graduated from stanford med school (put himself through, living in the back of his truck on campus). Smart mofo, motivated, tough, and strong as an ox, not to mention no one ever guesses he's gay. Wait, just the kind of guy I want watching my back, right?

Edit: there's a movie called Soldier's Girl, applies to this topic. Pretty damn uncomfortable movie, homophobes stay away, but it is well done, and deals with this issue.

[Trailboss]

Not for nothing here: I read something, recently, where women were the most often forced out of the military due to violations of DADT rules. Makes sense....

When I was a newbie HM, out at Camp Pendelton, Ca, at the hospital there, I had a friend named Alicia. Nice girl, engaged and all that. We got along great and had a great time working together. Believe it or not, she slept in MY ROOM (4 man room: just me and another guy). She had *such* a rough friggin time with the dykie AGGRESSIVE lesbo's that pursued her RELENTLESSLY! I could not believe it! I was what? 19 yrs old? Didn't know shit about such things...what an eye-opener! She told me everything! So when she wasn't out with her fiancee', she was sleeping in MY cube to protect herself!! Now *that's* a fact, Jack!

[Billy L-bach]

...can we finally be openly heterosexual?

Openly gay is a "coddling" term. Like SOTB said earlier, "PDA" is a no go. Hetreo, Homo, Nomo, whatever....

So what "openly gay" behavior is it we are supposed to be pandering to? The entire issue is politics nothing more nothing less. You gotta' have an issue to support in order to 'define' who you are and build your voter base. Its sad thought that there is more visible effort being expended codling a sub-group than there is answering McCrystals call for more troops. This whole issue is nothing more than a sub-culture/sub-group whatever ever trying to get the government to FORCE mainstream society to 'accept' them. Love who you want, but where is the line drawnwhere others "must" accept you. If this was about keeping Milwaukee Brewers fans out of the military, people would wonder "what the f#&k is the deal"... but allowing them in isn't going to make anyone a Brewers fan.

...the entire gay movement seems more about seeking acceptance and not really so much about "rights".

[Fubar]

The only other place where you have to shower with homos is in prison. The social experimentation in the military is a luxury that we don't have in a time of peace. We are not in a time of peace.

Re: "There's gays in every military unit I served in." Not in my experience their wasn't. Being a homo in NSW would be an extremely hostile environment and would have a very negative impact on unit integrity. I don't know about some Motor T unit where you are changing tires and shit, but I don't see how it could possibly turn out well in the Teams.

Before anybody gets uppity about that last statement, be advised that you are on SOCNET, not Motor T net and to us SOF operators that shit (meat gazing homos in your platoon, A-Team, etc.) isn't going to fly.

MEAT GAZER!!!!! :biggrin: Thanks for the fond memories that phrase conjurs up. Froggy, I concur with you 100%. Here are my random thoughts on the subject:

This also would not fly well in the Mine Warfare community. 9 man berthing compartment - 3 sets of racks, stacked 3 high. No room to change clothes, always bumping into each other. Uncomfortable to say the least. Prison inmates live better. Adding a flamboyantly gay guy to the mix significanly changes the dynamics in the room. Granted, in a unpredjudicial world, it shouldn't, but that's not reality. The reality is that someone is going to get offended & someone else is going to die.

How are women working out in the Navy? We've given them seperate living quarters for good reason. We'd not want the perv hetero men getting a free show or being overtly aggressive. Makes the ladies uncomfortable. Perhaps the Navy will have to come up with seperate berthing spaces for:

Straight Men
Straight Women
Gay Men
Gay Women
I have no idea where we'd stick the trans-gendered amongst us. :biggrin:

Seperate berthing compartments and toilet facilities should keep everyone happy, right?

We don't ask the ladies to change in front of the men. Why are you asking me to change my clothes in front of a gay guy? That violates my sense of personal space. Where are my rights in this fiasco?

Will the Navy have to conjur up seperate PT Quals for the flamboyantly gay, like we do for the ladies?

How do our hot-racking brethern underneath the sea feel about this? (Besides the jokes that 100 men go out, 50 couples come back.)

I have two experiences to relate about gays in the Nav. At NSW, one effeminent cyclist dude (that was his big thing) was always picked on. It got brutal. I feel bad for him now, he should have had his orders changed. No way he fit in.

The other time was at instructor duty on NAVSTA San Diego's dry side. Taught the SPS-67 Radar with the feminine side of a female gay relationship. (She told me about it, we became friends. :biggrin: ) She was not flamboyant. She was professional in the performance of her duties. However, I'd never want to go to war with her - as I always had the suspicion that she'd bail out and not fight. Very passive/submissive. The NAV was just a job to her.

If I were a young buck in the NAV, I'd demand my right to sleep in the Women's quarters. Afterall - I've always thought of myself as a lesbian. :biggrin:

[Greenhat]

About time. DADT was a bullshit policy to allow gays to serve without pissing off the religious right too much. And because of it, probably everyone who has served has done so with someone who was gay in one of the units they served in. They just may or may not have realized it.

[Fubar]

Although the ten commandments are "Biblical Law" they are not "religious" laws because they transcend ALL religions. So, it goes back to, using religion as a crutch argument against something that makes you uncomfortable is just that...a crutch.

It would seem to me that Christians- of ALL people- should be TOLERANT of others. Just because you think it's sinful and disgusting (and again, I DO find it physically repugnant.), what happened to not casting stones? As I understand the Christian ethos (and I WAS raised Christian, and have read the book several times), it's not man's place to judge, as was stated.



As self-identified athiest, using the Christians' theology against them is similar to asking a Christian if you can borrow their crutch. Weak.

[Jazz]

Some will push it in an 'over the top' manner. Guaranteed. Especially since they are already considered a "protected class" of 'people', when referring to hate crimes. They gay card will be thrown at everyfuckingturn whether it's deserved or not (by some). Passed over for promotion? Throw a gay card.

Part of the openly gay culture is for some to dress in drag. How well would that go over in the barracks?

My brother in law is gay and I spend quite a bit of time around him and his significant other. They look down on those that 'fly' around and try to act like women. It's a fucking act and part of 'shoving it' in your face.

10% rule.
It's those 10% who fuck it up for the rest. If the 10% didn't feel the need to go so over the top with it, I don't think it'd be as big of an issue. I don't flaunt my heterosexuality, don't flaunt your love of meatsicles :biggrin:

I'm of the opinion that what you do at home should stay at home. It doesn't matter if you like motorboating titties or smoking pole. Keep your private life private and it's all good.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Today, I see people that live off of Christian principles, but they would sooner die than acknowledge that fact.The fact that many so-called Christian principles (kindness, helping your fellow man, not stealing, killing, etceteras) that are taught in the Bible are the same as basic inate human empathys does not mean non-Christians are adhering to Christian principle.

The Church of Bravo Five Romeo teaches that thou shalt not steal, thou shall favor women with larger breasts, and thou shall think of babies and puppies cute and cuddly.
Now if you happen to share these principles that The Church of Bravo Five Romeo teaches... does that mean you adhere to my religion but won't admit it?... or is it just a coincidence because the laws of my Church happen to mirror basic human nature?

My point is that just because I don't steal, covet, or kill doesn't mean I'm subconciously adhering to the Bible.
I don't do bad things to innocent people because I have basic human empathy... a trait most likely passed along by evolution. :biggrin:
My opinion is this: you want to be gay; do it on your own time and in your own place. Don't go about trying to convert people into accepting homosexuality.Convert people into accepting homosexuality?
I don't think they care if people like them.
They just want people to stop hating them.
And I think that's a reasonable agenda.

[Cass]

It is of little matter to me about gays in the military because I am no longer serving. But reading 5 pages from SOCNET of those who do serve or are young enough to still feel the cadence of their service time the matter of gays being openly encouraged to join the military while being able to openly voice or display gay feelings is a paramount consideration. When a service member must mate up with a gay within an ops, a Team, a Squad, Platoon, whatever, there is not going to be that understanding of camaraderier that exists under normal circumstances.

I can imagine a trooper hesitating to shower alone with a gay. That is a hesitation that will surface. And having a gay as your backup 6 (?), or a gay expecting a straight to do likewise(?).

Prez Obama again does not understand people, and especially the military's close enviorment.

[cb88]

As to gays in the military, I don't care. If you care, well...get off your moral/religious fucking high horse. If you can run and gun, I don't care if you take it in the ass in your spare time.
.

Just curious, would you take this same stance when it came to women in combat?? I mean, if they can run and gun...should it matter what sex they are if it doesn't matter what sexual persuasion?


Interested to see responses from those that are willing to end "don't ask, don't tell" if they are as willing to have women serve next to them in combat.

Personally, I'm against both women in combat and openly gay in the military...but, then again, I haven't served so my opinion is based on my principlas and not on any actual experience.

[cb88]

The I don't think they care if people like them.
They just want people to stop hating them.
And I think that's a reasonable agenda.

No one hates you B5R :biggrin::biggrin: (kidding...only kidding)

[Billy L-bach]

I can shower with a gay guy, I can share a foxhole with a gay guy, hell, I will share my cho' liner with a gay guy if we are in a hide site waiting to call in artillery on a taliban strong point. Hell I'll even go skydiving with a gay person. Will I like it? Will I invite them to my house for BBQ chicken on the grill?
Its not about can I work with gay people or whether or not they can perform duties required. It's about seeking mandatory acceptance of a behavioral trait.
EVERYTHING that can be described as "openly" gay is subject to the same scrutiny as being "openly heterosexual"... the military has been dealing with 'PDA' for decades. The only OPENLY gay behavior I could see that would not fall victim to 'PDA' would be slow dancing with your 'partner' at a military ball...
Everything else is smoke and mirrors. You cant be 'openly heterosexual' - it deteriorates good order and discipline. So what is the definition of "openly" If its because a group only "wants to be accepted" well... I say tough luck. If you have an issue in your life that you feel "needs acceptance" then getting acceptance is the least of your issues.
The military is in place to kill, break and punish... Its not meant as a social playground or to make sure no ones feeling get hurt. Are we going to let gangsters start wearing their colors? A blue bandana never hurt anybody... wearing colors dont huurt anybody. The trouble that comes up is just a leadership challenge right? We just tell the guys with the red bandanas they cant fight with the kids that wear blue bandanas... just a matter of military discipline. If they still fight, we punish them, send them to red bandana tolerance training and move on.
The entire issue is nothing more than political hysteria nd sensationalism panfering to a special interest voter base.

[Abu Khalil]

"Right" person for the job, is the right person for the job. Regardless of Race, Creed, Heritage, Sexual Orientation, etc...

Anyone willing, and able, to serve should be welcome.

SGM, USA (Ret.)

[Princeps Belli]

The striking thing that I find in the religion versus law question- and all other considerations of politics- is the difficulty of finding any meaning of law. I heard a funny quote from a Catholic Dominican priest who said that if someone were to look at the lawmaking process, he would likely become a criminal; he was relating the topic to the question of the development of Christian theology. Though I will state openly that I am hardly a practicing Christian, I certainly respect the development of the European tradition from Christianity and its subsequent translation into American society.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who does not at least respect the fact that the psychology of America formed from the Christian tradition, with an admixture of other thought strains as well. I hear people state things all of the time about "values," "morality," "reasonableness," and other such things. Such statements are meant to cast a shadow on human thought and suggest an idiosyncratic leaning of an otherwise intelligible idea. The other nastiness that dribbles from people's mouths is the whole bit about "that's just your opinion....this is fact." Such stupid statements are certain symptoms of small mindedness. The people who tend to such things actually have to see, taste, touch, smell, or hear a thing before they can testify to truth. What about using the noggin to think about it?

Give me the guy who can tell me what humanity needs to think, how we need to act, and maybe, establish a good government wound up in the right laws. If you can find this guy, he would be the rarest specimen of human genius that had ever walked the earth, or he would be a simple-minded fool.

Laws come from religion, or religion comes from laws. I will not write a dissertation on this forum regarding this topic, but the two will forever be united, as far as I can look back into history and apply the rule to the future. What man cares about what his fellow men really think of him when he has the design to rule over them. Did human decency descend from the sky to imprint itself in the mind of humanity? I have no clue, but I would find the swiftest means to violate every law in order to obtain the good for myself, if I did not believe that there was some underlying good beyond what a majority of men may think at a certain time period.

Let's all be logical, and look at the irrationality within the human species. Our nature is a contradiction of nature. We turn the world against itself in order to find our good. What cow was designed to wait and eat from the hand of its predator? What strong beast like the lion was made to be mastered by a weaker one? I am very afraid of the rapid increase of stupidity in the common man, especially when it occurs right alongside the expansion of state powers.

Dangerous combination that one is; stupid population, too lazy to think things through and a large tutelary power increasing overhead. Please, let's at least take the morality argument seriously, or maybe, we can look at the disgusting and ugly ideas that led to twentieth century atrocities and try to hide them far away from our minds in order prevent another rehash on a larger scale.

[Princeps Belli]

I can shower with a gay guy, I can share a foxhole with a gay guy, hell, I will share my cho' liner with a gay guy if we are in a hide site waiting to call in artillery on a taliban strong point. Hell I'll even go skydiving with a gay person. Will I like it? Will I invite them to my house for BBQ chicken on the grill?
Its not about can I work with gay people or whether or not they can perform duties required. It's about seeking mandatory acceptance of a behavioral trait.
EVERYTHING that can be described as "openly" gay is subject to the same scrutiny as being "openly heterosexual"... the military has been dealing with 'PDA' for decades. The only OPENLY gay behavior I could see that would not fall victim to 'PDA' would be slow dancing with your 'partner' at a military ball...
Everything else is smoke and mirrors. You cant be 'openly heterosexual' - it deteriorates good order and discipline. So what is the definition of "openly" If its because a group only "wants to be accepted" well... I say tough luck. If you have an issue in your life that you feel "needs acceptance" then getting acceptance is the least of your issues.
The military is in place to kill, break and punish... Its not meant as a social playground or to make sure no ones feeling get hurt. Are we going to let gangsters start wearing their colors? A blue bandana never hurt anybody... wearing colors dont huurt anybody. The trouble that comes up is just a leadership challenge right? We just tell the guys with the red bandanas they cant fight with the kids that wear blue bandanas... just a matter of military discipline. If they still fight, we punish them, send them to red bandana tolerance training and move on.
The entire issue is nothing more than political hysteria nd sensationalism panfering to a special interest voter base.
__________________

I am in line with him.

[0699]

Back to the original subject, gays in the military, I have one more thing to say: Just like they shouldn't have to change their lifestyle to accomodate me, I refuse to change my behavior to accomodate them. I will continue to joke around, call people "fags," and whatever else I feel like doing, offensive or not. If someone wants to get sensitive about it, well...sucks for me, then, because I'm sure I'll get in trouble every other day or so.

Good luck with that. If gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, you WILL change your way of doing business. Just like racial slurs used to be "okay" and are now taboo, sexual slurs will go the same way.

Personally, I'm all in favor of ending DADT, just because it forces people to live a lie and violates the ethics of honor & honesty that I feel the military wants people to have. Let's be up front, and if we're going to allow gays to serve openly in the military, lets do it and get it over with. I think it's going to cause a lot of problems, I'm not sure it's worth it (it'll be painful; 18-20 YO males can be pretty homophobic...), but it'll be interesting to watch from the outside.

[Sltwtr1]

So....would this mean if a gay guy in the mil wants to marry his partner and they get married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then the mil member could claim married status and get VAH and his partner on MAC flights Px privileges, survival benefits etc.

I'm sure someone will say that since the mil is federal and there is no fed law allowing marriage, the answer would be no. However, I believe that this is a slippery slope, using the same arguments of discrimination, someone will sue to have benefits for their partner.

The difference between blacks and females historically is that as someone mentioned this is a sexual preference, a lifestyle choice.. If I want to have four wives and they all love me and that is my preference, should the military recognize that that is my preference, that they are discriminating against me because I happen to love four women. Should I not get benefits for my wives... VAH x 4 LOL...??

What if Utah passed a state law saying it's ok to have four wives...should the mil recognize this?

Just food for thought... I think this is a dangerous slippery slope..

And to those who talk about the showering situation and that Gays won't look at your junk etc and will remain professional...well I don't doubt that they would be professional but to say it's not an issue is glossing over the situation. If it wasn't an issue who showers with who, then we should have co-ed showering in the mil right? I mean it really doesn't matter what our sexual attraction is or a females, because we will all remain professional in the shower...

That's my .02 cents

Sltwtr1

OUT

[SOTB]

Good luck with that. If gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, you WILL change your way of doing business. Just like racial slurs used to be "okay" and are now taboo, sexual slurs will go the same way.I agree. I cannot imagine another alternative. Sgt Majs will rejoice at now having yet another topic which to force troops to listen to mindless afternoon classes. When they are finished with their cultural training, they can move their asses to the parking lot to police up cigarette butts.....if we're going to allow gays to serve openly in the military, lets do it and get it over with. I think it's going to cause a lot of problems, I'm not sure it's worth it (it'll be painful; 18-20 YO males can be pretty homophobic...), but it'll be interesting to watch from the outside.Ditto. I'm not sure if the pain will be worth it either. I'm also not sure if it is a great idea to do this when IMO we have carnivores deciding if the time is right to come play with us (I'm not referring to cave-dwellers, either).Laws come from religion, or religion comes from laws.So? For a VERY long time, religions dictated what science was to be believed. As in, it was the LAW. And to violate those "laws" was heresy. Fortunately, as we move on through history, we find ourselves less dependent upon fantasies to help us with creaking floors at night, why stars seem to fly across the sky, or sicknesses that endanger whole swaths of populations. But yeah, we started off scared of everything in the universe and on our planet, so we filled in the blanks in our knowledge with something comfortable -- some might call that a symptom of "small mindedness", and maybe it was -- although I think ignorance can be a justifiable excuse through at least some part of our history.

I find it laughable that religion is still pointed to as the basis of laws -- wind was once the basis of traveling across the world, but we've pretty much found other and more efficient alternatives. Maybe we should drop jet turbines for sails again -- oh wait, would that be small minded?

[Trailboss]

Laws come from religion, or religion comes from laws..

I don't know about that bro...can you have a civilization without "laws"? Do they *have* to come from religion? Do they *have* to *lead* to religion?

Laws are rules. You throw 2 people together, your gonna have some rules. I don't care *who* you are! You don't touch my shit without askin! I don't touch yours...you don't shit-talk me and I won't shit-talk you. If you need help: I'll go outta my way to help you....but you damn well better go outta your way to help me...! Simple system that we seem to have overcomplicated to the extreme...

But...personally, I like what I like...and NO law can *make* me like something! Sure you might have the Supreme Court or some other governmental body say "You MUST put up with this"! But that does NOT mean I have to like it! No "law" can *make* me like something....

And I'm (as a betting man) betting that a whole *lot* more people *don't* like this "gay in the military" thing then *do* like it! In fact: I'm pretty damn sure about it...And when you have something going on, that the majority doesn't like...you will have *friction*! And friction, in a complicated piece of machinery causes what? Breakdown...

Go ahead...have your "gay in the military" thing....but keep the yap shut and DADT!!! It's better for the machine.....is "law" the lubricant? Don't think so...

And yes: I have served with men (and women, obviously) who were "gay". But they kept *their* yaps shut and did their damn job...cus the JOB was what it was all about: it was NOT about BEING GAY!

And no: I did NOT associate with them off-duty or otherwise...we simply came from different backgrounds and had nothing in common! They went their way and I went mine....never had a problem, either. Just take that for what it's worth...

[BOFH]

Just curious, would you take this same stance when it came to women in combat?? I mean, if they can run and gun...should it matter what sex they are if it doesn't matter what sexual persuasion?


Interested to see responses from those that are willing to end "don't ask, don't tell" if they are as willing to have women serve next to them in combat.

Personally, I'm against both women in combat and openly gay in the military...but, then again, I haven't served so my opinion is based on my principlas and not on any actual experience.


I personally have no problem with women in combat. If it can be shown that ENOUGH women can be EFFECTIVE in combat units to make the transition "worth it," then I'm all for it. I don't, however, think that a large enough percentage of women will be able meet the physical requirements of a combat arms soldier.

[Silverbullet]

This thread is not about religion.

The subj is DADT and the possible decision our current president may make regarding it.

You can agree, disagree and offer opinions from your personal perspective but keep it on subj.

I personally think that if gays are free to serve, then dudes should be able to berth and shower with woman since the gays will basically be berthing and showering with the gender they like to have sex with.

Fair is fair.:smile:

[JRB11]

I haven't been in the military for 25 years, and I'm pretty sure I was as homophobic as the next guy when I was. I really doubt anyone who is gay wants this passed so they can stare at others of the same sex in the shower, or sport a pink beret. Gay people want to serve their country for the same reasons straight people do. It's going to happen, and it will be painful for some. It was probably painful when blacks were allowed to integrate, and woman also. Those were both "social experiments". IMO, in this day and age, it is the right thing to do. Military rules will be in place as far as conduct, for all involved.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sorry if it makes anyone uncomfortable, but you'll get over it.

[Greenhat]

Just curious, would you take this same stance when it came to women in combat??

Women are in combat. Not in the combat arms. Not the same thing.

I'm against women in combat arms strictly due to strength issues. Until sufficient numbers of women can demonstrate the required strength, the military doesn't need to waste money on drop outs from combat arms training. As a way of demonstration?

When we start seeing significant numbers of females in MLB, NHL and NFL rosters.

[NWPTrainer]

As self-identified athiest, using the Christians' theology against them is similar to asking a Christian if you can borrow their crutch. Weak.

Bullshit. I'm not using it AGAINST anyone, because I'm not AGAINST anyone. My being atheist doesn't mean I'm opposed to Christians or Christianity. I just don't give a shit.

What it means is, I believe if you're going to profess belief in a system and that you feel everyone should live by it's rules, then you should live by ALL of it's rules, including Micah 6:8, yes.


I never figured there were all that many G&L in the military, until I moved to PDX and started meeting gays and lesbians who were vets too. Holy shit! There's a pile of them!

I'd like to see people come up with legitimate reasons that gays and lesbians are incapable of serving in the military. Not how it would be prejudicial to good order because some straight young Hooah is gonna be uncomfortable; not how God forbids it; not how it's fucking sick; I'd like to see someone who's opposed to it illustrate a LEGITIMTE reason to prevent it.

No, I don't have a problem with women in combat, they're there anyway. What I have a problem with is ANYONE serving in combat that can't pull their own weight.

[Stanley_White]

I personally think that if gays are free to serve, then dudes should be able to berth and shower with woman since the gays will basically be berthing and showering with the gender they like to have sex with.

Fair is fair.:smile:

Starship Troopers! :biggrin:

[John6719]

The thought that a male showering with a homo shouldn't or can't feel uncomfortable and not want to is plain and utter bullshit.

"how do you know if that gay guy is getting turned on by you unless you were pecker checking yourself?"

So would that same chain of thought work if a male was gauking at a female in the shower? There is zero difference between the reason to seperate showers/living quarters of women and men and gay men and straight men. I will work with a gay man, fight with a gay man, and train with a gay man, but I WILL NOT change or shower next to one. I would treat them exactly the same way as I would a female in my section.

[number1]

DADT, religious based opinion, pecker gazing...... could there be a better mix for trouble?

[Silverbullet]

The thought that a male showering with a homo shouldn't or can't feel uncomfortable and not want to is plain and utter bullshit.

"how do you know if that gay guy is getting turned on by you unless you were pecker checking yourself?"

So would that same chain of thought work if a male was gauking at a female in the shower? There is zero difference between the reason to seperate showers/living quarters of women and men and gay men and straight men. I will work with a gay man, fight with a gay man, and train with a gay man, but I WILL NOT change or shower next to one. I would treat them exactly the same way as I would a female in my section.

I think you're overreacting a bit.

I don't have a problem being naked around a gay dude. I'm sure it's happened many times while I was still serving. Maybe even after that. Go to any Japanese bathhouse and the locals will dick stare you without the slightest bit of embarrassment. Many places are like that.

I also don't think they are going to attack the straight dudes if they see them naked.

It's a bennie to them to be able to be around naked people of the gender they like to screw, though.

I'm completely serious about allowing men and women to shower and berth together if they allow gays to serve. It only makes sense and will extend the bennie to everyone in uniform.

[Princeps Belli]

What about the trans gender sex change types? Can we give them rights as well? Hell, they have the advantage and can use both restrooms and sleeping quarters? :biggrin: If our society is going to embrace homosexuality, as it seems to do, then we will inevitably have to crumble under the weight of their expanded rights and protections. If the military wants to fight the homosexuality, equality issues, it better do so with vigor and resolve.

The homosexuals of today don't tend to look very manly most of the time, and I cannot stand the rhythm of their lispy talk. It sounds so snaky and whining, like a bitch. Now, a manly fag, that's what we need. Big strong man loving men. The women today are difficult enough to put up with, so if we had a perfect image of manly strength to admire and fawn over. MOVE OVER WOMEN, GO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR OTHER, AND FEND FOR YOURSELVES. Desert Yeddies will no longer get laid in the sandbox. Their one hope of enlisting and finally getting some will be over when, valiant men bring each other into the gay loving community.

Could we get rainbow colored cammies and pink patches and medals? We could all dive into some boo-tee lovin' fun. Hell, let's forget about war and fornicate with our commanders. See who seduces the highest ranking fag officer on board, first. I can't wait to celebrate gay-day as a national holiday, commemorating the noble homos who fought valiantly for their equality against ignorant, close-minded, idiots. It will give us a 96 to role up to San Fran Cisco, where we can make fun of all the stupid straight married folks living according to twentieth century standards.

[CAP MARINE]

you all talk about DADT,how about the safe school czar? keving jennings-had sex with a 15 or 16yrs old boy.he wants to promote that stuff very early in our public schools,that guy needs to be GONE.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

What about the trans gender sex change types? Can we give them rights as well? Hell, they have the advantage and can use both restrooms and sleeping quarters? :biggrin: If our society is going to embrace homosexuality, as it seems to do, then we will inevitably have to crumble under the weight of their expanded rights and protections. If the military wants to fight the homosexuality, equality issues, it better do so with vigor and resolve.

The homosexuals of today don't tend to look very manly most of the time, and I cannot stand the rhythm of their lispy talk. It sounds so snaky and whining, like a bitch. Now, a manly fag, that's what we need. Big strong man loving men. The women today are difficult enough to put up with, so if we had a perfect image of manly strength to admire and fawn over. MOVE OVER WOMEN, GO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR OTHER, AND FEND FOR YOURSELVES. Desert Yeddies will no longer get laid in the sandbox. Their one hope of enlisting and finally getting some will be over when, valiant men bring each other into the gay loving community.

Could we get rainbow colored cammies and pink patches and medals? We could all dive into some boo-tee lovin' fun. Hell, let's forget about war and fornicate with our commanders. See who seduces the highest ranking fag officer on board, first. I can't wait to celebrate gay-day as a national holiday, commemorating the noble homos who fought valiantly for their equality against ignorant, close-minded, idiots. It will give us a 96 to role up to San Fran Cisco, where we can make fun of all the stupid straight married folks living according to twentieth century standards.Wow.
So we live in a society where women are allowed in the workforce and to even leave the house without beig acompanied by a male family member...
...yet surprisingly, we're not fucking in the strrets like dogs and our office workplaces aren't non-stop orgies.

Your impression of homosexual men seems to be out of some cartoon collection of stereotypes.

What is your problem with homosexual wanting equal treatment?
Not special treatment... just equal treatment.

I believe there are problems with gays serving openly in the military, particularly the close quarters of the combat arms.
But my concerns are more about billeting... not about men fucking instead of working.

[heavyguns1/1]

Bottom line is that a majority of the military population and even society as a whole are not cool with homosexuality. I was in before DADT and I think that if it is repealed it should go back to the old way instead of what is being proposed.

[Princeps Belli]

Wow.
So we live in a society where women are allowed in the workforce and to even leave the house without beig acompanied by a male family member...
...yet surprisingly, we're not fucking in the strrets like dogs and our office workplaces aren't non-stop orgies.

Well.....you, sir, are not enjoying the liberties of the times, but you're missing out. :p
You should take advantage of them. The flesh feels so good when satisfied from its mounting passions. Just joking. I wanted to be a bit over the top. I am more of an in-between extremes kind of guy.

Equal rights over decision-making is different from equal rights in conditions of birth. Race and sex are not chosen. One does have a choice in his or her actions. This is oftentimes disputed but at a cost to the notion of freewill.

Furthermore, the military could care less about the mullet that I wanted, the huge goatee, or the tank top and sandals, especially while wearing my skimpy running shorts.

I had to be uniform, and God help me if my want to call my commander "dude" ever manifested itself. I don't advocate making homosexuality a crime. I just don't think that the military would do the world any good if it made a special proclamation to support the sexual practices of individuals.

If homosexual marriage is en vogue, well, there will be a significant problem of restricting it in the military, so the military can fight it or accept it. Every country bears the consequences of its actions, whether good or bad, and I would think that there are a whole array of considerations Americans should take before completely revolutionizing some things, especially as a world superpower.

There are always negative externalities, and we have to be judicious in our considerations of the worse evils. My jokes were aimed in such a way to apply stereotypical assessments. I sometimes have a sycophantic tendency to be non-PC. It makes me feel good in direct proportion to the hate that I receive.

[Ralphie]

special proclamation to support the sexual practices of individuals.

Since when does allowing gay servicemembers to be open about their lives (hello, integrity) equate to special treatment? Last I heard, that was called EQUAL treatment...

Let's play a thought game--take any of the anti-integration posts here and replace "gay" with "black"... the exact same arguements about "good order and discipline" were made in protest to President Truman racially integrating the Armed Forces. Amazingly, however, the military did not collapse into social revolt and disarray--soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines gutted it out, followed their orders, and (for the most post) got over their prejudices and biases. I expect that same positive cycle will repeat itself this time around. Honestly, military discipline is not so shallow as to shatter under an onslaught of petty fears that "OMFG teh gayz looked at my pecker in the shower!"

[Princeps Belli]

Let's play a thought game--take any of the anti-integration posts here and replace "gay" with "black"... the exact same arguements about "good order and discipline" were made in protest to President Truman racially integrating the Armed Forces. Amazingly, however, the military did not collapse into social revolt and disarray--soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines gutted it out, followed their orders, and (for the most post) got over their prejudices and biases. I expect that same positive cycle will repeat itself this time around. Honestly, military discipline is not so shallow as to shatter under an onslaught of petty fears that "OMFG teh gayz looked at my pecker in the shower!"
Reply With Quote

Yes, that is a good trick, and you may be correct that there will not be an upheaval of military order, but you don't know, and attempting to equate the social integration of race relations to the acts of an individual is an error. It's the equivalent of saying: Let's play a thought game--take any of the anti-integration posts here and replace those who want to fuck chickens with "black". It's not the same thing. No, I don't think homosexuality deserves to be in the same league as fucking chickens, but I wanted to illustrate a point.

Also, using the idea that all of the anti-integration posts are equivalent undermines the thoughts of every individual who has posted a different perspective about the topic at hand. The fact that someone proposes problems with the integration of homosexuals in the military does not warrant your subtle link to racism.

If you think that openly allowing homosexuals to operate in the military, openly, is simply the right thing to do, you should give the understanding of the second best argument for the ban on open homosexual acceptance, and I will give you the best argument for why homosexuals should be allowed to operate openly in the military. Therefore, we can show that we are able to consider the arguments well, but there shouldn't be such sweeping dismissal of the thoughts about the subject, as if they were early twentieth century thoughts, which simply did not evolve. This is a complex issue of the twenty-first century, and we have to do well to consider the entirety of the subject.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Equal rights over decision-making is different from equal rights in conditions of birth. Race and sex are not chosen. One does have a choice in his or her actions. This is oftentimes disputed but at a cost to the notion of freewill.You are presuming that sexual orientation is a choice and not a predisposition.
I don't recall the moment that I sat down and made the concious decision to be heterosexual... do you?
I just recall always being attracted to girls... more intensely, of course, as I entered puberty.

As to free will...
A genetic predisposition regarding sexuality is not really any greater loss of free will than any other automatic behavior, as opposed to learned behavior.

[NWPTrainer]

What about the trans gender sex change types? Can we give them rights as well?

Post-op? Hell, why not?

The homosexuals of today don't tend to look very manly most of the time, and I cannot stand the rhythm of their lispy talk. It sounds so snaky and whining, like a bitch. Now, a manly fag, that's what we need. Big strong man loving men.

This statement right here illustrates the depth of your ignorance about homosexuals in America today. Yeah, there are a pile of flamers, but there are just as many gay men that are NOT flamers. Come hang out in Portland for a weekend. I'll introduce you to fifteen different people. If you can call everyone who is gay or straight correctly, I'll (a) pay for the trip, and (b) make a public statement, in SOCNET, that you were right, and all fags should be banned from the military forever.

If you can't all your out is the price of the trip, and I'll even take you to some clubs so you can get laid while you're here (by a woman:biggrin:).

You have to admit the outcome on SOCNET though.


I don't think being gay is a choice either. I have a cousin who came out while at John Brown University, going to school to be a minister. Really think he just "decided" he wanted to take it up the pipe? Not me.

Granted, I used to think it was a choice, and a poor one at that. As I've met and interacted with more gays and lesbians though, I realize they are not all the light-in-the-loafer fags I assumed (the cousin in question is most decidedly a flamer.). What ever happened to the concept of libertarianism in this country? If Johnny Fagboy doesn't tell you what your church can teach, maybe you ought not tell Johnny Fagboy who he can spend Saturday night with...

Or, we could make Sunday church services mandatory, and insist that along with their notebook, pen, challenge coin, and copy of the Ranger Handbook, every single Joe Snuffy should be required to carry a copy of the Bible. Then, they can spend the day reading the gospel instead of the RH.

[Princeps Belli]

You are presuming that sexual orientation is a choice and not a predisposition.
I don't recall the moment that I sat down and made the concious decision to be heterosexual... do you?
I just recall always being attracted to girls... more intensely, of course, as I entered puberty.


I won't argue this one because I really have a very limited knowledge of the intricate details of human sexuality and why one person chooses another. I do however wish to clarify that actions taken are different than someone being born a certain way, I think. I understand how human passion can afflict the heart of anybody and cause great tensions in one's being. Is there misery in suppressing such passions? Probably. Is it good to do so? I really don't know, but I would state there is.

I guess that the predisposition of someone to engage in activities may not be controllable, but I should assert with great authority that people do control their activities. For instance, I may be predisposed to have an appetite for some activity, like serial killing, but I do believe that I have the choice not to engage in such activity, and I would expect someone to be held accountable for such actions. I am not a big believer in fatalism or predestination, but there may be some element of truth in that.

I also know about the burning flame of sexual passion, and it guides many of us into unreasonable activity. Some do not throw themselves into all kinds of stupid activities on account of erotics; others of us do so because it is so deeply rooted in the manifestation of our existence. It's a difficult question. Plato's Symposium lays out a path to consider human erotics. The dialogue is inherently homosexual because the Greeks had an infamous practice of homosexuality and pedophilia, but there seems to be some remedies to those behaviors, and one may also extract out of it that homosexuality has a link to intellectual progress and Democratic freedom, though this is my own interpretation.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I won't argue this one because I really have a very limited knowledge of the intricate details of human sexuality and why one person chooses another. I do however wish to clarify that actions taken are different than someone being born a certain way, I think. I understand how human passion can afflict the heart of anybody and cause great tensions in one's being. Is there misery in suppressing such passions? Probably. Is it good to do so? I really don't know, but I would state there is.

I guess that the predisposition of someone to engage in activities may not be controllable, but I should assert with great authority that people do control their activities. For instance, I may be predisposed to have an appetite for some activity, like serial killing, but I do believe that I have the choice not to engage in such activity, and I would expect someone to be held accountable for such actions. I am not a big believer in fatalism or predestination, but there may be some element of truth in that.

I also know about the burning flame of sexual passion, and it guides many of us into unreasonable activity. Some do not throw themselves into all kinds of stupid activities on account of erotics; others of us do so because it is so deeply rooted in the manifestation of our existence. It's a difficult question. Plato's Symposium lays out a path to consider human erotics. The dialogue is inherently homosexual because the Greeks had an infamous practice of homosexuality and pedophilia, but there seems to be some remedies to those behaviors, and one may also extract out of it that homosexuality has a link to intellectual progress and Democratic freedom, though this is my own interpretation.Even if I were to accept your analogy (contrasting homosexuals to serial killers), you're missing your own point.
Earlier you were suggesting that homosexuals should be banned for being homosexuals, for their sexual orientation.
Yet, here you seem to suggest that inappropriate or undesirable eanings are fine, so long as they are controlled.

I don't think anyone is advocating man-orgies in the barracks.
Sex in the barracks and fraternization would still be just as unacceptable behavior by homosexuals as it is by heterosexuals.

So would a homosexual soldier be okay to serve so long as he/she refrained from sexual activity on duty or on base?

[Princeps Belli]

If you can't all your out is the price of the trip, and I'll even take you to some clubs so you can get laid while you're here (by a woman).

I am married brother, but I appreciate the offer and the challenge. No. I know what you are saying, and that is why I made a point to mention the masculine fag in my little ironic tirade.

You don't have to pay for my trip to get me to assert that there are homosexuals, who do not look or act like the stereotype. Though, my ability to discern them should not be second guessed. I am rather good looking, and I imagine that a man's mouth may water like woman's, and they'll start fumbling about in their passion. I may just make a straight man gay because I am so beautiful :biggrin:.

I just don't like the lispy voice and whining sounding ones, but there are straight guys like that too. Ever listen to Emo music. I am sure some of those guys are banging chicks by the dozens, but it doesn't excuse their nasty presentation.

Homosexuality has been around longer than I could consider. I believe that the Spartans practiced homosexuality, but I am not so sure of the evidence that supports this. The Athenians apparently did, and they are the beloved of our modern society, even if they did collapse in despotism. I highly doubt that the prized among them were rainbow loving, pink wearing, effeminate, wrist bent, waste-aways. Ever hear of Alcibiades. Interesting character that one.

Also, I find it interesting that the Bible or religion is continuously mentioned as the culprit in suppressing homosexual rights in the military.

1) This suggests that the Bible and religion are no authority

2) It denies the existence of practical considerations, which seem to be many.

[JRB11]

We had similar problems in my fire dept. when we hired woman. We had some open dorm stations, Hustlers falling out of cabinets, etc. We adjusted, you had to know your audience before you told an off color joke, you wondered about their strength, etc. It has changed the culture, and there have been some problems, but we adjusted and the fires still get put out. It won't be easy, and some will be accepted more easily than others. The question is can they do their job, and do they have a right to be able to it. I think they do, but thats just my opinion.

[TPD1280]

and you B5R are presuming that sexual orientation is a predisposition and not a choice.

Neither side of that argument has any REAL evidence to back up their position. The "gay gene" is B.S.


President Clinton made the "open service" promise and got the support of the GLBT community for his election campaign.

All DADT really did was change the practice of pursuit. Yes, before DADT those in the Military Justice System did actually target homosexuals the same way they targetted drunk drivers and drug users. If a unit were suspected of having a large homosexual population, an asset was either recruited or inserted and the dominoes would fall. Exact same way a drug problem within a unit was attacked. Sometimes this happened with the Commanders knowledge and request, sometimes not. Those Commanders who were blindsided by the issue usually did not enjoy their next OER.


DADT did not go far enough for the GLBT community, so President Obama made the same promise (open service) to the same people when seeking their support for his election bid.

The GLBT community is not going to let Pres. Obama off the hook as easily as they did Pres. Clinton. In the end, Pres. Clinton actually was not in favor of the political promise he made, but presented DADT as a compromise.

Compromise was not what the GLBT community wanted. They did not want the opportunity to serve, they wanted to be able to declare victory over the establishment. What better way than to force the military to eat a shit sandwich.

Gays and Lesbians have been serving forever. Many with pride and distinction.

Those who became discipline problems brought unwanted attention down on their own heads, and the heads of others who were just trying to serve and did keep their personal lives personal.

Pres. Obama did not say anywhere in his address that this was going to happen next week, in fact he intimated that this may not even happen next year.

This is a very narrow issue with not a lot of collateral gain, and huge potential for collateral damage. He's not about to rush into it, and I for one, am glad that it is on a back burner while we are still involved in fighting a war and trying to climb out of an economic slough.


As for those other little asides, which have nothing to do with the President painting himself into a political corner:

The first Laws were the Code of Hammurabi, and they were not based on anyones religion.

None of the worlds major religions condones homosexuality. Not even Bhuddhism. So get off the backs of the the Judeo-Christian crowd.

Those who assert that this country was founded on freedom "from" religion need to re-read the founding documents.

[RickyRecon]

EDIT: Nevermind. If the POTUS would simply decriminalize marijuana none of this would be an issue.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I believe that the Spartans practiced homosexuality, but I am not so sure of the evidence that supports this. The Athenians apparently did, and they are the beloved of our modern society, even if they did collapse in despotism.Why do you find it difficult to believe Spartan men had sex with other men... but have no problem accepting that the Athenians did?
Also, I find it interesting that the Bible or religion is continuously mentioned as the culprit in suppressing homosexual rights in the military.That is because the loudest argument against homosexuality in our society in general is based on a religious principle.
It has, for years, been the religious groups pushing hardest against equal rights for homosexuals.
So it is understandable that many homosexual rights groups would see religion as being the main cause of the opposition to their acceptance in the military.

[Princeps Belli]

Even if I were to accept your analogy (contrasting homosexuals to serial killers), you're missing your own point.
Earlier you were suggesting that homosexuals should be banned for being homosexuals, for their sexual orientation.
Yet, here you seem to suggest that inappropriate or undesirable eanings are fine, so long as they are controlled.


No. No. No. No. That was not at all my intent. Who wants to contradict himself? I never meant to advocate the ban of homosexuality, and I don't think that I did. I don't want some UCMJ backed acceptance of the practice, that's all. You are right to say that I don't care too much about homosexual tendencies, if they are there. I just don't agree with the open expression of such actions in the military organization. I also wanted to speak about my understandings of someone's inclinations in order to show that I am not a complete barbarian.

I do understand the impulse of civilization when it has moved so far from the bounds of necessity that the people can afford the leisure to have sex with each other in various capacities, and such an activity is called a good.

[Princeps Belli]

Did you just equate the sexual desire if a man who wants to have sex with another man to the narcissistic and sociopathic thought process of a serial killer?

Really? You don't like gays, fine, just say you don't like them. Don't try to hide behind some nonsensical crap.

That's just ignorant, bro. You can't see that I set up a model in that analysis. It's like a metaphor. One thing is used to look like the other. For instance, the model of a plastic table can easily be used to look like a diamond encrusted gold one. It's not the matter that we are using; it is the form. The matter makes no difference. Serial killing, fucking men, saving babies, giving money to society, none of those things matter when we are trying to consider the notion of free choice and predisposition. I used serial killing, not to link it to homosexuality, but to look at an extreme case where one would consider a possible predisposition to an unequivocal evil. Therefore, we could look at predisposition versus choice. Maybe, I should have used saving babies. Do people have a predisposition to save a baby in a burning house? I don't know. Regardless, let's not get caught in the example and just look at the question, please.

[Princeps Belli]

Also, I would like to quote myself so that people don't get the wrong impression here.

I guess that the predisposition of someone to engage in activities may not be controllable, but I should assert with great authority that people do control their activities. For instance, I may be predisposed to have an appetite for some activity, like serial killing, but I do believe that I have the choice not to engage in such activity, and I would expect someone to be held accountable for such actions. I am not a big believer in fatalism or predestination

[FroggyRuminations]

Either being a homo is a choice or it is not a choice. Clearly the contention among advocates of openly serving as a homo believe that it is a genetic situation, but they really can't prove that.

Here is an equation for your consideration: We know that at the time of the writing of the Old Testament that there were X number of homos running around. We know this because God bothered to mention that it was not cool. (I use this only as a marker in time, and not as a religious argument.)

Here are some of the parameters of biology and genetics to chew on: Any homo gene would necessarily have to be recessive meaning that the probability of its expression in the population would be quite low kinda like red hair. The defining characteristic of that gene would be the production of an individual who is much less likely to procreate and pass along those two recessive genes forward to his ancestors. That gene therefore is in effect suicidal. Having red hair won't necessarily keep you from procreating (though it might make it tougher):biggrin:

To complete the equation, you must take X (# of homos 10,000 years ago) and project forward the probability of that gene continuing to express itself across hundreds of generations of human history where its defining characteristic to not reproduce. It becomes apparent that assuming a linear progression of genetic expression, that the current number of homos would be quite a bit lower than X and perhaps approaching extinction.

Of course that is not the case, and it seems apparent that being a homo is not in any way a genetic phenomenon, but rather a social one. This is clearly confirmed by history in Greece and Rome as those societies progressed toward dominance, the incidence and practice of the black art of faggetry became more common. This coincidentally(?) marked the rapid decline of those societies as regional powers as their striving to expand and grow was replaced by their desire to enjoy the fruits of their ancestor's labors. Just like us.

So let us not fool ourselves about that which we are discussing. The question is not whether we are going to allow homos/blacks serve in the military. Clearly blackness is genetic. The question is whether we are going to tolerate the open expression of a set of behaviors that are widely despised by the members of the military. So if you don't have a problem with behaviors like guys sucking each others dicks in the broom closet, the development of a "bitch" culture (like in prison), and the inevitable meat gazing and perhaps some fairly aggro sexual harassment, then cool let's do this.

[NWPTrainer]

LMFAO. Tell it Froggy!

But, your historical/genetic example used to illustrate that "the black art of faggetry" is a choice has one major flaw...

Even today, there are gays and lesbians who procreate. The fact is that GLBT individuals still end up married to heteros because they are "in the closet." Society is still very anti-gay, just like large segments of society are anti-Semitic....or anti-black....

Yes, I believe that homosexuality is genetic. It MAY be a recessive gene (I'm a red head BTW...:eek:), but it still carries on because even gays are expected to consumate their marriages to heteros.

The final part of your argument,

The question is whether we are going to tolerate the open expression of a set of behaviors that are widely despised by the members of the military. So if you don't have a problem with behaviors like guys sucking each others dicks in the broom closet, the development of a "bitch" culture (like in prison), and the inevitable meat gazing and perhaps some fairly aggro sexual harassment, then cool let's do this.

is just absurd. Not a single GBLT that I have ever discussed this with feels that they should be allowed to flaunt it. They're not asking to be allowed to fuck in the barracks, any more than we were supposed to fuck in 1276N back in the day. They're not asking to be allowed to wear cross-gendered uniforms. They simply want to be allowed to serve their nation, in uniform, without having to hide who they are.

In a nation that purports to believe in individuality, I don't know how anyone can have a fucking problem with that.

[Princeps Belli]

Of course that is not the case, and it seems apparent that being a homo is not in any way a genetic phenomenon, but rather a social one. This is clearly confirmed by history in Greece and Rome as those societies progressed toward dominance, the incidence and practice of the black art of faggetry became more common. This coincidentally(?) marked the rapid decline of those societies as regional powers as their striving to expand and grow was replaced by their desire to enjoy the fruits of their ancestor's labors. Just like us.

This is good observation. The Athenians found their decline at the height of their homosexuality. We shouldn't just look at this as a personal choice but a social phenomenon. Homosexuality has greatly expanded in conjunction with the expansion of American power and wealth. Furthermore, the Romans did not allow homosexuality in the military for the bulk of their tenure. Effeminacy, in the various manifestations of its form, was reputed to be an ignobility of a consistent nature.

The very first book of the Bible, which is Genesis, hits on the topic, Sodom and Gomorrah. I don't know whether such a thing is a symptom or a problem, but no society has ever appeared great in the eyes of history because it openly allowed homosexuality. If anyone should have an argument for why any such society was a liberator of oppression or a father of free rights, please present it.

[Princeps Belli]

In a nation that purports to believe in individuality, I don't know how anyone can have a fucking problem with that. The military does not support individualism. Believe me; I know. I had to mostly look like, talk like, and act like everyone else. The military is about professional standards, not individual expression of egotistical identity. I am glad because the United States has one of the most professional military organizations that the world has ever come to know.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

You made a couple of interesting points, specificly regarding homosexuality being passed on geneticly.
Either being a homo is a choice or it is not a choice. Clearly the contention among advocates of openly serving as a homo believe that it is a genetic situation, but they really can't prove that.

Here is an equation for your consideration: We know that at the time of the writing of the Old Testament that there were X number of homos running around. We know this because God bothered to mention that it was not cool. (I use this only as a marker in time, and not as a religious argument.)Not disputing the Bible as a marker for a specific time, but whereas the Bible does forbid homosexuality, that only proves the existence of homosexuality... not how widespread it was.
There is no census attached to tell us how common homosexuality was and how many lands were affected or not affected by what the bible had to say about it.

Here are some of the parameters of biology and genetics to chew on: Any homo gene would necessarily have to be recessive meaning that the probability of its expression in the population would be quite low kinda like red hair. The defining characteristic of that gene would be the production of an individual who is much less likely to procreate and pass along those two recessive genes forward to his ancestors. That gene therefore is in effect suicidal. Having red hair won't necessarily keep you from procreating (though it might make it tougher):biggrin:

To complete the equation, you must take X (# of homos 10,000 years ago) and project forward the probability of that gene continuing to express itself across hundreds of generations of human history where its defining characteristic to not reproduce. It becomes apparent that assuming a linear progression of genetic expression, that the current number of homos would be quite a bit lower than X and perhaps approaching extinction.

Of course that is not the case, and it seems apparent that being a homo is not in any way a genetic phenomenon, but rather a social one. This is clearly confirmed by history in Greece and Rome as those societies progressed toward dominance, the incidence and practice of the black art of faggetry became more common. This coincidentally(?) marked the rapid decline of those societies as regional powers as their striving to expand and grow was replaced by their desire to enjoy the fruits of their ancestor's labors. Just like us.I had a similar thought some time ago.
If homosexuality is genetic... even if it recessive, shouldn't natural selection have been bred it out of the population by now since homosexuals were obviously much less likely to reproduce, passing along the genetic predisposition?

It's a puzzler... but there are some possible answers that I can think of and I make no claims to be a geneticist.

gender, itself, is random and not a passd on genetic trait.
Whether a child is a boy or girl is based on the whether the father's sperm carries an X or Y chromosome.
Eye color, height, basic body build, complexion, race, disease... these are all traits that can be influenced by the genetic history of the parents going back countless generations.
Gender, however, is based soley on the random chance of the father's sperm that makes it carrying an X or Y.
The mother's egg has no say in the gender selection.
Some men have sperm that primarily holds one or the other (why some men sire only boys or only girls) but that randomness has not been found to be hereditery.

So I have two theories that are completely that of a layman...
1. Since actual boy or girl gender assignment is not based on heredity or the genetic history of the parents, isn't it reasonable to assume that the genetic predispositions towards what we find sexualy attractive would be determined (assigned) as the gender was being assigned?... and one out of a hundred or so screw up and get misassigned?

2. or let's supose sexual orientation is passed along geneticly.
I should make it clear that I absolutely believe certain sexual preferences were passed along by evolution.
What if the homosexual gene is a recessive gene only carried in women, the mothers?
Homosexual men could be born just as often with each generation, born to heterosexual fathers and mothers.

You'll notice I don't count lesbian women in my guesswork because, let's be honest and blunt... for the first few thousand years of our civilization, women (homosexual or heterosexual) didn't have much of a choice about getting pregnant.

Sexual preferences passed on by natural selection
On a slide side note away from homosexuality, i have my beliefs why most men find certain things physicaly attractive in women and believe it is mostly natural selection.
Attraction to physical beauty can be found throughout the animal kingdom as a result of natural selection... animals that were drawn to and mated with older or unhealthy females were less likely to produce viable offspring to pass on that predisposition, whereas animals that mated with healthy young females produced viable offspring.
In humans, it's why we generally find young healthy women more sexually attractive than women past childbearing age.
Th caveman that liked older women didn't have many offspring.
Just as our preference towards women with full breasts and round hips...
The cavemen that went for flat chested narrow hipped women mated with women who couldn't birth live babies or feed them.

Men who liked young healthy full breasted round hipped women were more likely to successfully procreate and pass that genetic preference on.

The question is whether we are going to tolerate the open expression of a set of behaviors that are widely despised by the members of the military. So if you don't have a problem with behaviors like guys sucking each others dicks in the broom closet, the development of a "bitch" culture (like in prison), and the inevitable meat gazing and perhaps some fairly aggro sexual harassment, then cool let's do this.Homosexuals are widely despised by people everywhere... that's kind of the point of their argument.
I also have no idea why you think a prison-like "bitch culture" would develop.
It develops in prison, not because anyone's gay, not because they are scumbag lowlife criminals.
We haven't seen a prison-like bitch culture pop up anywhere in our society that openly accepts homosexuality... except in prisons.

[FroggyRuminations]

LMFAO. Tell it Froggy!

But, your historical/genetic example used to illustrate that "the black art of faggetry" is a choice has one major flaw...

Even today, there are gays and lesbians who procreate. The fact is that GLBT individuals still end up married to heteros because they are "in the closet."

Not a single GBLT that I have ever discussed this with feels that they should be allowed to flaunt it. They're not asking to be allowed to fuck in the barracks, any more than we were supposed to fuck in 1276N back in the day. They're not asking to be allowed to wear cross-gendered uniforms. They simply want to be allowed to serve their nation, in uniform, without having to hide who they are.

So I guess that what you are saying is that despite an overwhelming, genetically driven instinct to suck dicks, these intrepid fellows carried on with the horrifying burden of marrying and bearing enough children to grow the X? No question that happens, but you don't see much of that in other areas of genetic behavior. People who are slovenly mutherfuckers that never clean themselves or their homes are viewed with universal disgust and derision and yet, they don't change their behaviors just to satisfy societal norms. I'd say that denying your deeply held sexual proclivities to the extent of marrying and bearing children is a fairly extreme act and brings other more interesting questions to the fore.

Like, what the hell for? I'm sure many ancient peoples lived as "bachelors" and such. How does an entire genetic subset of people "decide" to set aside their cherished dick sandwiches for the rest of us? And if you are correct, why not keep on keepin' on? This secret society survived (and even grew!) throughout the ages by pretending not to like it in the dirtstar, they obviously accepted their station in life, hugged up on a lady, and rocked out some babies. Like pedophiles, they kept their ugly habits to themselves out of consideration for us, where did the courtesy go?

Obviously, its all bullshit. They are choosing to do this, just as I choose to be repulsed by it. Societies go through this ebb and flow as I mentioned based on its point in its lifecycle. The numbers and the history don't lie. The shit is unnatural. It is so unnatural that it doesn't fucking happen in nature. At all. It is completely counter to a specie's biological imperatives. It also happens to be completely counter to a SEAL platoon's biological AND operational imperatives. It just is.

Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for your enlightenment. Just don't pat me on the back... If you know what I mean.:p

Oh, I almost forgot, your "Not a single FAG" trope is absurd. One of the grossest things about faggetry is that the balance is all gone. Men are generally much more sexually aggressive and preoccupied as women are and that balance keeps sexual activity more or less at the discretion of the female. When you have a group of sexually aggressive dudes together where there are no counterbalances to the unbridled passion (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little) what you have is some scary ass shit with no limits on it. The kind of homos that would want to be in the military are not the lispy flamers, but the yoked out body building hardcore fags. I predict some disturbing reports from the front lines, bro.

[Tango Chaser]

The issue as I see it is homosexuals are not as accepted society wide as the gays would have us believe. Good order and discipline is at risk when memebers of a unit find out for a fact that one of their own is gay. It's viewed as being a traitor to the unit. I've seen enough soldiers beaten and thrown out of barracks, tents etc when suspected of being gay.

I forsee an increased number of assaults should DADT go away. Forcing a serviceman to accept something that may be abhorent to them is wrong on numerous levels.

The president needs to stop thinking of votes, start thinking of combat readiness, and pick another fight. I would hope eliminating DADT would be the Presidents unduing in the next election.

[Lannister]

If YOU truely believe this:


...... [B]The military is about professional standards, not individual expression of egotistical identity. I am glad because the United States has one of the most professional military organizations that the world has ever come to know.

Then... you are contradicting your entire premise detailed in previous posts...

Running and Gunning and performing ones job that meet those professional standards isn't at issue here with homos... it seem to be the egotistical homophobic identity of the professed non-homos that is...

Simply put... if you believe "The military is about professional standards" then the Fags that know their MOS, Max out PT tests, and Score expert at the range should be GTG... and NOT have to be subjected to harassment/mistreatment/discrimination by homophobes that express their 'individual egotistical identity'...

I'm sure many ancient peoples lived as "bachelors" and such. How does an entire genetic subset of people "decide" to set aside their cherished dick sandwiches for the rest of us? And if you are correct, why not keep on keepin' on? This secret society survived (and even grew!) throughout the ages by pretending not to like it in the dirtstar, they obviously accepted their station in life, hugged up on a lady, and rocked out some babies. Like pedophiles, they kept their ugly habits to themselves out of consideration for us, where did the courtesy go?

Umm... no disrespect intended... but it sounds like you are describing the catholic priesthood...

[Princeps Belli]

This thread is getting good. I'll throw this out there: fuck genetics. I was born weak with poor eyesight, an inability to move like the great beasts, poor hearing, and poor smell, but I had a heightened sense of taste and touch. Also, my poor eyesight probably gave rise to my sharp inner eyesight. Therefore, I have a great [B]image[B]ination and, what comes from the Greek word, to see, an idea. Insight, if you will. Also, my sense of touch gave me the heightened sense of pleasure and pain.

Genetics is somewhat an ancient study. For example, the cultivation of wheat, the breeding of horses, dogs, cats, and cows. The intricacies are relatively new, but it should not be used to prescribe or proscribe human behavior. Hitler and the Nazi band was a big fan of genetic studies. Think eugenics. The "wellness" of generation. We cannot afford to fall back on some recent genetic studies because morality cannot simply boil down to some idea that morality is the blond-haired, blue-eyed perfection, and the Jews are inferior.

I state such things because I want to tie them into the homosexuality in the military argument. Even if man love could somehow find an argument based upon genetics, it does not take into consideration the problems in the human project. I also would like to recommend a reading of Plato's Symposium. Aristophanes was comedic poet, who proposed in their question of love, the idea that people are just a part of a whole. The original creature was split in two. He states that love is the force that calls each back to its part, but there is the hint of irony. Luckily, Agathon reveals the tragedy. Socrates talks about the true beauty of life. Furthermore, Alcibiades comes in, drunk to the gourd, and he talks about how he tried to sleep with Socrates, but Socrates rejected him so surely by comparing such things as bronze to gold.

There is no reason to be ashamed about one's love for man; there are many good arguments which show that there is a shame in translating that love into ass-pounding activity.

[RickyRecon]

That's just ignorant, bro. You can't see that I set up a model in that analysis. It's like a metaphor. One thing is used to look like the other. For instance, the model of a plastic table can easily be used to look like a diamond encrusted gold one. It's not the matter that we are using; it is the form. The matter makes no difference. Serial killing, fucking men, saving babies, giving money to society, none of those things matter when we are trying to consider the notion of free choice and predisposition. I used serial killing, not to link it to homosexuality, but to look at an extreme case where one would consider a possible predisposition to an unequivocal evil. Therefore, we could look at predisposition versus choice. Maybe, I should have used saving babies. Do people have a predisposition to save a baby in a burning house? I don't know. Regardless, let's not get caught in the example and just look at the question, please.

A metaphor IS a comparison, just not one using like or as. YOU used the metaphor, so don't accuse me of being ignorant simply because I ask you if you MEANT to do so.

We disagree, fine. But we also come from the same place at the same time and I can tell you without a doubt that a couple of the people who covered your six ARE gay.

I'm out of this argument. You gents enjoy yourselved.

[NWPTrainer]

The military does not support individualism. Believe me; I know.


Yeah, cause none of the rest of is have any idea about conformity in uniform?


As Lannister pointed out, if this is the crux of your argument, then the previous arguments about people going apeshit and giving each other blowjobs in broomclosets is a load of shit.

As for referring constantly back to Plato, bro, you better read his shit again. Plato was most certainly NOT vehemently opposed to expressions of homosexuality.

Genetics is an "ancient" study, but not in the sense that we study genetics today. Hell, "astronomy" was an ancient subject too, and people thought the sun revolved around the Earth until relatively recent times. Poor logic.

Like, what the hell for? I'm sure many ancient peoples lived as "bachelors" and such. How does an entire genetic subset of people "decide" to set aside their cherished dick sandwiches for the rest of us? And if you are correct, why not keep on keepin' on? This secret society survived (and even grew!) throughout the ages by pretending not to like it in the dirtstar, they obviously accepted their station in life, hugged up on a lady, and rocked out some babies. Like pedophiles, they kept their ugly habits to themselves out of consideration for us, where did the courtesy go?


I don't think it had fuck all to do with courtesy. I believe it probably has more to do with survival. Look at the reaction hetero people have towards gays in a society based on the order of law...Imagine in a more primitive or less organized culture...Joe Snuffy finds out you take it in the pooper, finds it religiously offensive, and cracks you with his shovel.


When you have a group of sexually aggressive dudes together where there are no counterbalances to the unbridled passion (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little)
Don't worry bro, I threw up too....


I think in the end that, sadly, the open integration of homosexuals into the military in this country is going to be a long, slow, extremely painful thing. The bigotry that most (myself included once upon a time) hetero people (especially males in their early 20s) possess towards homosexuality almost ensures it. I believe that the breakdowns in order and good discipline that do occur will be on the part of straight guys. Beatings (remember Ft Campbell in 96 or 97 when that kid's roommate beat him to death with the baseball bat?), and yes, possibly even prison-rape type scenarios as "social punishment" (for lack of a better term.)

In the long run though, I believe that (a) it will succeed, as did the integration of minorities and women (remember that I, like our resident Liberal Hippy, B5R, believe it is genetic!), and (b) that our military and our nation will be the better for it.

The fact is, sometimes even the finest military force in the history of mankind needs a boot in the ass to straighten their shit up.

[Princeps Belli]

Then... you are contradicting your entire premise detailed in previous posts...

That's a very hasty judgment there. The contradiction is superficial, if it appears at all; I am pretty well aware of my sentiments and thoughts. I.E. that open legal acceptance of homosexual practices is not at all related to the professional standards of the military.

Therefore, when you say: Running and Gunning and performing ones job that meet those professional standards isn't at issue here with homos... it seem to be the egotistical homophobic identity of the professed non-homos that is...

Simply put... if you believe "The military is about professional standards" then the Fags that know their MOS, Max out PT tests, and Score expert at the range should be GTG... and NOT have to be subjected to harassment/mistreatment/discrimination by homophobes that express their 'individual egotistical identity'...
, you are creating the "Utopia" of homosexuality in the military scenario, and you don't take into consideration that you are making an idealistic presentation of homosexual acceptance. It's like saying that the perfect homosexual military man would be perfect for the military. Sure, but we are debating about that question, and one little excerpt of mine should not be used to accuse me of undermining the entirety of my arguments.

I have brought up the issue of negative externalities. Others have raised legitimate arguments against the integration of homosexuals into military units. You simply want to blame non-homosexuals for not making the process of integrating homosexuals into the military. These arguments deserve just consideration. Please don't try to use my call to military professional standards as a beacon to infuse your ideas that homosexuals deserve to be in the military. Contextualize appropriately, please. I did not start typing one thing, wake up, and start typing another. I am still completely against you ideas, as I was before you popped up to challenge me about them.

[HARLEYMAN]

"the black art of faggetry"

thats funny shit right there.....

[Princeps Belli]

As for referring constantly back to Plato, bro, you better read his shit again. Plato was most certainly NOT vehemently opposed to expressions of homosexuality. OH GOD. SPARE US YOUR STUPIDITY. Please. Neither did I say anything that related to the sort, nor do you, most likely, know what the fuck you are talking about. Please, tell me one singular fucking Greek word that you know, and seriously. Let's mimic a Platonic dialogue all the way into our aporia.

How about enlightening me on the number of dialogues that you have read, please. Suggest to me that I should read him when you obviously have not even followed my arguments well. I imagine that you haven't followed a reading of Plato very well either. If I have done the fucking painful work, I deserve a bit of commendation on the subject, not to be requested to read again what you yourself have probably never read, but if I am wrong in any bit, I will apologize. Let's do a test, like a run. You list the dialogues that you have read, characters, and general themes, either openly or in a PM, and I will humbly apologize openly for mistaking my opponent as a simpleton.

[Princeps Belli]

A metaphor IS a comparison, just not one using like or as. YOU used the metaphor, so don't accuse me of being ignorant simply because I ask you if you MEANT to do so.

We disagree, fine. But we also come from the same place at the same time and I can tell you without a doubt that a couple of the people who covered your six ARE gay.

I'm out of this argument. You gents enjoy yourselved.
Reply With Quote

Brother, I don't care if someone's homosexual or not, and you're right, some gay guys probably had my back, and I would love them just the same. I would get their back too, as long as we fought for the same cause. I am simply trying to attack the open acceptance of homosexuality as a standard in the military. All of us know about the great range of deviant sexual practices among our fellow military members. Some of our own fellow brothers sleep with others' wives. That, to me, is a far greater crime than homosexuality, but I put aside personal judgment for mission accomplishment. I don't think that we would disagree so much so if there was the space or time to put together a fuller picture. Unfortunately, such a forum does not allow the full exploration of the picture. It's a difficult subject because of our current social standards. I have a family member who is gay. Can I do anything but love that person? No. It's not my choice; it's his, and I won't condemn him because I also have practices of an ignoble sort, but I wouldn't fight by his side if he were to try and make everyone else accept his practices. I don't think that the military should honor my right to sleep with prostitutes. Therefore, I don't think that the military should honor the right for one man to sleep with another. Marriage, however it is defined, is honorable because it is hard work.

Again, the military will have a difficult time if the marriage standard changes. Also, like somebody else put it earlier, if he were to love four wives, should the military accept that. It's only fair that the homosexual argument opens the door to the polygamy argument. I tend to be a traditionalist in many ways, but I understand our "revolving standards of decency." New time. New world. Adapt and overcome, right.

[BOFH]

I think the point you are missing, is that nobody said you have to accept it. Who the fuck ever said you had to accept someone in order to work with them?

I know racists who work with blacks on a daily basis, all the while disliking blacks. I'm pretty sure any homophobes in the military, if they are the professionals they claim to be, can get the fuck over it and get the job done, leaving the personal issues at home, just as a homosexual would be expected to leave their fudge-packing at home. Nobody is trying to force anyone else to accept homosexuality.

The current rules state gays can't serve. They just aren't allowed to ask you if you're gay. This means any homo who wants to serve has to lie. I, personally, think that is a bit fucked up. Hell...I once worked with a guy, in Mobile Security, who liked to wear women's underwear. I didn't "accept," it...in fact, I think it's disgusting. I gave him hell about it, all the time. Doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be allowed to serve because of it. Once again, I don't have to accept it, or agree with it, in order to deal with it and move the fuck on to far more important issues.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I have a family member who is gay. Can I do anything but love that person? No. It's not my choice; it's his, and I won't condemn him because I also have practices of an ignoble sort, but I wouldn't fight by his side if he were to try and make everyone else accept his practices. I don't think that the military should honor my right to sleep with prostitutes. Therefore, I don't think that the military should honor the right for one man to sleep with another. There are many reasonable arguments against allowing homosexuals to openly serve... yours is not one.
You are comparing homosexuals wanting to not be discriminated against to criminal activity.
And you say you woud not fight alongside your gay family member if he wanted to be accepted.
You refer to homosexuality as a choice... is that why you liken it to criminal behavior?It's only fair that the homosexual argument opens the door to the polygamy argument.No, it's not.

[Ole crusty bastard]

This thread is about an action our President is considering, not the pros or cons or history of homosexuality.

I believe, much like President Clinton, this President made some election promises that are going to come back and bite him in the ass.

No matter what action or inaction, folks are going to be pissed.

I hope I'm not around when the beret and the Capri pants are the uniform of the day.

I'm hoping for inaction.

[bobofthedesert]

This thread is about an action our President is considering, not the pros or cons or history of homosexuality.

I believe, much like President Clinton, this President made some election promises that are going to come back and bite him in the ass.

No matter what action or inaction, folks are going to be pissed.

I'm hoping for inaction.

If he keeps this promise like he's kept the rest so far, we have little to worry about. Among others, Guantanamo Bay is still open when last I checked......:rolleyes:

[Silverbullet]

This thread went down hill fast. I wasn't sure that was possible after some of the posts that went up yesterday.

Couple of points before I lock it.

I think it's interesting when a bunch of white people presume to think they have the ability to compare the issues black Americans went through to the DADT policy. Maybe interesting isn't the right word, it's probably closer to insulting.

I'm not a pysch, but I suspect there's a couple of people in this thread that may have sexuality issues. Of course, this is only based on my reading of the style of attack/defense of the subj so I may be wrong.:smile:

Feel free to open another thread to discuss the policy when/if the president decides to actually make a decision.

Thread locked.

Thank you