U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2010, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Prescott Valley,az summer/east valley Az winter
2,034 posts, read 3,531,027 times
Reputation: 7855

Advertisements

DADT forced prospective officers to lie~ which is opposed to the code of ethics! during the 20 years I spent in the military the homophobes and those against women serving in a combat role tended to be the laziest and the women and the in closet gays were the better workers!

Yes, allow the gays to openly serve like in almost any other modern army~ and allow those that oppose to get out of the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2010, 10:44 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 12,702,149 times
Reputation: 3975
Should there be Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

I suspect that there are things that I really don't need to, or, want to know. The only time I really care about someone elses' sexual orientation is when I am interested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2010, 05:36 AM
 
5,710 posts, read 12,824,018 times
Reputation: 9009
Default Gangs in the Military

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingwater View Post
My concern is actually for the welfare and safety of gay soldiers. I am not saying all soldiers are like this but I have quite a few friends and family that have been in the military. Most (not all) are very macho and homophobic. I have a nephew in Iraq and he tells me things that go on which I will not give in great detail here but a lot of things get covered up. Gang type mentality, heavy drug use, women having sex with superiors to get out doing certain assignments, some constantly getting crappy assignments if they do not sleep with someone and so forth. So my concern is, if lets say two gay men are caught by their peers having sex and those peers are homophobic, what do you think the outcome will be? Of course the government should protect its soldiers but realistically I am not so sure this would happen all the time. I personally think it could cause violence, however I am truly hopeful that society will eventually accept people for who they are and none of this be a problem. I think we have a long way to go yet though.
Unfortunately our military is short handed and have chosen to except soldiers who do have misdemeanors, felonies and criminal charges. The Army, especially, has street gangs, ethnic/color only organizations, etc. within it's ranks. At times Judges are directing these people towards a recruiter instead of jail. Our son, who is an officer, finds the majority of these recruits do not accept authority nor protect him or other soldiers, are lazy and put others at risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2010, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Cartersville, GA
1,253 posts, read 2,859,489 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellwood View Post
Unfortunately our military is short handed and have chosen to except soldiers who do have misdemeanors, felonies and criminal charges. The Army, especially, has street gangs, ethnic/color only organizations, etc. within it's ranks. At times Judges are directing these people towards a recruiter instead of jail. Our son, who is an officer, finds the majority of these recruits do not accept authority nor protect him or other soldiers, are lazy and put others at risk.
If this is true (and I certainly don't doubt it,) perhaps we can make some more room for these criminals by barring honest, hard working homosexuals from military service. I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to teach sociopaths how to kill. (/sarcasm)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2010, 03:04 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,062,067 times
Reputation: 14878
It is a ridiculous policy, either ban all homosexuals from the military (good luck trying) or end the discrimination. Don't ask don't tell is the equivalent of the three monkeys; hear no homo, see no homo and speak no homo, as if homosexuality will just go away because you refuse to see it, hear it or speak of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2010, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Cartersville, GA
1,253 posts, read 2,859,489 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
It is a ridiculous policy, either ban all homosexuals from the military (good luck trying) or end the discrimination. Don't ask don't tell is the equivalent of the three monkeys; hear no homo, see no homo and speak no homo, as if homosexuality will just go away because you refuse to see it, hear it or speak of it.
Agreed. Granted, this is not the first time our government (or our sociey in general) has tried to solve a problem by sticking its head in the sand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2010, 09:36 PM
 
3,651 posts, read 8,115,052 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
the gay sympathizers are still oversimplifying the topic and burying their heads in the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tightwad View Post
IMO the whole question of sexual preference is irrelevant to anyone except those involved in the relationship.
Your honor, Exhibit A.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ToucheGA View Post
I have seen no evidence to indicate a causal relationship between one's sexual preference and one's performance as a solider. I therefore see no reason to bar homosexuals from military service.
I have never been to the moon. Therefore, I don't believe anyone else has. Sorry but that is basically your logic. And you also oversimplify in that we aren't simply talking about "performance as a soldier," but how that could affect them in combat. It is amazing to me that people are unable and/or unwilling to accept or even consider that when someone is in an extremely dangerous, stressful situation, that being in that situation with a person/persons they could have romantic and/or sexual feelings for could negatively impact their ability to do their job as effectively and objectively, to say nothing of how it could impact those around them who might now have to worry about being "hit on" - and when I say worry I don't mean in an anti-gay, hateful way. But again, the PC Monster rears its head


Quote:
Originally Posted by kitsunegames View Post
You cannot tell me that the men do not bond so closely as to have no best friends. But no one worries that they'll look out for their best buddies while letting other soldiers die. Of course they don't, because it is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is comparing best friends to a romantical and/or sexual relationship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellwood View Post
Unfortunately our military is short handed and have chosen to except soldiers who do have misdemeanors, felonies and criminal charges. The Army, especially, has street gangs, ethnic/color only organizations, etc. within it's ranks. At times Judges are directing these people towards a recruiter instead of jail. Our son, who is an officer, finds the majority of these recruits do not accept authority nor protect him or other soldiers, are lazy and put others at risk.
This is all frankly pretty absurd. First, the military rarely if ever accepts people with felony convictions (even the Army), and are even a hell of a lot pickier about accepting people with misdemeanors than in years past. The exception might be if they're looking for infantry, but even then what you say are gross exaggerations at best. Gang affiliations/activity are extremely rare, even in the Army. Not sure what you mean by your son and "recruits" (young enlisted? just kids thinking about joining? what?) so I'll defer comment on that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ToucheGA View Post
Agreed. Granted, this is not the first time our government (or our sociey in general) has tried to solve a problem by sticking its head in the sand.
That statement is just dripping with irony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Don't be a cry baby!
1,310 posts, read 1,145,391 times
Reputation: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by 15fresh View Post
Is it really fair to the people who are affected by this? Shouldn't everyone be able to serve their country?

To me it isn’t a question of individual sexuality but sexuality as a whole. The armed forces separate men and women because they do not want to promote sexual contact. In the past it was easy enough, separate the men from the women. But now in a time when homosexuality is far greater, how do you deter sexual contact? How do you prevent sexual tension such as harassment? Picture this, a base that lets the men and women sleep in the same quarters and one night a few of the guys come in all horny and drunk then assault a woman. You might ask, “Why were they in the same quarters?” but this question is still relevant even if it refers to homosexuality. If you are going to let homosexuals sleep in the same quarters of heterosexuals then you would have to let men sleep in the same quarters as women. This is the problem and not some big plot to suppress homosexuality.
A heard of drunken redneck bullies or a gaggle bull **** women, the safety of ALL of the men and women is the issue and not just the people whose sexual preference is their first priority.

Just my thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Cartersville, GA
1,253 posts, read 2,859,489 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
It is amazing to me that people are unable and/or unwilling to accept or even consider that when someone is in an extremely dangerous, stressful situation, that being in that situation with a person/persons they could have romantic and/or sexual feelings for could negatively impact their ability to do their job as effectively and objectively, to say nothing of how it could impact those around them who might now have to worry about being "hit on" - and when I say worry I don't mean in an anti-gay, hateful way. But again, the PC Monster rears its head.
What about heterosexual soldiers who are attracted to soldiers of the opposite sex? Should we ban women (or men) from military service as well? Should we ensure that all air traffic control centers are staffed by heterosexual members of the same sex? What about other high-strees occupations?

When somone is dodging bullets, the idea of hitting one someone is going to be the last thing on thier mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Bay Area
2,406 posts, read 6,799,764 times
Reputation: 1843
This argument, which I have heard before, is just a cop out in my opinion. I would like to hear the statistics on how many gay soldiers have assaulted straight ones? Gays live with straight roomates, create bonds/friendships with straight friends, etc. It is not that they are base sexual feelings with no control of their sexuality and are just going to sexually assault every man in their barracks. Female soldiers are assaulted extremely often by male soldiers by the way.

Here is the real dont ask dont tell: In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.

The Nation: The Plight of Women Soldiers : NPR

Why? Well women are rarely as strong as a man. A woman cannot fight back like a man can. Men dont rape/sexually assault each other to such a degree because they will get their a** beat down. How about this, get rid of dont ask dont tell concerning gays, but if there is any sexual advances, straight or gay, the appropriate punishment or discharge can occur then. And deal with the real endangerment here, the straight men who are raping the straight women, thats who really need to be discharged, not the gays.




Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
To me it isn’t a question of individual sexuality but sexuality as a whole. The armed forces separate men and women because they do not want to promote sexual contact. In the past it was easy enough, separate the men from the women. But now in a time when homosexuality is far greater, how do you deter sexual contact? How do you prevent sexual tension such as harassment? Picture this, a base that lets the men and women sleep in the same quarters and one night a few of the guys come in all horny and drunk then assault a woman. You might ask, “Why were they in the same quarters?” but this question is still relevant even if it refers to homosexuality. If you are going to let homosexuals sleep in the same quarters of heterosexuals then you would have to let men sleep in the same quarters as women. This is the problem and not some big plot to suppress homosexuality.
A heard of drunken redneck bullies or a gaggle bull **** women, the safety of ALL of the men and women is the issue and not just the people whose sexual preference is their first priority.

Just my thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top