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.
Same argument about integration. "Separate but Equal is not perfiect, but it's a good compromise until such a time we can implement integration without problems." We don't live in paradise, there are ALWAYS problems. Why would the United States have more problems with openly serving gays than Russia? Because that's what you are saying. You're saying that there is something about the American military that makes it more problematic to have openly serving gay soldiers, than elsewhere in the world. What is it that makes the American military so different?
Are you "X" or active military?
What is it that makes us different than many other military forces. That's a list that's so long, it's not even funny, and leads me to believe that you have no military experience at all.
Look folks, I am not saying DADT is the BEST thing, I am saying it's what is currently PROTECTING those folks who are gay. Without it, all military commanders are free to discharge at will any person who is gay.
You didn't explain a thing. Someone who is gay being allowed to serve openly shouldn't change a thing. Gays are in the Military now, yet they bunk with other men. So why would that change if they are allowed to serve openly. They aren't going to start some humpfest just because they can serve openly.
Homosexuals may be serving but they are not open Homosexuals, women and men are not showering and bunking together so sinse a Homosexual is attracted to the same sex and now he's out in the open how could they be allowed to shower or bunk together? It's a simple question, it's not accusing anyone of doing anything.
Simply put If the Homosexuals are open then how could you put them in a shower or bunks whith straight men when women and men cannot? Is it not the same situation?
I still don't see how ending DADT amounts to special treatment. The shower situation keeps being brought up, but then I always hear from people in the military that soldiers no longer shower in a communal setting (though, this always confused me, especially when they are in combat). Either way, if there are actual cases of sexual harassment involved as a result of the shower situation, those can be resolved in the same manner as any other case of sexual harassment.
1. 2 never said anything about a shower.
2. DADT prevents people from getting discharged, and prevents violence, prejudice, bias and again, Kicked out of the military.
Homosexuals may be serving but they are not open Homosexuals, women and men are not showering and bunking together so sinse a Homosexual is attracted to the same sex and now he's out in the open how could they be allowed to shower or bunk together? It's a simple question, it's not accusing anyone of doing anything.
Simply put If the Homosexuals are open then how could you put them in a shower or bunks whith straight men when women and men cannot? Is it not the same situation?
For the same reason he is allowed to shower if he is not out in the open.... Suddenly being allowed to be open shouldn't change that.
1. 2 never said anything about a shower.
2. DADT prevents people from getting discharged, and prevents violence, prejudice, bias and again, Kicked out of the military.
True, and that's something that needs to be dealt with. It's not as simple as repealing DADT, but also removing the language that does not allow gays to serve in the first place. As I understood it, the wording of both the decision in the court case and the injunction not only demanded that DADT stop being enforced, but also that soldiers would not allowed to be discharged, period. Regardless, it seems that re-writing the language of the military's policy would be a natural part of the DADT repeal process.
Because gay people are already serving.... Not being kicked out just because they are open doesn't change that...
so, you do not think the military need address the shower situation? So how many incidents will it take before they should address it? How uncomfortable should a straight man feel before he reacts?
here is a scenario...
A flaming (i.e. "open) homosexual is showering with other men when 1 of them suspects that he is sneeking a peek at him.
What do you think the straight soldier is going to do?
(a. turn the gay soldier in for sexual harrassment
(b. beat the gay soldier
(c. nothing... yet
which one of these solutions is good for the military? which one is good for both men?
so, you do not think the military need address the shower situation? So how many incidents will it take before they should address it? How uncomfortable should a straight man feel before he reacts?
here is a scenario...
A flaming (i.e. "open) homosexual is showering with other men when 1 of them suspects that he is sneeking a peek at him.
What do you think the straight soldier is going to do?
(a. turn the gay soldier in for sexual harrassment
(b. beat the gay soldier
(c. nothing... yet
which one of these solutions is good for the military? which one is good for both men?
And what (other than bigotry) makes you think that a gay soldier will start looking at straights in the shower all of a sudden??
But you still fail to make an argument about why hiding sexual identity is "good for the force". Wouldn't taking that pressure off of those servicemembers be good for the force? If anything, gays are even more deserving of respect as they have to do more than straight soldiers in order to be in the military in the first place. There are tons of rules that civilians wouldn't understand, but this is one that a) isn't making sense and b) is only singling out one particular group for a trait that is out of their control.
Also, I never said that we did not need to address these issues. I said that soldiers should be treated equally, regardless of their sexuality. Most of the examples you raised really are no different than what straight soldiers go through. Not to mention your assertion that gay soldiers can't handle combat, which is at best untrue and insulting.
You continue to say that gays cannot serve as well as straight if they are honest about the fact that they're gay. You haven't yet given a single reason why, though.
What a bunch of BS... gays are more deserving of respect? what?
Respect is earned my friend. And, what is it that gay people must do that is deserving of this respect?
I stand by my previous statements, but let me clarify.
I say that gays CAN serve just as well as anyone else. The question is whether or not they are dedicated soldiers. When I hear people complain that gays are under so much stress because they can't be themselves, I have to wonder... Do I really want that person in my unit? If they can't control their sexual behavior then how will they handle combat?
One more point that I have to call you out on: You claim that the military is singling out gays for something that is out of their control? Ok, lets look at this.
DADT: Even if I believe that gays can not control their attractions... there is no restrictions against that. The problem is sexual conduct (or a big mouth)
The gay member has to go out of their way by acting gay or engaging in gayness
I'm sorry, but if gay people can't comply with the rules for 8-10 hrs a day then they shouldn't be in the military
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.
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.
DADT prevents -
