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.
I had a gay friend when I was in 'Nam. He was as fierce as can be. His luck ran out in an ambush. I got the guy that killed him and then dragged his body back to the boat.
Gay or straight we all bleed red.
I'm truly sorry to hear about your buddy, but if he were a woman, their would have been no difference in his bravery or sacrifice.
I'm not personally saying gays, or women bleed any different, nor am I saying they cannot accomplish most every mission that anyone else. I'm saying that in certain circumstances ignoring the differences between the sexes, and mixing them together, will cause all sorts of complications and create severe problems that are incompatible with military life, and will negatively impact the accomplishment of the mission.
...I'm saying that in certain circumstances ignoring the differences between the sexes, and mixing them together, will cause all sorts of complications and create severe problems that are incompatible with military life, and will negatively impact the accomplishment of the mission.
But that's what DADT *is* saying: "Pretend you're not gay, and everything's good. You can serve with anyone, anywhere and on any mission."
Again, I ask everyone - if they are closeted, does that make someone less gay?
But that's what DADT *is* saying: "Pretend you're not gay, and everything's good. You can serve with anyone, anywhere and on any mission."
Again, I ask everyone - if they are closeted, does that make someone less gay?
Why can’t gays come out of the closet and serve openly? Because once a person's sexual orientation is known, then it is up to those in command to act upon that information. There are only two sexual persuasions for our military commanders to deal with today. When new troops check in, the commander separates the men from the women, and I suppose this practice will end once gays serve openly?
Even though we currently have policies in the military to keep women and men separated, we still have problems. If we allow gays to serve openly we will go from two, to sixsexual persuasions:
Gay men
Lesbian women
straight men
straight women
bisexual men
bisexual women
If gays serve openly, and a unit commander has 24 new soldiers checking in, and he knew he had four each of the above, where does he assign them, when the barracks rooms were designed with three people to a room?
Does he room the lesbians with other women, or with other lesbians, and where do the bi-sexuals go? Do they get their own rooms, all to themselves? Or are all gay men equally attracted to each other so its ok if they have sex in the barracks rooms, and its only men and women who are the problem?
If this commander's unit is about to go into the field for training or in-theater, how does he set up the living quarters, when they may be only canvas tents, and how many showers tents does he request?
Unit commanders are tasked to maintain high state of morale, to keep order and discipline, and completing the mission. Your average grunt or POG does not care about how this gets accomplished, that is the job of the staff non commissioned and and the officers. An having an emotional Peyton Place going on is not good for unit morale and discipline.
He assigns them the same way he does now - when he doesn't know they are gay/bi. How does that knowledge change the reality of the situation? It doesn't.....
A commander not knowing a service member is gay doesn't make that person any less gay.
He assigns them the same way he does now - when he doesn't know they are gay/bi. How does that knowledge change the reality of the situation? It doesn't.....
A commander not knowing a service member is gay doesn't make that person any less gay.
Once gays serve openly, and a commander knows he has a gay soldier checking into his unit, he can not simply ignore this information.
I'll ask you again, why do we separate straight men and women, but when it comes to gays, you feel we can just allow them to live anywhere?
Do gays not have sex libidos, do they not form intimate sexual and personal relationships? Or when comes to gays, are their no boyfriends, no love triangles, no bad break ups, lover's spats, feeling of rejection, abandonment, jealousy? Apparently, when it comes to gays and sexual relationships, gays are, for lack of a better word, perfect.
Why is it that only when five hetero men and women check into a unit, we need to keep their living and shower areas separate, but when 10 gay men check, why hell, we can put them all in the same barracks and let them share showers, living quarters and private areas?
You are in the Air Force right? So yeah, maybe in a military branch that is structured like the civilian work force, where no one sees each other after their 8 hour work day is up, then gays in the work force are not a big issue. But it is different when you are in combat units that routinely go on field exercises, and they do not simply check into the drom, to get their single person room assignments.
I need to know what the "serve openly" really means.
Otherwise DADT to repeal or not makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
It's pretty simple. "Serving openly" means when a fellow soldier asks a gay soldier "so, do you have a girl back home" he doesn't have to lie but instead can say "no, but I have a wonderful boyfriend". It means the gay soldier can bring his husband to social functions with other unit members.
It means the family members of a gay soldier can shop at the base commissary. It means that a married gay soldier gets the same increased housing allowance a married straight solider gets. (of course, those last two won't happen even when DADT is repealed. Even if a gay solider is legally married in a state like Iowa he still would be denied the increased housing allowance given to straight married soldiers. Even if a gay solider is legally married in a state like Vermont his husband would still be banned from shopping at the base commissary. Thanks Defense of Marriage Act ).
Last edited by hammertime33; 12-17-2010 at 04:00 PM..
It's pretty simple. "Serving openly" means when a fellow soldier asks a gay soldier "so, do you have a girl back home" he doesn't have to lie but instead can say "no, but I have a wonderful boyfriend". It means the gay soldier can bring his husband to social functions with other unit members.
It means the family members of a gay soldier can shop at the base commissary. It means that a married gay soldier gets the same increased housing allowance a married straight solider gets. (of course, those last two won't happen even when DADT is repealed. Even if a gay solider is legally married in a state like Iowa he still would be denied the increased housing allowance grated to straight married soldiers. Even if a gay solider is legally married in a state like Vermont his husband would still be banned from shopping at the base commissary. Thanks Defense of Marriage Act ).
How about we just have an all gay military branch?
That's something the gays will never have to endure like Black Americans did in the military. Which is why I'll never understand why gays scream about civil rights violations and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Allowing homosexuals to serve openly puts sexual dynamics into group relationships. It's unnecessary.
If they've always been in the military what's the point of allowing them to serve OPENLY. OPENLY I don't agree with.
Not every gay is coupled up. Just like not every hetero is. That's a weak argument as far as "so they can shop at the PX without shame". Irrelevant. I imagine there's male husbands of FEMALES who shop on the base... So if a dude's HUSBAND was shopping what difference would that make? Same as a WIFE of some chick shopping... Big deal.
And a living allowance can be given and nobody needs to serve openly to have that. Change the regulations.
Of the dozens of countries that allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly, including the IDF which is regularly engaged in field operations, in which of these militaries have there ever been any of the stated problems?
Considering that we have ample precedents, let's stop with the conjecture and make some arguments from evidence.
...sounds like your fellow bubble-head should have gotten a better lawyer and/or appealed the conviction.
However this took place in 1986. I think he time to appeal has run out.
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.
).
it's probably a good idea
