Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Open homosexuality in the military soon... Can I shower with the ladies then? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/55871-open-homosexuality-military-soon-can-i-shower-ladies-then.html)

djchameleon 04-23-2011 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah (Post 1041212)
Especially in Vietnam. It's like, they just found a more politically press safe way to continue the draft to me.

basically but I don't really see the negatives behind it, I mean I know you explained about people fighting that don't want to be there but at least they are in there getting benefits and better themselves as opposed to being on the street just fucking around selling drugs and robbing people.

Zaqarbal 04-23-2011 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virgin (Post 1040733)
but seriously, it's rare to see gays deciding to risk their lives and contribute to the honor and protection of one's nation.

Why? Perhaps in certain contexts. But, actually, there is no intrinsic reason to think like that. There are thousands of examples of notable gay soldiers throughout History. Remember that Macedonian guy...

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8979/alexanderny.jpg

Didn't he have a pair of....... deadly impulses?

s_k 04-23-2011 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat (Post 1041009)
I think you can disagree with something without hating it. Plus, I don't see how Freebase Dali serving (or having served) in the military makes him any less of a likable person. Same goes for DjChameleon.

I hate the idea of militarism. I am really disgusted by it.
But that doesn't change my 'feelings' (sounds a bit gay :D) for Freebase or the DJ. Great people, both of 'em.

VEGANGELICA 04-23-2011 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah (Post 1041179)
Was a silly law based on a bigoted paranoia. Glad it's been abolished.

Agreed, but I would add that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was more than just silly. The policy was demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful...the opposite of the Golden Rule. I DESPISED the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and the thoughts of people who conceived it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty (Post 1041214)
I've always supported gays in the military. I don't see a problem with it and don't think anyone should have to hide their sexuality for fear of being fired.

I agree. I frequently see people in the workplace talking about and posting pictures of their opposite-sex significant others. No one accuses them of being "flamboyant" about publicly acknowledging their deep love for another human. Denying gay and bi people the right to acknowledge or talk about their loved-ones simply because one doesn't like the gender of the partner is a gross violation of civil rights, in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon (Post 1040979)
I really don't get why civilians that aren't even in the military feel like DADT was such a bad policy. If you were actually in the service, you would see that it's pretty non-existent in this day and age. Well at least in my experience.

Phanastasio gives good examples of why I feel all people should have been appalled by the policy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio (Post 1040735)
DADT also had stipulations which proved it to be a flawed system: If members of any branch of the armed services were outed through any means, or proved to have been practicing homosexual behavior, they were discharged from the service. In addition, the discharges were, naturally, not honorable discharges. As such, upon leaving the service, finding employment elsewhere became difficult because the status of their termination from any given branch of the United States military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio (Post 1041178)
One of my dad's best friends got discharged under DADT when my family was stationed at Fort Bragg. The guy was airborne, did everything right, healthy...he just got caught out at a restaurant with his boyfriend, and his platoon leader made a big stink about it.

Very sad, Phanastasio. That platoon leader treated his fellow serviceman cruelly by making a stink about him being out at a restaurant with his boyfriend. What should have been a sweet moment for two people was ruined by the U.S. government's acceptance of the bigoted opinion that romantic love should only exist between opposite-sexed partners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali (Post 1040755)
its implementation was originally to allow gays to serve while maintaining unit cohesion by anticipating any negative effects that biases/fears may cause, and aligning with the gender segregation that's enforced in various situations.

If this was the original rationale behind the policy, Freebase, then I hate the policy even more, if that is possible.

In elementary school, you don't tell kids to hide who they are to avoid being bullied. You STOP THE BULLIES! If "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was indeed needed to protect people who love someone of the same sex, then the policy seems to be an admission that United States servicemen and women are less mature than children. That's pretty pathetic.

I think adults can learn to do their job without attacking gay or bi people. It is sad that the U.S. government didn't have such confidence in the character of its military members. I should have thought even anti-gay people would have opposed DADT because the policy implies they can't control themselves.

I suspect the rationale that DADT was implemented to "maintain unit cohesion" was a cover-up. In my opinion, the *real* reason DADT was implemented was because some people wanted to discriminate against and be mean to those of us who are gay or bi.

captaincaptain 04-23-2011 07:05 PM

I took the DADT training the other week (I am in the military). The repeal is great, but if homosexual/bisexuals want equality with heterosexuals, then their needs to be a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

TockTockTock 04-23-2011 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1041242)
Agreed, but I would add that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was more than just silly. The policy was demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful...the opposite of the Golden Rule. I DESPISED the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and the thoughts of people who conceived it.

Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.

captaincaptain 04-23-2011 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat (Post 1041247)
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.

The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.

TockTockTock 04-23-2011 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captaincaptain (Post 1041250)
The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.

Reagan... not surprised.

VEGANGELICA 04-23-2011 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat (Post 1041247)
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by captaincaptain (Post 1041250)
The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.

Good points. I wasn't thinking about how DADT was an improvement on the outright banning of homosexuality that came before. So DADT must have been a (compromise) attempt at making the military more inclusive of people who are gay, lesbian or bi.

Still, I feel the policy didn't go far enough toward full equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, and so in my opinion the policy was still demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful. It treated a certain subset of people as if they were second-class citizens, and violated freedom of speech.

If the DADT policy had been fair (albeit still in violation of freedom of speech), then it would have prevented *everyone* in the military from discussing a significant other. Instead, "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

I understand that steps toward equality under the law occur step by step (obviously)...but that doesn't make me approve of or applaud bigoted laws, policies, or acts, even if they are improvements over what proceeded them. Reading Wikipedia's article, I learned that "since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT." Sad.

djchameleon 04-23-2011 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1041256)
Good points. I wasn't thinking about how DADT was an improvement on the outright banning of homosexuality that came before. So DADT must have been a (compromise) attempt at making the military more inclusive of people who are gay, lesbian or bi.

Still, I feel the policy didn't go far enough toward full equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, and so in my opinion the policy was still demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful. It treated a certain subset of people as if they were second-class citizens, and violated freedom of speech.

If the DADT policy had been fair (albeit still in violation of freedom of speech), then it would have prevented *everyone* in the military from discussing a significant other. Instead, "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces." Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that steps toward equality under the law occur step by step (obviously)...but that doesn't make me approve of or applaud bigoted laws, policies, or acts, even if they are improvements over what proceeded them. Reading Wikipedia's article, I learned that "since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT." Sad.

I remember one of my high school teachers telling us that the word fair should be removed from our vocabularies because in reality life just isn't fair and it will never be no matter how hard we try. He would also tell his sons the same thing to remove the word fair from their vocab because it pretty much doesn't exist.

Also, I read that article a bit earlier when JackPat was asking about it's implemention and sure it discharged 13,000 troops over the time that it was implemented but after 9/11 the number of discharges were dramatically decreased and you can see that over time it was almost as if the policy was slowly being phased out. The strongest branch that was discharging people because of it was the Army and that doesn't even surprise me one bit.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 PM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.