Open homosexuality in the military soon... Can I shower with the ladies then?
 

I am a member of the military the branch i will leave out of this. Either way the government is having us do stage's or tier's of learning and dealing with openly gay, lesbian and bi sexual individuals in the service.

The standing law of don't ask don't tell was easy to deal with because nobody was the wiser.

I ask you how you feel about it. I don't really think that the current policy should change but i don't make the rules.

I'm glad they got rid of the policy.

at least you'll know who among your comrades you can f*ck in the as* when you get lonely during war... look at it in a more positive note.

but seriously, it's rare to see gays deciding to risk their lives and contribute to the honor and protection of one's nation. is it that hard to accept them for who they are and just be proud that they're willing to die out there for the sake of their country? if being a patriot is not enough for a gayman to receive respecet, honestly, i don't know what else will.

I actually don't respect patriotism... or any form of pride for that matter.

I really feel that DADT was a good idea in theory - serving while keeping ones' sex life private seems as though it's the best course of action in any workplace and for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. It also allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons to serve in the military with more or less equal footing as the rest of the members of the service.

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. In this way, what was meant as an anti-discriminatory bit of legislation was tainted with that bit of discrimination, resulting in those who were gay and serving not quite on even footing with their heterosexual brethren in the service.

With that said, repealing DADT and allowing servicemen and women to openly serve is, in my opinion, for the best. The classes you're required to take may seem stupid to you and to most, but ultimately, the military can't function as well if there are clear cracks in the firmament, as it were; if acceptance of those who choose to openly serve was not enforced, then there could potentially be sever issues amongst the troops - if you don't work as a unit of more or less equals, the job doesn't get done as efficiently.

I'm all for the new legislation, but if I were to serve, I still wouldn't do so completely openly, nor would the majority of those in the LGBT community - but it's nice to know that now, if someone's "outed", they're not going to lose their job under less than spectacular terms.

Right on dude, I actually had a debate with TheCunningStunt at length about how pride and patriotism are awful things

@op: I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions but you sound like a bigot. How is the repeal of DADT going to change anything? You aren't suddenly going to be coerced into gay shower sex.

:usehead:

ot: Backs to the walls guys!!

I've discussed this before, but being a veteran myself, I do have a DADT perspective from an experience view. On one hand, 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. On the other, the DADT part of it was based on a an assumption that there would be significant problems as a result of having openly gay members of the armed forces integrating with heterosexuals. The reality of it, via my own experience, says this is not the case... at least from a unit standpoint. Anything beyond that is irrelevant, though.
I've never come into contact with any problems surfacing as the result of gays that were serving along side me and my fellow soldiers. DADT wasn't really a mask of sexuality either... we knew when someone was gay, and more often than not, those people would be open about it regardless.

While I can understand the idea behind its original implementation, I can't really see how it's all that relevant in our military. We'll always have biases against certain things, but when you consider the fact that there are still racists, and there are certainly racists in the military, you can make the comparison that gays will be just as successful in their integration as blacks were. Yes, there are times where military members in positions of leadership make decisions based on biases, but there are measures in place to report and combat it. I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable for those same measures to be equally useful in cases where the bias has to do with homosexuality.

These two :D.

So yes to equal rights for gay people, no matter in what branche.
But no for patriotism or fighting for your country.

Sorry again FD :D.

I love the hate for the military I'm seeing here.

Hahaha, I'm sort of torn now.
I really like Freebase Dali, but I ****ing hate the military.
Tough!

Most civilians hate the military and even people that are serving in the military hate it as well so I don't know why you are thinking that it's unpopular to hate the military.

When it comes to DADT, I didn't really see a problem with it either.

Being a veteran from the Navy, yes the stereotype is somewhat true and there are sailors that are gay but we didn't have any issues with the ones that choose to be open about. Similar to what Freebase mentioned earlier, they would be open about it regardless of DADT. We always knew the sailors that were gay and lesbian and it wasn't any qualms or problems with it. 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.

I don't see any hate.

EDIT: I stand corrected... s_k hates the military.

I've seen many people who have served in the military (some of them being discharged homosexuals) who have denounced the policy (on and off the news). So, it's not just civilians.

I'm not saying it's only civilians but majority of the outcry that I personally see are from civies.

That's kind of bizarre.

That's probably because civilians make up the majority of U.S. citizens.

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.

it's not that bizarre. I understand that feeling. You didn't get to pick where you were born so the whole pride issue seems moot.


I get that but it's a policy that doesn't affect them directly and they seem to be the loudest opponents of something that I feel like they don't fully understand.

I understand it. I don't think it was a bad policy for its time, and it served its purpose, but now I don't see a point in keeping it anymore... I think it's a bit strange that the military would discharge others as a result of their sexuality. Sure, I think that flaunting one's sexuality around in others faces is inappropriate (no matter where you are), but I don't think it's right to keep it a secret if people feel the need to be a bit open about it.

Honestly, I have to research this more and I'm guessing that is where most of the outrage comes from but I feel like it doesn't even happen that much. It's very rare and circumstantial when that happens. There are openly gay people that serve and they don't get discharged for it.

Maybe Dali was his mancrush.

I haven't heard of it being rare (I could be wrong), but if it occurs (regardless of how often it does) then the policy should not be kept.

I understand it. I just think it's bizarre. Especially when you read up about how we became a country. I think it's fantastic. I imagine pride would be the right word, but maybe it isn't.

However I was more referring to the part about any form of pride. I think that's a very broad statement.

True but I meant like that isn't the only reason they get discharged but yeah the policy should be removed all together.

I think they get discharged and there are other charges but they just highlight DADT like it was the main and only charge they had.

Yeah, I agree that the history of our country is great and all that jazz but some people take pride too far and use it as a tool for violence/discrimination against others.

I feel like he may be talking more about that but who I am to speak for someone else.

i would only join the military cos it allows me to kill people without getting arrested - just to see how it feels like, really

The Concept of Pride

If you wish to discuss pride, then let's do it there and not here. That way we won't be discussing something that doesn't correlate with this thread's original post.

since this thread came up, everybody becomes a Navy/Military veteran. sweet

yes because two people equals everyone


excellent math skills you have there

:clap:

i bet when we create topic about ninjas, everyone will become karate experts.

Wow.

I didn't know people who knew karate were ninjas.

ninjitsu - overrated - my fren took it and never learnt to walk on water, scale walls OR ninja magic

Not knowing someone is gay doesn't make them any less gay.
I agree with what people are saying about unity, things like that, the ability to work with people and not have to be uncomfortable about things like homosexuality or not having it be in the way.
But just because they're now openly gay doesn't mean they weren't checking you out/fantasizing about you/crushing on you before.
I don't really get that aspect of people's disagreement with the repealed law.

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.

So, I've never been military personel, but I was a DOD civilian spending most of my childhood on base who saw DADT negatively affect a close family friend.

Was a silly law based on a bigoted paranoia. Glad it's been abolished.

However, I see it as a very small piece of the picture behind my issues with the military. I feel that they tend to... and this may be a tad bit controversial in saying... profit off the difficulty of the lower class in America in getting a job.

I say this mostly due to personal frustrations I have had going through government based employment systems, and how little they actually do. makes me feel really iffy that they have a tax based organization that, while essential, seems a tad bloated, and furthermore misused, and they can't even set up a decently reasonable centralized employment system within the country...

However, Military's only standard in hiring is your ability to point a gun in the right direction. If you're sane enough to do that, then you're in. Seems to me that doesn't really apply to trust fund Johnny in his 16 year old high school existence, picking up botoxed modelettes in his Ferrari with his Yale tenure already paid for so he can be a crooked stock market thief. However, if you're truly poor, living in a strange depression with inflation foodprices like we do, and have no direction, or funding to go in a direction, the military has open arms, and open guns for you to aid in Holy/pride/resource skirmishes all over the globe(which aid entirely the will of trust fund Johnny's senator uncle's view of the world, and quality of life).

Yeesh, I think I near closer, and closer, to communism as my life goes on.

I don't necessarily see that as bad thing though. It helps lower income people to get a job with decent benefits and gives them some sort of trade skill and the money to go through college later on with said benefits.

Yes, but you get people who don't really want to fight going out and fighting. I've met so many people who flat out joined for the benefits, than bitched, and moaned. Literally phrased the government as 'screwing' with them because they might.

I mean, really, how much more prone do you expect somebody who doesn't really want to fight to PTSD than somebody who does?

I think Skaligojurah makes a good point.

you DO know that the military has been like that for ages right? especially when they were drafting people

Especially in Vietnam. It's like, they just found a more politically press safe way to continue the draft to me.

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.