this aplys to the gays in the military situation, i believe this is a good system and needs to stay in place, not bec. of discrimination but bec. of the hassle of having gays would bring. First of all guys and girls are separated, why? bec. of the possibility of fornication, and sexual interest, eliminating this is mandatory for a successful military. if gays where allowed to join they cold not bunk with each other or other of the same race, the military isn't in it to be friendly and tolerant of all Americans. any genetic flaws or habits that would interfere with the success of you and others around you will be dealt with, Hence Don't ask Do't tell.
i do think the military should have the right to say and do whatever it feels best to do
I think this is a great point, and what this whole issue comes down to. No one has a right to serve in the military - they can accept or deny anyone they want. I've been thinking a lot about this topic, and I think the military has two choices: 1) Repeal DADT and change some of the policies/procedures for openly gay men, or 2) Stick to their guns and simply don't allow gays or lesbians in the military at all.
I realize there are moral considerations here, but morality doesn't need to enter into the equation. This is not a societal conversation - it is a military one. I don't really buy into any of these slippery slope arguments that claim having gays in the military will lead to a lack of unit cohesion or something like that. Still, if there is a legitimate reason for the military to not want to repeal DADT, then they are ultimately the ones that are in a position to make that call. And sure, there are plenty of other countries who have openly gay service men and women, but we have to consider the American military heritage and culture. This isn't freakin' Sweden, and American military personnel have a stereotype of being conservative and not exactly tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Maybe this isn't really the case at all. Maybe it is just a stereotype. But it's still something that, if true, is definitely worth consideration in this debate. Either way, bringing in other countries' military is just a false analogy.
i didn't think sources where needed for such a known fact, men and women are separated, everyone except you apparently knows that.
I'm asking for sources to show that mixing sexes/sexuality is disruptive.
being said, if the army didn't think sexual interest was an issue men and women would serve and bunk in the same houses, but is in an issue, so allowing gays is basically the equivalent to allowing all genders to bunk, serve, and live together
Women can serve in the Navy on a boat together for 6 months, or in the desert for non combat regiments amongst men for longer, up to 9 months. Why should gays be treated in a different regard?
the gay person was made fun of and harassed, and also made others feel extremely uncomfortable, this comfortableness could be the difference of life and death on the battle field.
And yet here you are deciding that it is better to boot out an entire demographic, rather than selectively cull troublesome individuals.
I realize there are moral considerations here, but morality doesn't need to enter into the equation. This is not a societal conversation - it is a military one.
I reject this view completely. By not allowing homosexuals to enter into armed service as homosexuals, the military is denying their rights to defend their country which, in a vague, but very arguable way, denies them from being considered true citizens.
And sure, there are plenty of other countries who have openly gay service men and women, but we have to consider the American military heritage and culture. This isn't freakin' Sweden, and American military personnel have a stereotype of being conservative and not exactly tolerant of alternative lifestyles.
And you don't think the British armed forces are institutionally conservative? Some senior officers I've met are so right wing it's scary. So no, this isn't an excuse. If this were a private group who could pick and choose who they wanted, it would be legal and acceptable to some. But since the military is essentially a public service, to deny homosexuals the right to enter would open the door to not allowing gays to work in any public sector profession as a homosexual?
this comfortableness could be the difference of life and death on the battle field.
This reminded me of something a South African soldier said,''Whatever the politics back then, there was no such thing as Apartheid in a foxhole''. Really if your father's unit was unable to put their ignorant prejudices ahead of team efficiency, to the point where it would put lives at risk on the battlefield, then there was something very wrong with either society, or military training back then.
I realize there are moral considerations here, but morality doesn't need to enter into the equation. This is not a societal conversation - it is a military one.
I'm sorry but this is a lazy arguement in my opinion. This issue is a moral one regardless of the institution, organization, whatever. Also for the American military to deny someone the ability to serve their country just because of sexual orientation is a pathetic thing and is hardly legitiment, unless you're a psychotic conservative bastard
not bec. of discrimination but bec. of the hassle of having gays would bring.
You need to really learn how to spell and maybe some grammar would help too. How would having gays in the military cause a hassle? There are many people in the military at the current moment who are gay, and it is running the same as it would if they were openly gay. Sexual preference has nothing to do with how you work.
bec. of the possibility of fornication, and sexual interest, eliminating this is mandatory for a successful military.
Also, there is already fornication and sexual interests occuring in the military. It goes on everywhere. In the army or not, it doesn't hurt anyone. Unless another ignorant person with the same quantity of incompetence as you put your opinion in, then someone might be lynched. You, hopefully!!
if gays where allowed to join they cold not bunk with each other or other of the same race, .
Like firefly said gay people aren't another race, they just have another sexual preference.
the military isn't in it to be friendly and tolerant of all Americans
So your trying to say that the military shouldn't treat gays the same as straight people. That's like going back to before abolition of slavery. (gays=blacks, in whyismynametoms view) Maybe you should have your as+ kicked by a homosexual person!! You pretentious loser.
any genetic flaws or habits that would interfere with the success of you and others around you will be dealt with, Hence Don't ask Do't tell.
Genetic flaws? Sexual preference isn't a flaw. Your incompetent arrogance is a flaw. Are you in the closet or something? I hate people like you as much as the people who know you. Fuck!! Your stupidity makes me so fucking pissed off.
[quote]any genetic flaws or habits that would interfere with the success of you and others around you will be dealt with, Hence Don't ask Do't tell.
So homosexuals can't shoot a gun? Or fight properly? It would be completely ironic if you got beat up by a gay man. Or shoot by one for that matter.[/quote]
Thats not what he said at all, if you read it at all he said any generic flaws that could mean anything not being in good shape,unable to fire a gun,etc. He didn't say any Gay flaws,also being in close quarters with homosexuals could make other people unconfertable, which is why the military tells people don't ask people if there gay or tell people that you're gay.
That's the problem,the military is harboring unrealistic and just plain dumb ideas/feelings. Why should people feel uncomfortable around gays?
How is that unrealistic?Would you like to take a shower with a guy you know is openly gay?That dosn't mean you wouldn't trust him with your life.Just think of it this way if you were a roomate with someone and then they tell you that they're gay, would you want to live them any more?
That's the problem,the military is harboring unrealistic and just plain dumb ideas/feelings. Why should people feel uncomfortable around gays?
How is that unrealistic?Would you like to take a shower with a guy you know is openly gay?That dosn't mean you wouldn't trust him with your life.Just think of it this way if you were a roomate with someone and then they tell you that they're gay, would you want to live them any more?
How is that unrealistic?Would you like to take a shower with a guy you know is openly gay?That dosn't mean you wouldn't trust him with your life.Just think of it this way if you were a roomate with someone and then they tell you that they're gay, would you want to live them any more?
I wouldn't want to shower with a secretly gay guy either...
But it isn't like the guy would be staring at you unless he is a creep. It'd probably be just as uncomfortable for him.
I reject this view completely. By not allowing homosexuals to enter into armed service as homosexuals, the military is denying their rights to defend their country which, in a vague, but very arguable way, denies them from being considered true citizens.
so handy caped people aren't true citizens by that description right? the army wont allow them to serve so they aren't citizens, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SERVE IN THE ARMY, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. it is there choice to do whatever they feel best and if they think no gays would be easier than the hassles they think will come from it is is there call, the army isn't there to be friendly and tolerant, blind people can't join and people aren't com planing about that, there are no rights as an American to be in the army and that's that.
