[Izzy]

..A joking post in Terminator Mafia made me think of this.. but what do you guys think about the policy?

I'm sort of undecided on this one.

The "don't ask" part I definitely agree with. As an employer, your employees orientation really shouldn't determine whether or not s/he gets the job and frankly it's none of your business. The "don't tell" is bull. Freedom of speech? Broadcasting it probably isn't the best ideas (homophobes..) but I don't see why you shouldn't be able to confide your sexual preferences in a friend without fear of being kicked out.

But, tbh, I can see it from both perspectives.

Military: We're here to be serious. We don't need distractions. A bunch of people attracted to each other bunking together = sex = bad. ...But DA/DT doesn't stop them from sleeping together anyway, so it's not really a valid point. It might reduce it.. but.. dunno.

People: It's a free country. This is discrimination. This violates my rights.

Military: The military is a private establishment (er.. sorta?), you have whatever rights we give you.

People: But that's wrong!

..I dunno, making this up as I go along. Tired. Meh. I'm leaning with the people on this one..

Thoughts?

(I was going to post it as the above, but I just googled whether or not you're allowed to have sex in the military, and found this:

Only with members of the opposite sex.

If you're enlisted, only with enlisted; officers only with officers, or outside your chain of command, or with civilians. I'd suggest you be selective when it comes to civilians.

Not during working hours.

As long as it doesn't affect your work.

As long as you're careful.

Mind changed. Consenting adults can do whatever the want. Shouldn't matter with who, if the military is cool with sex anyway. So.. the policy is uncool.

Ick, sorry if that's confusing. Typing whilst thinking, to myself, about this for the first time. That's the thought process. meh, tired. Discuss!

[Guest]

why is it so bad to let homosexuals serve? people say because they don't want a "gay" person near them or someone sexually attracted to them. Then why don't women serve? This is a horrible policy and it should be removed.

[Guest]

Oh Izzy, I know what post you were talking about.

My thoughts...well I am sure I could quote great arguments for each side. But the best that I have heard was a bunch of guys saying that they didnt give a damn. A brother is a brother no matter what. If you have the strength to keep your hands off a girl then youll have the strength to keep them off a guy. And guys, dont think you are all that hot. Not every gay man wants you. There are plenty of guys on the down low.

A person is a person who has skills that are needed. Right now its a shame that so many are being turned away or kicked out when they have valuable skills. ie translators. Makes no sense.

Oh I forgot to mention I am a lesbian. And I would never want to be in the military.

[Guest]

Okay, first let's establish the military's policy on sexual conduct (regardless of whether or not it's the same gender):

It's inappropriate in a workplace environment.

It's inappropriate between people in the same chain of command.

It's inappropriate between Senior Enlisted and Junior Enlisted.

It's inappropriate between Officer and Enlisted.

All that aside, the don't ask, don't tell policy is there for morale and the safety of the people that are homosexual. The country has not advanced to the point yet that people are completely free of discrimination. Even with the DA/DT (borrowing Izzy's abbreviation) policy in place, people have been killed *because* they were found to be homosexual. If the military forced people to tell what their sexual preference is, then one of the largest protections that those people have would be removed. In addition, there are people out there that are homophobes. Those people tend to react badly in the presence of an homosexual individual, and so having a knowledge of it would be a morale killer for them, and it would engender resentful feelings and detract from the performance capabilities of both people.

All of that aside, even if the couple is consentual...it's illegal to engage in acts of a sexual nature on a Naval ship, Man - Man, Woman - Woman, OR Man - Woman. It doesn't matter, it's prohibited.

[Guest]

doesn't it lower the homosexuals morale having to pretend they are straight?

[Izzy]

I mean, they shouldn't ask, period. But you shouldn't get kicked out for being gay, even if they do think it's in your best interest, because it's your choice to be there.

[Guest]

Okay, first let's establish the military's policy on sexual conduct (regardless of whether or not it's the same gender):

It's inappropriate in a workplace environment.

It's inappropriate between people in the same chain of command.

It's inappropriate between Senior Enlisted and Junior Enlisted.

It's inappropriate between Officer and Enlisted.

All that aside, the don't ask, don't tell policy is there for morale and the safety of the people that are homosexual. The country has not advanced to the point yet that people are completely free of discrimination. Even with the DA/DT (borrowing Izzy's abbreviation) policy in place, people have been killed *because* they were found to be homosexual. If the military forced people to tell what their sexual preference is, then one of the largest protections that those people have would be removed. In addition, there are people out there that are homophobes. Those people tend to react badly in the presence of an homosexual individual, and so having a knowledge of it would be a morale killer for them, and it would engender resentful feelings and detract from the performance capabilities of both people.

All of that aside, even if the couple is consentual...it's illegal to engage in acts of a sexual nature on a Naval ship, Man - Man, Woman - Woman, OR Man - Woman. It doesn't matter, it's prohibited.

doesn't it lower the homosexuals morale having to pretend they are straight?

I admittedly don't know the realities of military service, so I don't know the effects of DA/DT on the morale of people on either side of the issue, but it seems like a stupid policy on the face of it. It seems to me to be creating an issue where none should exist.

I have some counter arguments and I admit that none of them are perfectly analogous to the issue, but I do think that they each outline an important facet of the problem:

1) Would it make sense for a neighborhood group to adopt a DA/DT policy for homeowners in a residential area? As long as my neighbors are "neighborly" and we treat each other with respect, I don't see how someone being a homosexual is going to affect my living standard in the community. It would be impertinent for me to go door-to-door and ask "Are you gay?" and then petition the local board(?) (I don't know how neighborhood associations work... ) that all of those who answered yes should be forced to leave the community. As I see it, it's not my business to ask and they have no obligation to tell me, so why should it make a difference if comes out at some point in our relationship as neighbors? (I admit that I imagine living in an army barracks or a foxhole with someone for extended periods of time is a significantly different than living in a neighborhood together, but I still think it has some connection to the issue.)

2) In response to one of Medji's points about the existence of "homophobes," there are also racists and misogynists, but I don't see strong petitions for minorities and women to be banned from the military (at least not in this day and age). Of course, it's a little harder for things like race or gender to be hidden, so a DA/DT policy wouldn't work for such a thing anyway, but if the military can still operate with minorities and women, why should homosexuals make all the difference?

3) To look at 2) from a slightly different perspective (namely one where one's preference or identity is not obvious from superficial observation), should religious preference be grounds for dismissal from the military? (I don't like the idea of associating sexual preference with religious preference since I believe that rel. pref. is almost entirely environmental while sex. pref. is genetic, but I think that it will serve the point I'm trying to make, so bear with me.) I'm bringing this up because you can't look at someone and say beyond a doubt that, "He's a Presbyterian," or "He's an atheist," so it more closely matches the conditions of DA/DT. I don't see how someone's religious beliefs or sexual preferences could affect me so long as they conduct themselves in a professional manner appropriate for military service. If there was a blanket policy that no Baptists could openly serve in the military, how would the discovery that a squadmate is Baptist suddenly ruin what was previously a perfectly fine and normal relationship? (The argument is admittedly absurdist, but that's largely because I think that the arguments for DA/DT are absurd.)

I'm hoping that some of the things that I've said in the three points above make some sense, but I don't see why the knowledge of someone's sexual preferences should affect the morale or ability of people in the military. As long as they conduct themselves as befitting a member of the Armed Forces, then where would the problem come from? If I had to harbor a guess, I would say that the strongest reasons for the existence of DA/DT and the like is that a number of Bible-Thumpers (not necessarily in the military) like to trot out Leviticus and the like when it suits them to marginalize the rights of homosexuals (though any time Leviticus contradicts something they want to believe in the NT, they're happy to throw Leviticus out the window ). They create a sense of fear among the ill-informed about homosexuality and engender hatred toward them because they claim that it will destroy this entire country (apparently God likes to paint everyone with a very broad brush when it comes to this issue... ). If these thumpers weren't given such public platforms to spew their idiotic opinions, then I think much of the fear and hatred would subside. (Of course, I could be completely wrong on that point, but it certainly seems like a reasonable assumption.)

That's my two cents on the issue. It shouldn't be an issue.

[plasmid]

There's actually a pretty good Wikipedia article on the issue. It looks like it might not be an issue for a whole lot longer.

[Guest]

I admittedly don't know the realities of military service, so I don't know the effects of DA/DT on the morale of people on either side of the issue, but it seems l

1) Would it make sense for a neighborhood group to adopt a DA/DT policy for homeowners in a residential area? As long as my neighbors are "neighborly" and we treat each other with respect, I don't see how someone being a homosexual is going to affect my living standard in the community. It would be impertinent for me to go door-to-door and ask "Are you gay?" and then petition the local board(?) (I don't know how neighborhood associations work... ) that all of those who answered yes should be forced to leave the community. As I see it, it's not my business to ask and they have no obligation to tell me, so why should it make a difference if comes out at some point in our relationship as neighbors? (I admit that I imagine living in an army barracks or a foxhole with someone for extended periods of time is a significantly different than living in a neighborhood together, but I still think it has some connection to the issue.)

In that situation, a homosexual could probably not have any dates over and he would definitely not be able to get married/whatever your state allows.

[Guest]

I admittedly don't know the realities of military service, so I don't know the effects of DA/DT on the morale of people on either side of the issue, but it seems like a stupid policy on the face of it. It seems to me to be creating an issue where none should exist.

I have some counter arguments and I admit that none of them are perfectly analogous to the issue, but I do think that they each outline an important facet of the problem:

1) Would it make sense for a neighborhood group to adopt a DA/DT policy for homeowners in a residential area? As long as my neighbors are "neighborly" and we treat each other with respect, I don't see how someone being a homosexual is going to affect my living standard in the community. It would be impertinent for me to go door-to-door and ask "Are you gay?" and then petition the local board(?) (I don't know how neighborhood associations work... ) that all of those who answered yes should be forced to leave the community. As I see it, it's not my business to ask and they have no obligation to tell me, so why should it make a difference if comes out at some point in our relationship as neighbors? (I admit that I imagine living in an army barracks or a foxhole with someone for extended periods of time is a significantly different than living in a neighborhood together, but I still think it has some connection to the issue.)

Think of it this way. Do the homeowners sleep 90 to a room the same size as your living room x2, carry guns, and have combat fatigue and combat stress, as well as work with each other in close quarters with literally no way to get away from each other for more than approximately 1 hour at a time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months per year for 3 years in a row, sleeping approximately four hours per day except one week every two months when they get to sleep about six hours per day for five of those days?

2) In response to one of Medji's points about the existence of "homophobes," there are also racists and misogynists, but I don't see strong petitions for minorities and women to be banned from the military (at least not in this day and age). Of course, it's a little harder for things like race or gender to be hidden, so a DA/DT policy wouldn't work for such a thing anyway, but if the military can still operate with minorities and women, why should homosexuals make all the difference?

The minorities and women haven't had a history in the Navy of being attacked, beaten, killed, sodomized, hazed or otherwise harassed in a psychologically, emotionally or physically impairing or disabling fashion. Said 'homophobes' have a history of having done that to people. They are accordingly punished afterwards, but a punishment can't bring back a dead shipmate.

3) To look at 2) from a slightly different perspective (namely one where one's preference or identity is not obvious from superficial observation), should religious preference be grounds for dismissal from the military? (I don't like the idea of associating sexual preference with religious preference since I believe that rel. pref. is almost entirely environmental while sex. pref. is genetic, but I think that it will serve the point I'm trying to make, so bear with me.) I'm bringing this up because you can't look at someone and say beyond a doubt that, "He's a Presbyterian," or "He's an atheist," so it more closely matches the conditions of DA/DT. I don't see how someone's religious beliefs or sexual preferences could affect me so long as they conduct themselves in a professional manner appropriate for military service. If there was a blanket policy that no Baptists could openly serve in the military, how would the discovery that a squadmate is Baptist suddenly ruin what was previously a perfectly fine and normal relationship? (The argument is admittedly absurdist, but that's largely because I think that the arguments for DA/DT are absurd.)

The mistake with this counterargument is in fact not with logic, but with an understanding of military law. It is NOT illegal to be homosexual. It is illegal to engage in homosexual acts or attempt to influence others to engage in homosexual acts. As such, being homosexual is not a crime. Having sex with your bunkmate is.

I'm hoping that some of the things that I've said in the three points above make some sense, but I don't see why the knowledge of someone's sexual preferences should affect the morale or ability of people in the military. As long as they conduct themselves as befitting a member of the Armed Forces, then where would the problem come from? If I had to harbor a guess, I would say that the strongest reasons for the existence of DA/DT and the like is that a number of Bible-Thumpers (not necessarily in the military) like to trot out Leviticus and the like when it suits them to marginalize the rights of homosexuals (though any time Leviticus contradicts something they want to believe in the NT, they're happy to throw Leviticus out the window ). They create a sense of fear among the ill-informed about homosexuality and engender hatred toward them because they claim that it will destroy this entire country (apparently God likes to paint everyone with a very broad brush when it comes to this issue... ). If these thumpers weren't given such public platforms to spew their idiotic opinions, then I think much of the fear and hatred would subside. (Of course, I could be completely wrong on that point, but it certainly seems like a reasonable assumption.)

The points that you make do make sense, however they are from a viewpoint of being unaware of the intricate requirements laid out by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Standard Organization and Regulations of the U. S. Navy or the United States Navy Regulations. As such, they are subject to the flaw of ignorance. That being said, I have a firm belief that if you had a good understanding of those three documents, you would have a better understanding of why the rules are in place - and why they're coming under question now.

As far as conducting themselves in a manner befitting a member of the Armed Forces, again, it's not illegal to be homosexual, it's illegal to commit homosexual acts. Any member of the United States Armed Forces that conducts themselves in a manner that is in keeping with the standards of the Armed Forces will be considered top notch, no matter their personal preferences.

In addition, you have to consider the lesser of two weevils. Is it more damaging to morale to have to keep quiet (not necessarily hide!) your sexual preference? Or is it more damaging to morale to hear from your work center supervisor that your best friend on the boat, a Petty Officer that you looked up to as a shining example of everything the Navy wants in a sailor was killed last night by shipmates who were drunk when they found out that he was gay and had bigoted viewpoints?

That's my two cents on the issue. It shouldn't be an issue.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Medji

[Guest]

Think of it this way. Do the homeowners sleep 90 to a room the same size as your living room x2, carry guns, and have combat fatigue and combat stress, as well as work with each other in close quarters with literally no way to get away from each other for more than approximately 1 hour at a time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months per year for 3 years in a row, sleeping approximately four hours per day except one week every two months when they get to sleep about six hours per day for five of those days?

2) In response to one of Medji's points about the existence of "homophobes," there are also racists and misogynists, but I don't see strong petitions for minorities and women to be banned from the military (at least not in this day and age). Of course, it's a little harder for things like race or gender to be hidden, so a DA/DT policy wouldn't work for such a thing anyway, but if the military can still operate with minorities and women, why should homosexuals make all the difference?

The minorities and women haven't had a history in the Navy of being attacked, beaten, killed, sodomized, hazed or otherwise harassed in a psychologically, emotionally or physically impairing or disabling fashion. Said 'homophobes' have a history of having done that to people. They are accordingly punished afterwards, but a punishment can't bring back a dead shipmate.

1.50 years ago people said that about black people, where they right?

2.Women have been raped and psychologically harassed see article.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/

[Izzy]

As far as conducting themselves in a manner befitting a member of the Armed Forces, again, it's not illegal to be homosexual, it's illegal to commit homosexual acts. Any member of the United States Armed Forces that conducts themselves in a manner that is in keeping with the standards of the Armed Forces will be considered top notch, no matter their personal preferences.

Oh come on, really now?

Guys, sex is sex. If the military is cool with heterosexual sex, they better be cool with homosexual sex too. I don't want to go too into it because of the amount of kids on this site, but using your butt, mouth, and fingers* is going to go on in the male-female relationships anyway. ...And I mean, in a military environment, you're pretty with what you can do (I think? Can you bring person... stuff..?), so if anything, provided proper safety precautions are taken, gay sex is safer.

So, I'm convinced that this remains an issue because it actually is, but because people are homophobes. (I liked Dawh's gawd point. ;P ) You want to stop people from getting killed? *shrugs* Make the penalty capital punishment. Tbh, if you're a close-minded homophobic prat who can't accept other peoples' lifestyles, you don't deserve the honor of being someone that other people actually rely on.

* Haha, sorry for the terminology. Keeping it as g-rated as possible.

Oh, hey, I actually just remembered something. We had a blood-drive at school a while back. Did you guys know gay dudes can't donate blood?

[Guest]

Pablos - It's an ongoing issue at the moment. It's a safety hazard.

Izzy - The military is NOT cool with ANY sex. Period. And yes, statistically homosexuals are far, far more likely to have STD's. There's a decent reason why they're discouraged or even disallowed to donate blood.

[Izzy]

*shrugs* So are black dudes. Blood, regardless of who you are, goes through testing for STDs (among other things anyway). One pint saves three lives. Not wanting to save those lives because you might have to encounter a little more tainted blood along the way is idiotic.

[Guest]

*shrugs* So are black dudes. Blood, regardless of who you are, goes through testing for STDs (among other things anyway). One pint saves three lives. Not wanting to save those lives because you might have to encounter a little more tainted blood along the way is idiotic.

I'm not sure, but I think that part of the problem stems from how they gather the blood in this case. I don't know if they test it as they get it, or if they put it in some sort of vat and then test it in batches. Putting it in batches would be more efficient for collecting blood, but it would mean that people's blood is not tested individually. So one person with bad blood could destroy a whole batch. If the blood is all tested individually before it is combined, then I agree that it's stupid to prevent someone from trying to donate blood just because they might have a problem.

The points that you make do make sense, however they are from a viewpoint of being unaware of the intricate requirements laid out by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Standard Organization and Regulations of the U. S. Navy or the United States Navy Regulations. As such, they are subject to the flaw of ignorance. That being said, I have a firm belief that if you had a good understanding of those three documents, you would have a better understanding of why the rules are in place - and why they're coming under question now.

As far as conducting themselves in a manner befitting a member of the Armed Forces, again, it's not illegal to be homosexual, it's illegal to commit homosexual acts. Any member of the United States Armed Forces that conducts themselves in a manner that is in keeping with the standards of the Armed Forces will be considered top notch, no matter their personal preferences.

In addition, you have to consider the lesser of two weevils. Is it more damaging to morale to have to keep quiet (not necessarily hide!) your sexual preference? Or is it more damaging to morale to hear from your work center supervisor that your best friend on the boat, a Petty Officer that you looked up to as a shining example of everything the Navy wants in a sailor was killed last night by shipmates who were drunk when they found out that he was gay and had bigoted viewpoints?

Thanks for taking the time to write up a thoughtful response. I definitely am working from a position without specific knowledge of the situation (a.k.a. ignorance ). When the media reports gays being "purged" from the military, they certainly don't mention if it has to do with knowledge of their sexual orientation coming to light or through sexual acts committed, so it's a little hard for someone on the outside to know the exact circumstances that brought about the dismissal. The way I usually hear it, it sounds like it's done because of knowledge not due to actions. That's certainly an important distinction if that changes how the military responds.

That being said, it seems like the military (and the US) needs to find a more nuanced approach. The policy may be designed to protection homosexuals, but it seems more like a head in the sand tactic. I admit that the military may not be the best place for breaking down bigotry, but something somewhere has got to give. I think that my "gawd point" as Izzy so elegantly put it ( ) is at the heart of the matter.* If there wasn't some religious doctrine condemning gay acts, then I don't think that there would be nearly as much bigotry because it probably wouldn't even end up on most people's radars. As long as everyone's conducting themselves in the manner of good citizens and neighbors, I doubt that there would be much concern for anything going on inside the house next door.** The military would likely be a different beast, but I still think that there could be some sort of compromise that could be reached. It seems something of a crime that the military got rid of a number of Arabic translators who were gay just as the military was getting embroiled in a war in the Middle East. It seems to me that some of the problems that exist now might have been avoided if there had been less of a communication barrier when the Armed Forces first entered the region...I admittedly don't have any facts to back that up, but there was definitely mention in the news that the military was hard up for translators in the early stages of the Iraq war.

* Of course Christianity can't be the sole blamee since all the Abrahamic religions have some texts condemning homosexuals, so they all contribute. Of course, in the US, Christianity is the dominant religion, so it's the largest cause acting against homosexuality and it is the force directing American policy.

** Also contributing to the currnet problem is the sort of ingrained Puritan suspicion that still permeates some regions of the country. Puritans (the original pilgrims) were encouraged as part of their religion to ensure that their neighbors were in fact correctly practicing appropriate Christianity, so it sort of spearheaded the whole spying on your neighbor ideology. It annoys me when the Pat Robertsons of the world condemn the US for the acts of a minority of people which they find abhorrent. Robertson (and others) insisted that hurricane Katrina was God's retribution on New Orleans for permitting acts of sin from the gay community in the French Quarter, (ignoring the fact that the French Quarter was the area least effected by the storm and that many more "good, down-to-earth Christians" were killed and driven from their homes in the rural, Christian communities of the South than were gays punished in NO).

[Guest]

The points that you make do make sense, however they are from a viewpoint of being unaware of the intricate requirements laid out by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Standard Organization and Regulations of the U. S. Navy or the United States Navy Regulations. As such, they are subject to the flaw of ignorance. That being said, I have a firm belief that if you had a good understanding of those three documents, you would have a better understanding of why the rules are in place - and why they're coming under question now.

As far as conducting themselves in a manner befitting a member of the Armed Forces, again, it's not illegal to be homosexual, it's illegal to commit homosexual acts. Any member of the United States Armed Forces that conducts themselves in a manner that is in keeping with the standards of the Armed Forces will be considered top notch, no matter their personal preferences.

In addition, you have to consider the lesser of two weevils. Is it more damaging to morale to have to keep quiet (not necessarily hide!) your sexual preference? Or is it more damaging to morale to hear from your work center supervisor that your best friend on the boat, a Petty Officer that you looked up to as a shining example of everything the Navy wants in a sailor was killed last night by shipmates who were drunk when they found out that he was gay and had bigoted viewpoints?

That person only would have been killed because of the military's police. EX- people Whites didn't hate Blacks until many years of slavery. The sense of power turned into supremacy.

[Guest]

That person only would have been killed because of the military's police. EX- people Whites didn't hate Blacks until many years of slavery. The sense of power turned into supremacy.

I don't actually understand what this statement is supposed to imply fully, but from what I'm gathering it's an indication that the SP/MP isn't doing their job if people die?

That's like saying that if something happens on the street it's the fault of the LAPD. No matter how many officers you put out there, you can't have a constant surveillance on every person in the country. People do things like that only when they think they won't get caught, and that means away from the eyes of authority. I don't see how this could be pinned on the Shore Patrol.

[Guest]

im saying that isolating people and denying them makes the deniers feel superior. This superiority leads to bigotry. So the person two posts ago was killed because nongays felts superior to gays.

[Guest]

How is bigotry going to change based on the allowances in the rules of less than 10% of the population of the United States? That's like putting 1/10 of all serial killers in jail and saying that everyone should feel safe at home.

[Izzy]

Dude, are you saying that because it's only 10%, they don't matter?

[Guest]

No, on the contrary, I'm saying that you can't expect 100% of the population to follow the rules that are only enforced upon 10% of the population, and that probably no more than 20% of the population are even aware of. Fixing the problem of bigotry in the Armed Forces will only fix the Armed Forces. It won't fix the problems that are still presented in civilian life. And if you think that there's less bigotry and hatefulness in the civilian world, then take a few guesses at how a homosexual would be received by a group that openly engenders hate and violence. The KKK, for example, are the archetypical example of an openly violent and hateful society aimed at the goal of complete genocide. And while that type of terrorist organization isn't as open about their goals anymore, they still exist, and they still make life difficult for the rest of the world out of pure intolerance.

And fixing 10% of the population's bigotry isn't going to do anything about the other 90% that take an active stand against fair rights for every person.

By the way, I can almost hear what you're thinking. 'How is it fair rights if they're not allowed to be homosexual?' Well, they are allowed to be homosexual as long as they don't commit homosexual acts. Here's what makes it fair: If a man and a woman commit sexual acts with each other in a workplace environment, the man and the woman are both punished. So it's not homosexuals that are punished. It's anybody that does anything sexual in nature in the workplace or between people that are deemed inappropriate (e.g. people that can have an effect on another person's advancement opportunities).

[Izzy]

If the percentage of people opposed to homosexuals is proportional in and outside of the military, then openly gay people banned on grounds of "protection" is entirely unjustified. They're in as much threat in the military as they are outside of it, so they should at least be able to choose where they want to be in danger. If the US army doesn't want to be responsible for the lives lost, they should do a better job of protecting minorities.

And btw, they're not allowed to be openly gay. Doesn't that violate the first amendment somehow? It's like the military is saying, "You can serve, as long as you don't talk about ____."

[peace*out]

yah.

my opinion: if ur bunking together = awkward, but its still a free country

otherwise, the dont tell thing is just stupid. why hide what u are?

im mad the maine gay marriage law didn;t pass.

[Guest]

If the percentage of people opposed to homosexuals is proportional in and outside of the military, then openly gay people banned on grounds of "protection" is entirely unjustified. They're in as much threat in the military as they are outside of it, so they should at least be able to choose where they want to be in danger. If the US army doesn't want to be responsible for the lives lost, they should do a better job of protecting minorities.

And btw, they're not allowed to be openly gay. Doesn't that violate the first amendment somehow? It's like the military is saying, "You can serve, as long as you don't talk about ____."

You make a good appeareance of ignoring any logic or reason, and just drawing your conclusions based on your biased opinion on the matter without taking any knowledge of customs, traditions, laws or personal experience into consideration. This is the archetypical definition of bigotry, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed. You have drawn a conclusion not based on fact, knowledge or experience, and you are making attacks against other people based on that. Hypocrite much?

I'm done with the conversation now.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Medji

[Guest]

i feel that people are who they are, and it shouldn't matter what they do. i also think that the don't ask is all-right, but not perfect, because if people don't want to tell you, then why ask? homosexual people are just the same as heterosexual, except for their sexual preferences. why should one be discriminated just because he/she likes a man/woman? i prefer not to tell any preferences to anyone, because why do they need to know? you tell them one thing, and they discriminate, and if you tell them nothing, they come up with stupid things like, 'if you don't say your straight, then we'll have to assume that you're gay' and other stuff like that. all and all, i think people should be allowed to be who they want to be.

*pheeew what a long breath it would take to say all of that.

[Izzy]

You make a good appeareance of ignoring any logic or reason, and just drawing your conclusions based on your biased opinion on the matter without taking any knowledge of customs, traditions, laws or personal experience into consideration. This is the archetypical definition of bigotry, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed. You have drawn a conclusion not based on fact, knowledge or experience, and you are making attacks against other people based on that. Hypocrite much?

I'm done with the conversation now.

Exactly what part of my statement was biased? I stated facts. When polls are taken, because it is impossible to survey every citizen, 1%ish of the population is used. The population of the US is roughly 300 million, and according to this source, the US army has 1.3 million people. ..Eh, so it's only roughly half a percent, but it all stays proportional. Because of this, homophobes (and those willing to do something against them) will be in roughly the same percentage inside of and outside of the military. This is a fact. The rest of what I said logically follows.

bigotry - intolerance to those of different beliefs ....Hmm, sounds like the military.

(If you're saying the streets are more safe than a military base not under attack, then man I'm scared for the US.)