Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/military.gays.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/...dex.html</a> It turns out all those reasons for denying gays the right to serve in the military were not based on reality. It's yet another of many recent examples of people trying to justify their own fears and prejudices with external logic or reasoning - gays will lower morale, they'll harm unit cohesion, etc.
Originally Posted By dshyates And don't forget the "Ick" factor. To me its a simple maturity issue. If you can't handle being hit on be a gay guy, them maybe we should'nt give you a high powered fire arm.
Originally Posted By X-san I'm sure there are some posters itching to write "well, why should they have to be subjected to that?". So to craft a preemptive reply, I would venture to ask what is the difference between an unwanted homosexual advance and a heterosexual one (considering there are women serving in nearly all aspects of the military these days and all)?
Originally Posted By The IRONMAN Are you two guys saying that it is acceptable for a woman in the military to be hit on by her male counterparts? A yes or no only please.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I think it's sad and disgusting that the United States of America - a country that claims that "all men are created equal" still has laws on the books that take away equality from a certain group of people. We've removed laws that allow racism and sexism, but for some reason we still allow laws against gays - it just doesn't make any sense! Future generations are going to look back on us and just shake their heads - the same as we look back and shake our heads at laws that were so obviously racist.
Originally Posted By dshyates No, its not appropriate. But it happens and we deal with it like mature adults. Banning women from the military because straight guys can't act like adults doesn't seem to be the answer. And a lot American straight men have a real problem with gays. A gay guy doesn't have to hit on a straight guy to get tied to a fence and beaten to death.
Originally Posted By dshyates By your logic, this is proof that women should be banned from the military. Its the womens fault. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,428045,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz...,00.html</a> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371141,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...,00.html</a> <a href="http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=159008" target="_blank">http://www.javno.com/en/world/...d=159008</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.<< Yes. And you know, some people aren't all that comfortable with black guys serving in a close combat environment. That's not racism, it's about trust, you see.
Originally Posted By dshyates I think this story explains the Pentagon's stance on fags. <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Soldier_convicted_in_connection_to_antigay_1024.html" target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/news/2...024.html</a>
Originally Posted By X-san ***Are you two guys saying that it is acceptable for a woman in the military to be hit on by her male counterparts? A yes or no only please.*** Why are you defining everything based on "a woman"..."a male counterpart"? Is it not possible for this to be the other way around? Your "yes or no only please" is disingenuous, since it is lacking in clarification. Define "hit on", first of all. Maybe offering some examples would be helpful.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.> The problem with this logic, of course, is that it takes the bigotry itself as justification for continuing the bigotry. It's essentially "some people have a problem with gay people, so we can't have them mix." Rather than seeing the bigotry AS the problem that must be addressed, the problem in their minds becomes the gay people. As 2oony points out, this was the same argument and same justification used for years for keeping the troops segregated. "Blacks and whites can't get along (and/or blacks and whites aren't inherently equal), so we can't mix them" - the bigotry itself was the justification. Integrating the troops, which of course everyone agrees with now, was actually a bigger deal than simply allowing gay people who are already there to stop lying in order to stay there. After all, black people had their own officers; if the troops were integrated, pretty soon you were going to have a black Sergeant giving orders to a white soldier. This at a time when a black man couldn't even drink from the same fountain as a white man in a lot of states... and this black man is going to give this white man ORDERS? And the white man is going to have to obey them?? A lot of white soldiers opposed this. A lot of the brass opposed this, on "morale" or "cohesion" grounds. A lot of politicians derided it as "massive social experimentation at the expense of our armed forces" (the same thing some idiots said in 1993, of course). But Truman wasn't having it. He KNEW there was opposition from the troops, from the brass, and from Congress, but he did it anyway. He didn't accept bigotry as the justification; he rightly saw the bigotry as the problem that had to be overcome. And he basically said "this is the way it's going to be and you WILL get used to it." (Exactly what Clinton SHOULD have done in '93, instead of caving like he did). And it wasn't completely smooth overnight. But they did get used to it. BTW, Truman did this in an election year, no less. Which led directly to Strom Thurmond running as a "Dixiecrat" and winning several southern states of the then-solidly Democratic south, leading to all the predictions that Dewey would beat Truman. Let's hope a President Obama has the backbone of a Truman rather than a Clinton.
Originally Posted By X-san Post 8 says it all best. As usual, Kar2oonMan is pretty much the voice of reason on laughingplace (swimming pool issues aside). K2M, when you really look deep inside, it really is amazing how incredibly similar the "no blacks allowed" issue really is, isn't it? Going back 40 years, people would have given me crap for the wife I'm married to, and denied rights to my daughter. They were dead wrong back then, and so are these folks fighting the same hateful battle today.
Originally Posted By X-san ***They serve their country with dignity and honor. End. Of. Story. As would gays if given the opportunity.*** Unless I missed something DSH...I think Dar WAS referring to gays in the military. ?
Originally Posted By X-san ***The problem with this logic, of course, is that it takes the bigotry itself as justification for continuing the bigotry. It's essentially "some people have a problem with gay people, so we can't have them mix." Rather than seeing the bigotry AS the problem that must be addressed, the problem in their minds becomes the gay people. As 2oony points out, this was the same argument and same justification used for years for keeping the troops segregated. "Blacks and whites can't get along (and/or blacks and whites aren't inherently equal), so we can't mix them" - the bigotry itself was the justification.*** Dabob, thank you for presenting the truth, in a nutshell.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Also, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is flawed in the fact that people already know a person's sexuality, but it's not allowed to be acknowledged. So, your fellow troops know you're gay, you just can't be open. How is the morale affected if they already know? Of course, then if you came out, the **** would hit the fan, and the people who already knew, would have to stop turning a blind eye....yeah, that's logical.
Originally Posted By The IRONMAN In reply to post 10: I was simply going on the precedent set on post 2, [[To me its a simple maturity issue. If you can't handle being hit on be a gay guy, them maybe we should'nt give you a high powered fire arm.]] This seems to suggest that guys who have a problem being "hit on" by other guys shouldn't be in the military. Well why is it different for straight women being hit on by straight guys? It isn't. The point I was making is that it isn't "Okay" for gay guys to hit on straight guys, it isn't okay for anyone to hit on anyone in that situation. Your head should be in the game not on someone else's ASS. I'm just going on what yates said. Personally I don't give two damns who is in the military as long as they can get the job done.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, it's not okay (in most cases) for soldiers to hit on each other. But there are already rules about that for straights, and they can apply to gay soldiers too. But it makes no sense to use the possibility of being hit on as a justification for not allowing gays to serve openly - penalizing a whole class of people for what some of them MIGHT do.
