Marine Corps Chief: 'Distraction' of Gays Serving Openly Could Cost Marines Limbs

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by August

Let's not get into comparing blacks with homosexuals. Race is not at all the same thing as sexual orientation. That said I don't buy the violence against gays argument. Soldiers are expected to have more self discipline than that.

The aspect I wanted to point out that you usually can''t chose your sexual orientation nor the melanin level in your skin.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

The aspect I wanted to point out that you usually can''t chose your sexual orientation nor the melanin level in your skin.

Some people say that jerks can't choose not to be who they are either. That doesn't mean it's a valid comparison with ethnicity.

[Tessa]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries. You don't read about beatings being handed down to gay Australian or German troops, or Israeli soldiers being distracted because one of their squadmates happens to be gay.

Distractions causing soldiers to lose limbs? Who's going to be so worried about the gay man behind them that they get their legs blown off? That's about one of the stupidest and nonsensical things I've ever heard. And I hang out in GT.

I agree with you and don't think it should be a major issue, unfortunately in the US its a volatile subject regardless. It's likely going to have to follow the same sort of path that the civil rights movement did in the 50's/60's in order to gain nation wide acceptace.

The main reason I'm behind the DADT for the interim is so that we don't end up with social segregation, where they are considered different but equal. We all know how well that turned out (just watch Mississippi Burning, a perfect example of how callous people can be and deep rooted the stereotypes run).

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by August

Some people say that jerks can't choose not to be who they are either. That doesn't mean it's a valid comparison with ethnicity.

valid in my book. Both groups (blacks & homosexuals) are/were seen as inferiour soldiers due to prejudices.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries.

What m eans "to openly serve"...? Actually, most countries, and certainly Germany, handle it more or less according to "don'T ask, don'T tell". No recruit in Germany is being asked for his sexual preferances, as far as I know, but gay men are well-advised to not boast with their gayness, for they could easily find themselves at the receiving end of discriminating reactions from their comrades. After all, the military world still is a pretty much "macho" world. That may not be the way some want it to be, but it is a social reality.

You have the same problem in sports. One year ago, in Germany we have had the case of the dpressive goalie Enke, the national team'S keeper he was, committing suicide. There was a lot of talking done and forgotten since then, abiout how to protect the weaker and the deporessive and how to prevent against burnout of atheletes etc etc etc. But fact is that depression in football tranbslates into weaknbess and weakness translates into "unmanly". Most pros and club'S officials still advise to hide such features of a character, or personal problems, for it means they loose ground in the profession and support i general, and fall down the ladder soon. The same advise is given for gay players: nobody gets asked whether he is gay or not, but the atmosphere is such that gay players better also do not start to boast with theirgayness at all.

And why the hell should they even want that...? A question to be asked both for sports and military service.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

Why do they have separate showers for men and women in the military? Because it might not be a good idea to have the one undressing and exposing themselves in the presence of the other (I hope I must not start to explain why). Most people do not like the idea to become naked in the presence of people, usually of the other sex, who might feel aroused by the sight.

So to make this clear once again: don't ask don't tell is not to "protect" gays from the hetero majority. It's purpose is to avoid any complications from hetero men exposing themselves to people who have a preference not for naked women, but naked men. This, and variations of this problem - that is what don't ask, don't tell is all about. If there is any protective purpose of this rule, then it is protection of the hetero majority. You cannot be worried about you naked neighbour under the shower if you do not know that he might find your sight "interesting". Was ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß.

I fail to see how don'T ask don'T tell can be considered "discrimination" of gays. They are allowed to serve, and they use the opportunity to serve, if that is what they want to. They just are not allowed - and there is no need at all to do so! - to make a big show of their personal preferences. Big deal. It serves no purpose at all and there is nothing to be gained from teling the world that one maintains a "gay army". Gayness is no virtue, nor is it a benefit. It simply is. There is no reason to discriminate against it, nor to make a big show of it. So let'S stop this drum-beating about it. It already has stirred more debate and media stunts than the issue deserves or ever could deserve.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries. You don't read about beatings being handed down to gay Australian or German troops, or Israeli soldiers being distracted because one of their squadmates happens to be gay.

Well i tell you what mookie, thats good, thats real good and i like it. honestly.

I'm glad the details are ironed out for the US Military already, hell bud... you've convinced me. (i'm serious.)

eff me, i have changed my mind.

let them serve openly.






but hey, if we're going to do that, the next time a homosexual gets his brains beat out all over the nice white tile of a bathroom floor somewhere by his fellow soldiers lets not apply any special interest monikers like "hate crime" or "discrimination" to such an event ok?

[Armistead]

If someone gay wants to serve and possibly die for our country, I don't care, but I do understand the concern of mixing people that have the same sexual desires on the battlefield. Maybe the gay men should bunk with the women...

I just don't think we're there yet culturally.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Maybe the gay men should bunk with the women...

Uhhh

I'm gay




where do i sign?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Well i tell you what mookie, thats good, thats real good and i like it. honestly.

I'm glad the details are ironed out for the US Military already, hell bud... you've convinced me. (i'm serious.)

eff me, i have changed my mind.

let them serve openly.






but hey, if we're going to do that, the next time a homosexual gets his brains beat out all over the nice white tile of a bathroom floor somewhere by his fellow soldiers lets not apply any special interest monikers like "hate crime" or "discrimination" to such an event ok?

There is a tone to your posts on this subject that I find to be rather, shall we say, disquieting.

Whats the bets on Gen. James Amos soon being found in a gay sex scandal?

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

There is a tone to your posts on this subject that I find to be rather, shall we say, disquieting.

naaa


really, I'm all for gays serving in the military, i truly am.

I just think that the same people who are pushing so hard for it to be an "open" service need to be fully prepared for the possibility of the negative repercussions of such a thing. because i promise you, they will be the same people then turning around and complaining about hate crimes, discrimination and that there isnt enough being done to protect homosexuals in the military. The bleeding heart types are like girlfriends... there isnt a single GD thing you can do that will be "right"

not that discrimination and outright hate is typical of a new recruit in the US Military but you have to consider the probability that you will have a bunch of 18-20 year old guys in a barracks who are fresh out of high school wanting to prove their might, bravery, stones, manliness etc and there exists a very real possibility that the one gay dude in the barracks would be singled out for a number of mistreatment etc.

I certainly wouldn't behave that way, but there are those - particularly younger people, who would.

I do NOT discriminate against homosexuals... i jokingly told my wife the other day "Hey... I'll not complain about anything that instantly doubles my odds of a BJ."

EDIT:

bottom line: in a professional service, your sexual orientation, preference, fetishes, and much of your personal life shouldnt even be a factor for discussion. Dont Ask Dont Tell simply reinforces the "you should not be asked about sexual preference by anyone regardless of rank or position, and if asked, you are not required to respond." its simply a good HR position to have.

go get a job at a major company and start asking everyone about their sexual preferences - your going to get canned in a hurry.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

valid in my book. Both groups (blacks & homosexuals) are/were seen as inferiour soldiers due to prejudices.

So are women and children when it comes to the strength required to carry an Infantrymans basic load. Are you also advocating to have them in combat units too?

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Maybe the gay men should bunk with the women...

I'll bet the women would have a big issue with that.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

So are women and children when it comes to the strength required to carry an Infantrymans basic load. Are you also advocating to have them in combat units too?

Worked for the Soviets in WWII...

[August]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Worked for the Soviets in WWII...

Piling the bodies of ones neighbors makes a fairly decent barricade too but it wouldn't be my first choice of material...