Update on DADT PolicyFollow

And NATURALLY the only proper solution to that is to ban ******. Might as well toss out all people of color too. And women. And Catholics. WASP-only army, dammit!

Plus, homophobes are largely people who possess same-sex desire (either exclusively or in conjunction with opposite-sex desire). Their violence towards ****** is directly the result of societal oppression that has forced them to possess self-hate.

As long as oppressive policies remain on the books, homophobes are being actively encouraged to be homophobes.



1. Those trust issues exist already. If a homophobe suspects someone of being gay, they aren't going to trust them. It doesn't matter if that is confirmed or not.

2. Not all gays are going to come out. Many gay servicemembers have come out to their <insert word I can't think of right now>, and they aren't outed to the higher-ups because they want to protect him/her.

3. If someone is letting their homophobia actually affect whether or not they can trust someone in a combat situation, then they don't deserve to be in the army. THEY are a combat liability, and THEY are the ones who will be getting people killed.

4. Psychological screening can very easily weed out homophobes, actually. Same with racists.

I think that's a fair enough position to hold, though I don't think that it's necessary to wait for troop withdrawal to do it, obviously. I strongly doubt that there's any real risk to the repeal, and I expect that anyone suggesting otherwise is going to look very silly when it goes through.

I'm aware that were almost always engaged somewhere doing something, but not at the level we're currently engaged in, and that is my primary concern. And no, there's no proof saying this will cost lives, but the potential is there and I don't feel it's a risk that needs to be added to the current situation.



I was talking about homophobia, not homosexuality. If you read it how it was meant and still find it offensive, I apologize.

I was raised in a somewhat religious environment where sex was meant for procreation and was not supposed to be pleasurable. After my parents got divorced my dad joined a very conservative baptist church, where I was told that if I was a bad boy I would be sent to hell where demons would ram things up my *** for all of eternity. So yea, I was raised to believe homosexuality was a bad thing. However, I've grown up and realized that someone's lifestyle is their own business and it isn't my place to judge. But the whole thing goes right back to my initial point, homophobia isn't going to change over night.

But again, I apologize. I've intentionally chosen my words carefully throughout my posts because I am not overly knowledgeable of the lifestyle and I wasn't trying to offend anyone.



I never said homosexuals should be kept out of the military, I said I don't think the timing is right for DADT to be repealed. Homophobia, regardless of it's cause, is not something that is going to go away with the flip of a switch. It takes time for someone to change their way of thinking, especially if that way of thinking is due to years of hatred, bigotry, or denial.



I'm not a part of the military, I'm a military spouse, which I've previously stated. I signed up the same time my wife did but I didn't go in for several reasons. Although living and working on military bases gives me a perspective on military operation most civilians don't get to see.

It doesn't matter. If you are so bigoted that you don't trust someone to have your back because of your own prejudices it's your own fault if you die. Why should someone else have to hide who they are to appease you? Perhaps homosexual members of the military will continue to do so, but forcing them to do so isn't the solution.

The solution is having a zero tolerance for the kind of behaviour that puts your own, and the lives of others at risk. Which, was my understanding, is how the military is supposed to operate. At least, that's how our military does. I don't know about yours.


edit - re: Psych testing members of the Military. Personally I'd be all for that. I wouldn't want to give a crazy person a gun.

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 6:06pm by Nilatai

If their level of mistrust endangers themselves, it also endangers everyone around them. That's the point you seem to be missing.



I'm pretty sure that is how it works, but again, homophobes who want to continue to serve aren't going to jump up and down stating they're homophobes so they get kicked out, the same way homosexuals keep their mouths shut now. They're going to bite their tongue and go on mistrusting homosexuals. Either way, the homophobe is going to bite their tongue and deal with it until something happens. If that something were to happen in a combat zone, everyone around them is at risk. It's going to take time to weed out the problem.

And the point you seem to be missing is that the burden for that should not be forced onto the homosexual members of the military. Which it has been.


It is going to take time, you're right, but DADT was nothing more than a patchwork. I mean, why fix today what you can put off indefinitely, right?

Do you really think homosexuals in the military are going to start acting differently now? Do you think they're going to start hitting on their comrades? Or start flaming like a drag-queen at Mardi gras? I don't, not really.

All I know is now they have a fair system. They can't be discharged (dishonourably so, iirc) just for being what they are.

Hi.

I'd be fine with that.

But we are talking about DADT right now.

And? How many times have people brought up race in this thread to support their argument? So make your argument that DADT isn't the problem, that it's a social anxiety of sharing close quarters/showers with someone that might be attracted to you. Doing so INCLUDES DADT.

Now chop-chop and get to it.

I'm not making bigotry okay. I'm simply pointing out that you're using a double standard when people are at fault for themselves. I think both are responsible for themselves and shed no tear at the loss of either.

Really? Someone being attracted to you is an issue even if they don't act on it? You are really that terrified of a gay guy seeing your naughty parts?