Update on DADT PolicyFollow

Are they hot?

Relevant pic is relevant:

In alma's world, that is exactly what would happen. My point was that you could probably let gays shower with the others, or even the other gays, and it wouldn't turn into a scene from Caligula.

Now you know how everyone else feels.

Which at this point is nothing but an argument used, which doesn't mean anything if the argument is bad.




Because we all know that those men are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a man were in a bathroom with other women, all he'd do is run around sucking everyone's breast. They just can't control themselves, the heathens!



Internet is free there buddy! Besides, are you accusing heterosexual men as being sex crazed addicts... OMG I can't control myself!!

I never said that unisex bathrooms would cause a rape epidemic. Still trying to figure out how a man can be in a bathroom with other women, though. So if you strategy was 'truth by confounding someone', you win, I guess.

Yeah, why not?

Might want to fix that typo there. I'm pretty sure you wanted the R instead of the K. Also, theres that whole "misquoting an admin" forum rules clause to think of.

You should move it to the Vanguard forums for safekeeping.

It saves homosexuals by removing them from the army, where they might otherwise be killed.

Duh.

The consequences may be why one fights against something, but they only need to understand whichever aspect of those consequences they don't like, not all of them. However, they do need to understand what the policy is preventing in order to weigh one side against the other, even if the side they are arguing against isn't the whole thing, just the part they don't like.

And I haven't been alluding to anything, I said my issue with the DADT repeal, and that's the potential loss of life due to the mistrust between a homosexual and a homophobe in a combat situation. Not only does that mistrust have the potential to affect those directly involved, but everyone around them too. While people might not get killed because of it, I guarantee it will cause problems because it already does cause problems and DADT is still in affect. Even with that my issue with it isn't the repeal itself, but the timing of it.

Then you should throw homophobes out of the Army. Do you have this issue with racists? Would you tolerate this behaviour from racists?


Your argument is f*cking stupid.

Why, because you don't agree with it?

Go ahead and throw them out, throw the racists out too, I'm all for that. The problem is that bigots and racists know they'll get in trouble if they out themselves, so they generally don't. If they aren't willing to out themselves, how do you identify them prior to a problem arising?



Most people, regardless of whether they are a good soldier or not, don't care. That doesn't mean that nobody cares. Believe it or not, a lot of homosexuals aren't completely in the closet, they are just careful to keep it out of work and away from people they don't trust.

I agree that the repeal of DADT will reduce bigotry, but it won't eliminate it and it won't happen over night. Homophobes aren't going to magically wake up and say "Hey, the military is ok with it, I guess I am too." And until they do, it introduces a potential problem.

And NATURALLY the only proper solution to that is to ban queers. 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 queers 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 ass 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?