Moderator Action: I'd like the quality of the posting to improve, please. No more trolling.
Obama to call for repeal of DADT in State of the Union
- Thread starter Karalysia
- Start date
useless
Social Justice Rogue
What rot! No doubt when blacks were allowed into the military there was a period of awkwardness, but people eventually got used to and accepted it. Homosexuals will no doubt go through this same period. There is no reason as to why openly gay soldiers should be discriminated but yet it is okay to turn a blind eye to those who flaunt their heterosexuality.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It was a semi-serious post, since gays have served with distinction in militaries for centuries. The Sacred Band were a pretty scary set of guys, and precisely because they were couples and not dissociative with their comrades.
LOL you're one to talk; definition of one-dimensional as you are.
Oh really? I seem to remember you saying this on just the last page:
It was brought up because you brought it up.
You haven't mentioned any actual negatives yet, just your own personal prejudice, which is, to be honest, only your own problem and not ours.
As has been said many times in this thread, gays serve openly in many nations around the world, why are their militaries not experiencing this supposed detriment by allowing them?
I simply don't know of, and can't imagine, any negatives other than the fact that bigots would be driven crazy(er). And I can live with that one.
Syterion
Voodoo Economist
From what I have gleaned, capslock feels that there is no way around homosexual fraternization in the military, and therefore DADT shouldn't be repealed. The problem is that you are punishing everyone for what a small subset would do. If there was an increase in distracting homosexual relations from DADT's repealing, then what the action should be is to discipline the ones that are in these relationships, not censor all gays.
Doesn't this just seem more reasonable?
Oh, by the way, women aren't in the combat branches because physically, they're a huge liability.
Doesn't this just seem more reasonable?
Oh, by the way, women aren't in the combat branches because physically, they're a huge liability.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, thats not the reason. Because there are indeed women who could perform at that level of physical ability.
The reason is that men act differently around women than they do other men. Imagine that.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Gays don't. Maybe you should let more of them into the military, they don't share this ridiculous lack of self-restraint that straights do.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Of course they do. I am not solely referring to sexual responses.
Are you really going to try and argue that?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The point you seem to be missing is that heterosexual males are going to be subject to all that, with or without "openly gay individuals" and "mixed sex units".
So what should we do? Make eunuchs of all those who volunteer for the military so they can be more effective soldiers? Or simply deal with the issues, just as any other modern military which doesn't require gays to stay in the closet?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Apparently so, because it is clearly the case. If a homosexual man can hide his homosexuality in the military, despite these laws then they clearly show self-restraint. It's common sense, it's a no-brainer.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I am going to ask once more. Do you really want to argue about gay promiscuity vs self-restraint? 'Cause I dont think you really want to open that can of worms. But if you do, I will be happy to oblige.
And yes, I say this as I know same sex sexual harassment happens in the military. We have kicked people out for it.
Your call.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
The only real justification I see for DADT - I say this as a homosexual - is that it protects homosexuals from themselves. Meaning? If a homosexual reveals their preference, then they are discharged, as the uncomfortable soldiers might just be a crowbar-wielding jackass. However...
I am firmly against such a mentality. I don't think gays - or any other people - need protection from themselves. I think they can do it themselves. How? Very simple.
Keep quiet about it. Ideally, being openly gay wouldn't cause issues, but let's face it, it will. They can be open about it if they wish, but they run the risk of suffering abuse by those too intolerant and paranoid to accept it. Of course, in line with the rule of law, any soldier who engages in that abuse should be given the appropriate punishment. I think the threat of abuse should be able to keep most people quiet on the issue; we don't need the government doing anything here.
If a gay openly flaunts it, however, and goes to say, grope a fellow soldier, however, I don't really think of giving him protection. Why? Simple. If you groped a woman's butt, don't you think she has a right to slap you? That said, given the fact men are more prone to things worse than slaps, said soldiers that respond with violence should be discharged, as should the gay soldier for sexual harassment. No different than if a male soldier groped a female one.
The conclusion is that rules should be in place to protect us from eachother and that's that. Violence should result in a discharge, and sexual harassment too. There's no reason to protect homosexuals from themselves; just like in civilian life, they reveal their orientation at their own risk.
I am firmly against such a mentality. I don't think gays - or any other people - need protection from themselves. I think they can do it themselves. How? Very simple.
Keep quiet about it. Ideally, being openly gay wouldn't cause issues, but let's face it, it will. They can be open about it if they wish, but they run the risk of suffering abuse by those too intolerant and paranoid to accept it. Of course, in line with the rule of law, any soldier who engages in that abuse should be given the appropriate punishment. I think the threat of abuse should be able to keep most people quiet on the issue; we don't need the government doing anything here.
If a gay openly flaunts it, however, and goes to say, grope a fellow soldier, however, I don't really think of giving him protection. Why? Simple. If you groped a woman's butt, don't you think she has a right to slap you? That said, given the fact men are more prone to things worse than slaps, said soldiers that respond with violence should be discharged, as should the gay soldier for sexual harassment. No different than if a male soldier groped a female one.
The conclusion is that rules should be in place to protect us from eachother and that's that. Violence should result in a discharge, and sexual harassment too. There's no reason to protect homosexuals from themselves; just like in civilian life, they reveal their orientation at their own risk.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
New Angle: Why the hell would the levels of gay sex rise to dangerous levels just because gay men can serve openly? Last I checked, anti-fraternization regs still applies to same sex acts, and will after DADT is repealed. So yes, it's going to be a bit easier for a gay man to find potential partners, but he still has to go through the risk of propositioning and then carrying out an affair. In all likelyhood, the levels of homosexual fraternization won't rise to any higher level than that of heterosexual fraternization. And since gays only make up a small fraction of the military, the total number of problem cases should be minimal.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Precisely. But these are conservatives you are dealing with. You know, the people who:
Related
A. Argue that decriminalisation/legalisation of marijuana and soft drugs would erode the safety of America as everybody would rush to the pot dens. And also ignore the studies that show marijuana to be less of a problem than legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco.
B. That legalised prostitution would automatically cause the spread of STDs.
C. That legalised gambling would turn everyone into a Vegas tourist. (Some people would go bankrupt, yes, but that's my problem. Judging by the fact this place isn't a bankrupt hellhole, I can attest to the fallacy of this theory)
General Insanity
D. Argue that the first moments of a union between a sperm and ova should be treated like a normal, fully sentient human being.
E. Often tend towards religious education, and if not that, seem to have a firm belief that morality cannot exist without religion. That non-Christians cannot be good leaders, despite the historical facts showing great leaders from every religion and culture.
F. Believe that by cutting taxes on the upper classes(and I mean, UPPER UPPER, not 250K+) without conditions, economic growth will be stimulated, rather than by giving tax cuts for more useful spending, such as buying the products of small businesses or helping expand/create businesses.
G. Often cite the wealthy as ultimate success stories, and therefore support a flat tax as they earned their money... and then fight to the death against a massive inheritance tax on liquid wealth, which the heirs did not earn.
I could go on, but most here will get the point and I'm getting off-topic. Points A-C are most relevant here, since they fit in line with the "legalising x will result in a surge in x" crap. I would never do drugs; I would never gamble(besides maybe the stock market); I would never touch a prostitute. Nor would I ask every person I found hot to have intercourse with me. I am not arrogant; I am sure these sets of personal ethics and values are shared by countless others.
Related
A. Argue that decriminalisation/legalisation of marijuana and soft drugs would erode the safety of America as everybody would rush to the pot dens. And also ignore the studies that show marijuana to be less of a problem than legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco.
B. That legalised prostitution would automatically cause the spread of STDs.
C. That legalised gambling would turn everyone into a Vegas tourist. (Some people would go bankrupt, yes, but that's my problem. Judging by the fact this place isn't a bankrupt hellhole, I can attest to the fallacy of this theory)
General Insanity
D. Argue that the first moments of a union between a sperm and ova should be treated like a normal, fully sentient human being.
E. Often tend towards religious education, and if not that, seem to have a firm belief that morality cannot exist without religion. That non-Christians cannot be good leaders, despite the historical facts showing great leaders from every religion and culture.
F. Believe that by cutting taxes on the upper classes(and I mean, UPPER UPPER, not 250K+) without conditions, economic growth will be stimulated, rather than by giving tax cuts for more useful spending, such as buying the products of small businesses or helping expand/create businesses.
G. Often cite the wealthy as ultimate success stories, and therefore support a flat tax as they earned their money... and then fight to the death against a massive inheritance tax on liquid wealth, which the heirs did not earn.
I could go on, but most here will get the point and I'm getting off-topic. Points A-C are most relevant here, since they fit in line with the "legalising x will result in a surge in x" crap. I would never do drugs; I would never gamble(besides maybe the stock market); I would never touch a prostitute. Nor would I ask every person I found hot to have intercourse with me. I am not arrogant; I am sure these sets of personal ethics and values are shared by countless others.
Wait, the US doesn't let women into combat units?
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Outside of Israel, I don't think any country does.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Nope. No women in combat arms units. Combat support and Combat service support only.
He only made one comment towards the end of his speech, not in any real detail. It was another 'I am going to do this' kind of thing...
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Similar threads
