Page 47 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3745464748 LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 477

Thread: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

  1. #461
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    We're all around you NP, we're all around you
    I doubt it...About 1% of the population..........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #462
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And so do our troops, most of the time-
    MOS dependent, yes. but those same MOS's which are most likely to spend the most time in the worst conditions are those which stand to lose the most.

    Also, from what I have been told by several guys I know who have military experience, it doesn't sound like it is very common for when you guys do sleep in tents/sleeping bags that you actually strip down to naked or even just skivvies to sleep anyway.
    i think it was you who brought up the sleeping nekked bit.

    Plus, what about those times when women do go out on missions with guys that take longer than expected and the women are out there with them?
    that very factor limits our ability to take females out. because for some reason it seems that we recognize that women and men will find each other sexually appealing, but don't want to recognize that homosexual males are attracted to other males.

    Because men and women do not share accommodations in our society. I have already explained this to you in detail.
    all you are doing is restating my point. we keep men and women apart in the military because of sexuality. you can't say "oh well it's different" as though that were some kind of explanation.

    No, it isn't.
    yes, it is.

    Keeping men and women separated most of the time to sleep or bathe is about a number of things, including our culture and the physical differences between men and women.
    yes. you keep restating my points as though somehow that were evidence against it.

    alright, i'm game to listen. how is sexual attraction different from sexual attraction when it is between members of opposite genders v members of the same gender?

    That is wrong, and you know it. We are not all officially straight under DADT.
    as far as you or me or anyone else is concerned; we are. if they are gay, they don't tell us, and we don't ask.

    I'm not upset about something like that. Heck, if it is actually what you are doing, go for it. It isn't hard to tell if that is what is going on, since everyone else should be involved in one way or another with those checks as well. It is necessary and, to me, no different than the girls in Radcon ordering the guys who got doused with contaminated water to strip down so that they could get washed down.
    hah. you honestly think that I as a male could order a subordinate female to remove her clothes in front of me without standing in front of the man?

    A policy that has been changed by the military because they weighed the positives and negatives of the change and came to the conclusion that DADT should be repealed.
    the policy has not been changed by the military, the policy is being changed by Congress.

    If the military or Congress feels that the policy on men and women being quartered together should be changed for the benefit of the military, then it will happen too. I don't think it will happen.
    of course it won't. because we recognize that units suffer when we force them to deal with increased problems arising from sexual tension.

    Most of those guys can control themselves enough to not have consensual sex while in combat.
    while shooting, probably. afterwards? if there is a possibility of it, then not generally. even in our non combat units this is a huge problem in-country.

    I haven't said there would not be problems. I do not believe that the problems will be bad enough to cause death.
    any time you degrade the unit cohesion and ability to function as a single body in a combat unit, you degrade their combat effectiveness which results in their death. thats' why we have Psyops guys who seek to do precisely that to the enemy.

    And I don't think that you should be saying that any unit cohesion lost from allowing homosexuals to openly serve should be blamed on that policy, rather than where it is actually coming from, which is the attitude that gay men are going to hit on and/or assault the straight men and the fear from that belief, or that gay men have a right to harass/ask out/not be treated the same as straight men
    ...do you read my posts? or do you just have this image of what opponents of repealing DADT think, and fit everyone you meet into that preconceived set of assumptions?

    Then obviously we disagree on this point.
    i fail to see where you have listed any of the benefits of changing this policy; much less where you have listed ones for which I am willing to degrade unite cohesion and combat efficiency.

    You just don't get it. I was embarrassed because I was taught that it was wrong to be naked in public and in front of men especially, no matter how they might view my body. It isn't about whether or not they might find me attractive, it is the fact that I am a woman and they are men.
    that is precisely why you are taught it is wrong to be naked in front of men!

    I doubt that cost will be high, since many units already know who is or might be gay, so them being allowed to come out and say it won't make a huge difference.
    having been in those units, I'm going to have to disagree there. having an open homosexual will indeed alter the group dynamic.

    And there you go, now you are admitting that having men and women share spaces would cause more issues than gays and straights sharing spaces, which is what I have been arguing the whole time.
    yes. because the range of damage that sexuality will be able to do would be broadened.

    but the fact that you aren't shooting yourself in the face is not a good reason to shoot yourself in the foot.

  3. #463
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ah. so your post, in fact, had no purpose.

    well that's not terribly surprising.
    Or my use of a specific phrase was not only making the direct point, but also using satire to make a second point at the same time. Congratz on completely worming your way out of addressing my actual point. I'll repeat it, without the complex literary notions, and I'll use small words so that everyone can understand it.

    Gays almost never pursue straights. There will not be unwanted advances on straight soldiers. Also, I'd hope that straight soldiers can handle someone finding them attractive, and aren't so fragile that the military will suddenly collapse. Also, the analogies about putting gay and straight soldiers of the same sex (usually discussing males) in the same bunks and showers and the like is the same as putting men and women into those situations is absurd, since there is a legitimate reason for female soldiers to fear rape from male soldiers, as evidenced by all of the rape that has already been occurring, especially in cases when women are coerced by their male COs. I don't know of any situations where gay soldiers of either sex have raped their heterosexual counterparts.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #464
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,682

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Or my use of a specific phrase was not only making the direct point, but also using satire to make a second point at the same time. Congratz on completely worming your way out of addressing my actual point. I'll repeat it, without the complex literary notions, and I'll use small words so that everyone can understand it.

    Gays almost never pursue straights. There will not be unwanted advances on straight soldiers. Also, I'd hope that straight soldiers can handle someone finding them attractive, and aren't so fragile that the military will suddenly collapse. Also, the analogies about putting gay and straight soldiers of the same sex (usually discussing males) in the same bunks and showers and the like is the same as putting men and women into those situations is absurd, since there is a legitimate reason for female soldiers to fear rape from male soldiers, as evidenced by all of the rape that has already been occurring, especially in cases when women are coerced by their male COs. I don't know of any situations where gay soldiers of either sex have raped their heterosexual counterparts.
    For the life of me I cannot understand the mindset that see's the primary presenting problems of forced cohabitation as one of rape.

  5. #465
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,324
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I doubt it...About 1% of the population..........
    Somewhere between 3 and 10 % actually. 1 % is far lower than any legit estimate.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #466
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    For the life of me I cannot understand the mindset that see's the primary presenting problems of forced cohabitation as one of rape.
    or thinks that all of the CO's are out there raping their subordinates....

  7. #467
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    MOS dependent, yes. but those same MOS's which are most likely to spend the most time in the worst conditions are those which stand to lose the most.
    Like what? Which MOS's would be likely to spend the amount of time you were suggesting (1 day a week or 5 months a year) sleeping with each other or so close to each other that they would be essentially cuddled up to their buddy?

    I talked to my husband. He told me that they never slept that close to each other unless it was in separate sleeping bags and they weren't naked. And no one I know has slept the way you are talking for the period of time you are talking about.

    And even if there are a few who do, there would almost definitely be better arrangements that could be made. How would they deal with an odd number of people if you are sharing bags, triple up? And still, you haven't told me how it would be more comfortable to wake up in that position next to a guy that you believe is completely straight who has morning wood? That wouldn't affect team relations?



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    i think it was you who brought up the sleeping nekked bit.
    No, I'm pretty sure I didn't. Although around post 365 you mentioned ordering women to strip down and sleep with a guy. I consider stripping down an order to get naked or at least into skivvies.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that very factor limits our ability to take females out. because for some reason it seems that we recognize that women and men will find each other sexually appealing, but don't want to recognize that homosexual males are attracted to other males.
    Limits, but obviously doesn't prevent them from going out on some missions that could still put them in the same position, since there are personnel, like the one in the link I provided, who have experienced that situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    all you are doing is restating my point. we keep men and women apart in the military because of sexuality. you can't say "oh well it's different" as though that were some kind of explanation.

    yes, it is.

    yes. you keep restating my points as though somehow that were evidence against it.

    alright, i'm game to listen. how is sexual attraction different from sexual attraction when it is between members of opposite genders v members of the same gender?
    No, I'm not. You just aren't understanding what I am saying.

    The reasons that we separate men and women from each other is not just due to sexual attraction. That does play a part in it, but it is not the only reason. There are other reasons that we separate men and women when it comes to private spaces, including religious reasons and physical reasons.

    It is against some people's actual religious beliefs to be in the same space with a member of the opposite sex alone if they are not a member of the person's family or there isn't a person of the same sex as the religious person who is somehow related to the opposite sex person. Don't know if you know anything about Mormons, but this is part of their religion and I believe Muslims feel this way too. The group of Mormon guys that came to spread the word to my apart. in Hawaii said that they could not enter my apartment because it was only women living there and they were all guys. No religion has the same sort of ban between gays and straights being in the same living space, unless you would like to show me some actual religious texts that specifically mention this.

    There are also the physical differences between men and women that put most women at a disadvantage if they were to be sexually assaulted by most men, especially in private. There may be individual disadvantages between two men, but it isn't going to be normal. Men and women don't share spaces now, and we have problems with sexual assault and even rape of female military members. I haven't heard of an attempted rape or sexual assault of a man by another man except for stories told, and one of those stories didn't even involve a single gay man, but several heterosexuals who were out to humiliate their supervisor.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    as far as you or me or anyone else is concerned; we are. if they are gay, they don't tell us, and we don't ask.
    No. I knew women and men in the military who were gay. They were open about it. If anyone would have turned them in for being gay, first, my COC would have laughed at the person, especially if they tried to claim it was a violation of their religious beliefs to live with someone who is gay, and second, they would have told them to get a life and suck it up because they were not going to shortchange us on something like that. The only time people were kicked out under DADT in my department were because it made it out of our COC with some concrete proof that they were gay (police report of incident, signed statement through medical).

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    hah. you honestly think that I as a male could order a subordinate female to remove her clothes in front of me without standing in front of the man?
    If the situation required it, yes. Because I have been ordered to get naked in front of a man before. In fact, most of the gyno docs on the ship were male. Almost every female on my ship got their paps done by male doctors. They just had someone else in the room. They do that in the civilian world too. I also know that if I would have been contaminated and the only duty personnel were males (which would have been quite possible when I worked at Pearl Harbor), I would still be forced to strip down and be decontaminated, no matter what sexuality any of us are. It is part of the job.

    If you're worried about the guy checking you for ticks being gay and assaulting you when you get naked for this check, just make sure he checks you first. He is less likely to consider sexually assaulting you (or anyone else for that matter) more important than making sure he doesn't have ticks in some nasty place and I highly doubt you or anyone else would check him after a sexual assault attempt.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the policy has not been changed by the military, the policy is being changed by Congress.
    Congress makes all of our policies, including whether men and women share berthing spaces.

    But we had military personnel who wanted the change as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    of course it won't. because we recognize that units suffer when we force them to deal with increased problems arising from sexual tension.
    How exactly do we recognize this, especially when it comes to gays, since we have never officially allowed them to be openly gay? We can only go off of what we know about those units who have had openly gay personnel in them, who for whatever reason, were not discharged under DADT. What we know is that those units function fine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those who told the people involved with the study that they had worked with people they knew were gay said that the units did not suffer from having known gay members.

    Gay men are not women and we do not just separate men and women due to sexual attraction issues alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    while shooting, probably. afterwards? if there is a possibility of it, then not generally. even in our non combat units this is a huge problem in-country.
    The vast majority of sailors are able to not have sex on a ship, even those who are on mixed gender ships. There are some cases of sex aboard ship, but it isn't something that happens a lot. Most people can control their sexual urges for quite some time, considering that we are deployed for 6 months at a time.

    Are you saying that the vast majority of soldiers/marines can't control those urges for the same amount of time?

    Not only that, DADT being in place or not would not make any difference on whether a person could control their sexual urges. It is just one rule, and there are many other rules that could still get a person in trouble if they are caught having sex in country.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    any time you degrade the unit cohesion and ability to function as a single body in a combat unit, you degrade their combat effectiveness which results in their death. thats' why we have Psyops guys who seek to do precisely that to the enemy.
    So how many deaths on the battlefield are caused by people who are forced to work alongside Muslims? Or blacks? Or Jews? Or Satanists? Or guys who date other guys' sisters/daughters? These are all things that I could easily see other people not wanting to work with someone else over.

    In fact, I had a girl in boot camp who became hostile toward me when she found out I was dating a black guy.

    We expect all those people who would have issues with these things to put those issues aside to do their jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    i fail to see where you have listed any of the benefits of changing this policy; much less where you have listed ones for which I am willing to degrade unite cohesion and combat efficiency.
    A few benefits are (I haven't listed in this thread but have in earlier threads about this issue):

    We aren't wasting money putting people out based on their sexuality when they are not actually causing any disruption to good order and discipline.
    We aren't losing good, needed people due to solely to someone else finding out that they are gay in a way that can be proven.
    We aren't wasting money training people in critical jobs, including giving them large bonuses for doing those jobs, just to have them discharged either voluntarily or involuntarily, due to their sexuality alone.
    We will be able to effectively investigate charges of discrimination based on sexuality because good soldiers won't be afraid to come forward with substantiated claims since they will no longer have to fear being discharged if evidence of them being homosexual comes up during the investigation.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is precisely why you are taught it is wrong to be naked in front of men!
    No, if it were about the other person's sexual attraction, I would have an issue being naked in front of gay women and I wouldn't have an issue being naked in front of gay men. I don't eventhough I know that gay women might be attracted to me as some straight men might be attracted to me, just like I know that gay men shouldn't be attracted to me. Modesty is a learned behavior. It is not a reasoned behavior based on who might find another person's body attractive. It is learned basically during childhood, but can be changed due to certain life experiences for each individuals. Anyone can be taught to feel comfortable being naked in front of other people, no matter the sexuality of those other people.


    having been in those units, I'm going to have to disagree there. having an open homosexual will indeed alter the group dynamic.




    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yes. because the range of damage that sexuality will be able to do would be broadened.

    but the fact that you aren't shooting yourself in the face is not a good reason to shoot yourself in the foot.
    Like what? What exactly could a gay guy do in a unit when he is allowed to serve openly that he can't do now, besides admit that he is gay?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #468
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Like what? Which MOS's would be likely to spend the amount of time you were suggesting (1 day a week or 5 months a year) sleeping with each other or so close to each other that they would be essentially cuddled up to their buddy?
    infantry. during our MEU workup I spent three days a week at home sleeping with my wife, and four days a week in the field sleeping with either Jimmy or Nate.... when we were back in Lejeune; which was only one to two weeks out of the month. But the MEU workup was pretty stupid crazy for field time.

    I talked to my husband. He told me that they never slept that close to each other unless it was in separate sleeping bags and they weren't naked. And no one I know has slept the way you are talking for the period of time you are talking about.
    you were the one who brought up sleeping naked. I only reversed it to ask if you were willing to impose on the females what you were apparently willing to impose on the males. and I have definitely shared sleeping bags and racks; as well as generally tight spaces. link up and double the willy-p and both of you get beneath it. but then, it pretty much always pissed on us. west coast experiences may vary.

    And even if there are a few who do, there would almost definitely be better arrangements that could be made. How would they deal with an odd number of people if you are sharing bags, triple up?
    what, ya'll don't hot-rack in the navy? someone's got night watch. or someone get's screwed. Again, it depends on the weather, terrain, if anything else is available, etc. If they will let you get in the trucks guys will sleep in the trucks (a stretcher in the back of a high back? heaven.).

    And still, you haven't told me how it would be more comfortable to wake up in that position next to a guy that you believe is completely straight who has morning wood? That wouldn't affect team relations?
    no. that would be hilarious because you can make fun of him for being homo for you, and he can make fun of you by saying no, it's just still hard from you sucking on it the night before. and so on. It's funny and (frankly) bonding until someone might mean it. Me tea-bagging my buddy would be very different from me putting my penis on your face, because the potential implications are different.

    No, I'm pretty sure I didn't. Although around post 365 you mentioned ordering women to strip down and sleep with a guy. I consider stripping down an order to get naked or at least into skivvies.
    i guess I was thinking skivvies and we fell into nudity. nudity is a shower/tick/general life business; skivvies are for sleeping.

    No, I'm not. You just aren't understanding what I am saying.

    The reasons that we separate men and women from each other is not just due to sexual attraction. That does play a part in it, but it is not the only reason.
    sexuality, the tension, potential attraction, desire for privacy from, and all things thereunto pertaining absolutely is the reason why we separate men from women. sending a gay guy into a shower full of dudes is no different from sending me into a shower full of women.

    There are also the physical differences between men and women that put most women at a disadvantage if they were to be sexually assaulted by most men, especially in private
    this isn't a problem - we can just say "oh well that's against regulations and those who rape can be punished", right? so we don't need to worry about whether or not we are increasing the likelihood of problems - because we can always just wave it away with "discipline, professionalism, that guy will be punished...." etc. right?

    There may be individual disadvantages between two men, but it isn't going to be normal. Men and women don't share spaces now, and we have problems with sexual assault and even rape of female military members. I haven't heard of an attempted rape or sexual assault of a man by another man except for stories told
    I have - happened bad in our sister battalion when I was a boot (involving penetration not just with a penis, but also with a broom handle - they handled it under "hazing"), and I watched one dude hold another down and put his penis (through silkies) into him on a field ex. Laughed and said it was a joke... but the dude was definitely getting up and ready for the task. Guy A was married, though, and he's straight, so it's a joke, and Dude B can laugh about it later... very different situation from Guy A being gay, and maybe meaning it, in which case either the unit falls apart, Guy A goes to jail, or Guy B beats him half to death with an entrenching tool. But that wasn't the situation, so instead it was hilarious. Sexually hazing each other was just part of life in the grunts - from bearing tests to just generally seeking to make each other as awkward as possible.

    The "no balls" game? Don't ever play a grunt or a former grunt. Remember the Massa scandal where Rahmbo had come over in the nekkid in the Congressional Gym to make him feel uncomfortable and get a psychological advantage? Bad Move - the proper response to that is to move even closer, put your hand on the guy, and move it slowly up and down his arm. but you can't do that any more because now we are going to start putting barriers between ourselves in the grunts.

    No. I knew women and men in the military who were gay. They were open about it. If anyone would have turned them in for being gay, first, my COC would have laughed at the person, especially if they tried to claim it was a violation of their religious beliefs to live with someone who is gay, and second, they would have told them to get a life and suck it up because they were not going to shortchange us on something like that.
    precisely. in the military, your religion comes second to mission considerations. hence, it doesn't matter if your faith tells you not to shower with gays or bunk with members of the other sex - if you get told to do it, you're going to do it.

    The only time people were kicked out under DADT in my department were because it made it out of our COC with some concrete proof that they were gay (police report of incident, signed statement through medical).
    exactly. it's not like people were being hounded persecuted under DADT.

    If the situation required it, yes. Because I have been ordered to get naked in front of a man before.
    I'll admit, that surprises me. In the Marines if I told a female subordinate to strip down and meant it, my ass would be standing tall in front of the man asap.

    In fact, most of the gyno docs on the ship were male. Almost every female on my ship got their paps done by male doctors.
    wait - just docs? or a supervisor?

    If you're worried about the guy checking you for ticks being gay and assaulting you when you get naked for this check, just make sure he checks you first
    I'm not worried about sexual assualt. You will probably get isolated incidents of it - but it won't be a trend. I'm worried about the loss of unit cohesion, and what that inevitably means for combat efficiency.

    He is less likely to consider sexually assaulting you (or anyone else for that matter) more important than making sure he doesn't have ticks in some nasty place and I highly doubt you or anyone else would check him after a sexual assault attempt.
    eh, tick checks are generally done in public. 2nd squad before you sit on your packs strip down and check your buddy.

    Congress makes all of our policies, including whether men and women share berthing spaces.
    I have no idea if congress dictates berthing rules or not. My bet would be it's a command function.

    But we had military personnel who wanted the change as well.
    yes we did - specifically the Navy polled in favor of it, the Air Force polled closer to 50/50, and the combat units polled heavily against it: Nearly 7 of every 10 Marines in combat roles say repealing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly would harm their unit's effectiveness...

    Gay men are not women and we do not just separate men and women due to sexual attraction issues alone.
    gay men are not women, but gay men remain gay men, and pretending that they aren't just leaves you closing your eyes to the problems that will arise just as surely if you started putting females in these units, just as surely if you started sending males into female showers.

    The vast majority of sailors are able to not have sex on a ship
    eh, only because the males so outnumber the females.

    There are some cases of sex aboard ship, but it isn't something that happens a lot
    huh. we must have just been particularly good at talking ya'll out of your pants then. The CO of our ship went down for screwing a crewmember, who it later turned out was also screwing two pilots and another enlisted guy.

    Most people can control their sexual urges for quite some time, considering that we are deployed for 6 months at a time.
    you must work with supermen, because the only thing that ever "controlled" our single guys (and, sadly, not a few of our married ones) during deployments was the lack of access. when we were on the boat guys were doing sailors, and when we pulled into port guys were doing everything.

    Are you saying that the vast majority of soldiers/marines can't control those urges for the same amount of time?
    i'm saying that the vast majority of soldiers/Marines are 18-22 years old, and we shouldn't pretend that they aren't.

    Not only that, DADT being in place or not would not make any difference on whether a person could control their sexual urges. It is just one rule, and there are many other rules that could still get a person in trouble if they are caught having sex in country.
    exactly. given that those rules haven't made a lick of difference, it hardly seems logical to suppose that one more will.

    So how many deaths on the battlefield are caused by people who are forced to work alongside Muslims? Or blacks? Or Jews? Or Satanists?
    no idea. generally these things aren't going to create the same social tension that sexuality will: I've served with all of those other than satanists, and I can't recall offhand a single issue arising - the close cohesion and culture of the grunts means I have more in common with any one of those guys than I do with a civilian WASP. but sexuality is very different from religion or ethnicity.

    Or guys who date other guys' sisters/daughters?
    we had a near miss with a guy dating another's ex-wife; suffice to say one guy got moved to a different platoon and another had his weapon taken away from him for a time.

    These are all things that I could easily see other people not wanting to work with someone else over.
    other than the wife thing, nah.

    In fact, I had a girl in boot camp who became hostile toward me when she found out I was dating a black guy.
    well that's probably because she didn't see the two of you as part of a single whole. Anderson married a black chick and nobody cared that she was black - we thought it was funny that she was a stripper, and so we had alot of fun telling him that she was going to suck off and **** off a bunch of other dudes while he was deployed (she did), take all of his money (she did) and then dump him (she did). Most of us were near as close or closer with each other as we were with our "respective others".

    We expect all those people who would have issues with these things to put those issues aside to do their jobs.
    yes, we expect discipline and professionalism. but - as the rape discussion earlier points out - we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can regulate it into perfection.

  9. #469
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    We aren't wasting money putting people out based on their sexuality when they are not actually causing any disruption to good order and discipline.
    as you point out, we aren't wasting alot of time and effort putting people out based on their sexuality now, and there is a solid argument to be made that DADT repeal will indeed degrade good order and discipline.

    We aren't losing good, needed people due to solely to someone else finding out that they are gay in a way that can be proven.
    again, as you point out above, we aren't doing much of this now. and whether or not an individual is good is immaterial. whether or not he helps the team is all that matters. A guy could be Carlos Hathcock meets Rambo, but if he can't work well in a fire-team, he's useless.

    We aren't wasting money training people in critical jobs, including giving them large bonuses for doing those jobs, just to have them discharged either voluntarily or involuntarily, due to their sexuality alone.
    and again, as you point out, we're not doing much of this now under DADT, either.

    We will be able to effectively investigate charges of discrimination based on sexuality because good soldiers won't be afraid to come forward with substantiated claims since they will no longer have to fear being discharged if evidence of them being homosexual comes up during the investigation.
    what?

    No, if it were about the other person's sexual attraction, I would have an issue being naked in front of gay women and I wouldn't have an issue being naked in front of gay men.
    then why would you have an issue being naked in front of straight men?

    I don't even though I know that gay women might be attracted to me as some straight men might be attracted to me, just like I know that gay men shouldn't be attracted to me. Modesty is a learned behavior.
    true, and in our society, we do.

    It is not a reasoned behavior based on who might find another person's body attractive.
    on the contrary, this is why society teaches it.

    Like what? What exactly could a gay guy do in a unit when he is allowed to serve openly that he can't do now, besides admit that he is gay?
    it's not a matter of action; it's a matter of being and the rules of interaction.






    I'm about to spend a couple of days flying, and several more hammering out school work - I'll let you respond to this and have the last word. not that it matters at this point, the policy change is the policy change.

  10. #470
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I doubt it...About 1% of the population..........
    About 4-7 percent actually.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

Page 47 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3745464748 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •