• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

Grateful Heart said:
Did he admit to the staring? Did he admit to being gay?

??
Click to expand...


He didn't admit to being gay to me, but he finally admitted it during his session with the head shrinker. At the time that I wrote him up for sexual harrassment, it didn't matter if he was gay, or not. He was staring at a nekkid soldier in a manner that caused that soldier perceive that he was being sexually harrassed. Now, according to the regulation, a soldier only has to perceive sexual harrassment (this took hours, ok...LOL). The harrassed soldier claimed that he perceived harrassment and therefore had a legitimate complaint, according to Army regulations. After I looked at the regulation closely and found out that this wasn't the first incident, I had no choice but to agree that sexual harrassment had taken place. However, that didn't excuse him from assaulting another soldier, because he was obviously in no kind of physical danger, so that's the reason he went from E-4 to E-2 the next day.

That's why I say this is going to get tricky as hell for leaders in the miliary, especially in the combat arms where there are so many alpha males.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I'm just trying to square the 'staring' behavior with the later report from the shrink that the guy had "serious preditorial tendencies." Staring doesn't sound like predatory behavior to me.

So this was your one and only experience with a gay soldier while in the service?

Did you ever get treatment from a male nurse?

:cool:
 
apdst said:
I'm sorry if you don't approve, but I'm going to take boots on the ground over a piece of paper hanging in someone's office, anyday.
Click to expand...

And yet you are not. Nowhere did your "boots on the ground" claim there was going to be an increase in sexual harassment if gays where allowed to server. You made that claim. Your retired flag officers never mention sexual harassment. Now, I have offered a study, done by some one who is employed indirectly by the DoD, who says that this is not a problem. So what we have is you versus some one who has actually studied the issue for the military. Wonder who is more believable, especially considering you have offered nothing beyond anecdotal evidence?


You might try extending the same courtesy to me, sir.
Click to expand...

I have never accused you of being anything other than wrong. That was not even a good misdirect from your attack on my service.

Got that latrine info? It's ok, if you don't.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. I have documented a ton in this thread, and you have offered nothing past anecdotes.
 
Kandahar said:
Uhh
So you're worried that the sexual harrassment rate is going to go through the roof because gay men will open doors for straight men? :confused:
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl:rofl

That's hilarious.
 
Redress said:
I have never accused you of being anything other than wrong. That was not even a good misdirect from your attack on my service.
Click to expand...


You've attacked me several times, and not only on this thread. One of your first posts in response to me was, as you called it, "a tongue lashing". Shall I go find that thread for you? You accused me of being incapable of rational debate. I never attacked your service, I only questioned your motive.

Been there, done that. I have documented a ton in this thread, and you have offered nothing past anecdotes.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect, sir. You made that claim that males and females frequently use latrine facilities, together. You've yet to support that claim.
 
I'm torn.

I understand both sides of the argument, each make good points, but if I had to choose I would err on the side of caution. I don't think it's prudent to risk unit integrity for something that will be of little tangible value to anyone.

Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military, not just gay folks, and if keeping your sexuality private could help insure a more efficient unit, shouldn't you be willing to make that sacrifice?

The current policy works; it's more flexible and situational because it allows members to discern when and where it is appropriate to make their sexuality known. Perhaps, Alex, your coming out wouldn't have been as well-received in my unit. Not that it's right, but that's the reality.

If it weren't a matter of life and death I'd be inclined to change the policy, but when we're talking about putting the integrity of our combat units at risk I MUST default to the proven method.

I’m just not sure why some people think it’s so important to change this policy. I mean, is it REALLY necessary? Just my two cents…
 
Ethereal said:
I'm torn.

I understand both sides of the argument, each make good points, but if I had to choose I would err on the side of caution. I don't think it's prudent to risk unit integrity for something that will be of little tangible value to anyone.

Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military, not just gay folks, and if keeping your sexuality private could help insure a more efficient unit, shouldn't you be willing to make that sacrifice?

The current policy works; it's more flexible and situational because it allows members to discern when and where it is appropriate to make their sexuality known. Perhaps, Alex, your coming out wouldn't have been as well-received in my unit. Not that it's right, but that's the reality.

If it weren't a matter of life and death I'd be inclined to change the policy, but when we're talking about putting the integrity of our combat units at risk I MUST default to the proven method.

I’m just not sure why some people think it’s so important to change this policy. I mean, is it REALLY necessary? Just my two cents…
Click to expand...


Very well said.
 
Let's recap this thread a bit, I think it will be entertaining. First, apdst claimed that sexual harassment would go through the roof if gays could serve. Never offered any proof, or even any evidence this might be the case. Then he said that opening doors for some one was sexual harassment, which one of his few sources actually proved to be a lie. When presented with real data about sexual harassment rates, he dismisses it, and claims the think tank that did the study was a liberal think tank, but has to duck from that accusation when it is proven, once again, to be a lie. He then goes to saying he trusts "boots on the ground" over a study into actual rates of trouble, but he offers no cases of boots on the ground agreeing with his view except himself. No other boot on the ground is saying sexual harassment rates are going to go through the roof.
 
apdst said:
I don't think I ever said that was neccessarily the case. Did I? If so, then I apologize. You're more than welcome to quote me, if you can.

That's not true. I spoke out against policy quite often when I was in the service.


My issue is, simply, that having openly gay soldiers serving in the military, especially in combat arms, will cause a breakdown in discpline. These breakdowns in discipline could result in soldiers getting killed. There have already been breakdowns in discipline in coed units. It's the reason that the IDF no longer allow coed combat arms units.

I was always cool with DADT; thought it was a revolutionary policy. Wanna be gay? Go be gay...on your time. When you're on my time, you're a heartbreaker and a lifetaker.

Didn't get that cold in Vietnam, huh?...LOL!!! Take my word for it, when it's 15 below, you're not going to give a ****...LOL!!!
Click to expand...

I spent 4 years active duty and 21 years AF reserve so my only experience with "close" quarters was in Vietnam. Even our enlisted live in dorm style quarters after technical school training and even in most AF tech schools the closest quarters that we had was similar to college dorms. Long story short I really cannot claim a personnal perspective on what living in close quarters are. Therefore my new view of DADT is from an Air Force experience. No we are not spoiled we just don't live like the Army. Maybe AirForce Special Forces is closer to you guys in combat arms.

NO !! We did not get snow days off in Vietnam LOL It did drop down to 84 dergrees one cold windy night in the Central Highlands.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I’m just not sure why some people think it’s so important to change this policy. I mean, is it REALLY necessary? Just my two cents…
Click to expand...

It wasn't really necessary to allow blacks into the service. Times changed.

Few people look back on the segregated services with nostalgia. We recognized bigotry for what it was.

Years from now, people will read these old message boards and chuckle at the bigotry.

Yes. I use the word bigots. Sorry if that offends anyone. It is what it is. If you don't like homosexuals, you're a bigot.

:2wave:
 
Grateful Heart said:
It wasn't really necessary to allow blacks into the service. Times changed.

Few people look back on the segregated services with nostalgia. We recognized bigotry for what it was.

Years from now, people will read these old message boards and chuckle at the bigotry.

Yes. I use the word bigots. Sorry if that offends anyone. It is what it is. If you don't like homosexuals, you're a bigot.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Gays will be allowed to openly serve in the military. This, there's no doubt about. The Dems aren't going to take a chance with pissing off their base. Votes and retention of power take priority.

Will it have a positive affect on the military? No. Will it cause sexual harrassment to rise? Yes. Will it transmorgrify our armed services into something other than the deadliest, most proficient fighting force in the history of the world? Not even. Does putting the welfare of our servicemen ahead of political correctness make one a bigot? Why, hell no.
 
Grateful Heart said:
It wasn't really necessary to allow blacks into the service. Times changed.

Few people look back on the segregated services with nostalgia. We recognized bigotry for what it was.

Years from now, people will read these old message boards and chuckle at the bigotry.

Yes. I use the word bigots. Sorry if that offends anyone. It is what it is. If you don't like homosexuals, you're a bigot.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I do not in any way see the racial intergration of the armed forces in 1947 any way the same as acceptance of open gays in the military. Being Black is a physical attritube and not a behavior as is acting out gayness. True that Blacks are born as a racial type without a choice and the new thinking now is that gays are have no choice being born the way they are. What is not the same is thatgays have the choice ofnot acting out their gayness.

Therefore the issues of racila intergration in the ARmed Forces and allowing open gayness is not the same al all.
 
apdst said:
What about the, "Greatest Generation"?
Click to expand...

There's plenty the 'Greatest Generation' accomplished to look back on nostalgically. Segregation isn't generally thought of as one of those accomplishments.

;)
 
F107HyperSabr said:
I spent 4 years active duty and 21 years AF reserve so my only experience with "close" quarters was in Vietnam. Even our enlisted live in dorm style quarters after technical school training and even in most AF tech schools the closest quarters that we had was similar to college dorms. Long story short I really cannot claim a personnal perspective on what living in close quarters are. Therefore my new view of DADT is from an Air Force experience. No we are not spoiled we just don't live like the Army. Maybe AirForce Special Forces is closer to you guys in combat arms.

NO !! We did not get snow days off in Vietnam LOL It did drop down to 84 dergrees one cold windy night in the Central Highlands.
Click to expand...

The most privacy I ever had in the service, before getting married and having, "our", own crib, was three men to one room, with one latrine. Midway of that, would be five men to a room, sharing a latrine with the rest of the platoon, about thirty-five men. The minimum was open bay barracks, with 30+ men and a communal latrine shared by approximately 60 men.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Therefore the issues of racila intergration in the ARmed Forces and allowing open gayness is not the same al all.
Click to expand...

While race and sexual orientation differ, the reasons for segregating blacks were very similar to the reasons for excluding gays... unit cohesion, morale, discipline problems. The argument was made that blacks and whites simply could not fight and live alongside one another. That's exactly the same argument made about gays and straights. So yes, for the purposes of military policy, there's virtually no difference.

.
 
Grateful Heart said:
While race and sexual orientation differ, the reasons for segregating blacks were very similar to the reasons for excluding gays... unit cohesion, morale, discipline problems. The argument was made that blacks and whites simply could not fight and live alongside one another. That's exactly the same argument made about gays and straights. So yes, for the purposes of military policy, there's virtually no difference..
Click to expand...

I understand that same arguements are used but I am just poitingout that the same arguements should not logically apply.
 
Jerry said:
It doesn't matter what the policy should be, it matters what the policy is.

He broke the rules and suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

I don't think any one has argued that point.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
I understand that same arguements are used but I am just poitingout that the same arguements should not logically apply.
Click to expand...

What other arguments are there? Maybe I am missing something, but I have not heard of any other arguments against gays serving openly, and all the arguments I have heard have been shown to be nonissues.
 
That is not the only issue. This is an example of seeking special rights for gays and to discriminate against heterosexuals unless women and men are also integrated into the same units.

Why should it be that only gays could meet lovers or a future spouse in their unit? Why should only gays be able to shower with others they find sexually attractive like a live porn show? Why should only gays be allowed to dine, bunk, talk, etc with someone of possible romantic interest and attraction?

If heterosexuals can't shower with naked women and bunk with women and dine with women, then gays shouldn't be able to do those things with other men. Either women have to be integrated with men or gays and heterosexuals segregated. The same visa versa for women in service.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
What, I'm not as qualified as you are? Is this where we get into a dick measuring contest about who had crotch-rot the most and who had to eat the most snakes?
Click to expand...

Dick measuring contests? Eating snakes? Shower fantasies? Are you absolutely SURE you aren't gay? :lol:
 
joko104 said:
That is not the only issue. This is an example of seeking special rights for gays and to discriminate against heterosexuals unless women and men are also integrated into the same units.

Why should it be that only gays could meet lovers or a future spouse in their unit? Why should only gays be able to shower with others they find sexually attractive like a live porn show? Why should only gays be allowed to dine, bunk, talk, etc with someone of possible romantic interest and attraction?

If heterosexuals can't shower with naked women and bunk with women and dine with women, then gays shouldn't be able to do those things with other men. Either women have to be integrated with men or gays and heterosexuals segregated. The same visa versa for women in service.
Click to expand...

I do not know where your information came from, but men and women are free to shower and sleep and dine with whoever they want to after basic training (BT). The dorms are coed. In BT, there is no time for romance, so it does not matter. If someone is looking for a lover in BT, they do not belong in the military.
 
Alex said:
I do not know where your information came from, but men and women are free to shower and sleep and dine with whoever they want to after basic training (BT).
Click to expand...

But, not in military billets, they're not. Males aren't even allowed to even be present in female billets--and vice versa--much less in the showers.
 
joko104 said:
Why should it be that only gays could meet lovers or a future spouse in their unit? Why should only gays be able to shower with others they find sexually attractive like a live porn show? Why should only gays be allowed to dine, bunk, talk, etc with someone of possible romantic interest and attraction?
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. Two gay lovers in the same unit; the unit is on the attack/defense; one of the lovers is wounded; the other lover drops out of the fight to tend to his/her lover; thereby compromising the mission.

Everyone stop and think that your life hangs in the balance. You want you life, or the life of your son/daughter jeopordized by that situation?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom