"You must conceal the fact that you're black because the other members of your unit are in the KKK."

"Being openly black is going to hurt unit cohesion, so we've got a whole bunch of white make-up over here for you to put on everyday, that way you won't offend them."

"We're sorry you're a Mormon and the rest of your unit is Evangelical, they think Joseph Smith was a false prophet and you're religion is the word of Satan and not God. You're going to have to conceal the fact that you're a Mormon or you'll have to convert to serve in the military."

Why does it sound so absurd for race or creed, yet not insane for sexual orientation?

When Truman integrated the armed forces, he did it all the way, because there was no half way. Either blacks were equal to whites and should be in the same unit or they weren't and had to be segregated.

I think what is most offensive about don't ask, don't tell is that we expect men and women to serve and possibly even die for us as a nation, yet we won't let them be open about a most fundamental aspect of life. It's not that the people serving who are homosexual are incapable physically of doing the same work, it's that the rest of the unit is so bigoted they must hide who they are.

And to hear so many of the Republican candidates completely accept this absolute absurdity was most sickening. Even when faced with a man who'd served his nation for decades, they couldn't even slightly soften their positions. Sickening.

Sense that women are not allowed in front-line combat units and were not allowed on shipsl.

It is all about sex, attraction, foxhole desires and showers...

Right or wrong, the comparison to race is fallicious at best.

but don't let that get in the way of your rationalizations.

I am not rationalizing myself and not being a Bigot, however, there is a logical fallacy in the comparison of the reasons blacks were kept out of the military and why gay people are kept out. I did not say that the reasons were sound enough to justify the policy. But there is a reason that the policy endures while others have fallen along the wayside.

if not your own.

It is, purely and simply, discrimination. Idiotic fears do not make it something else. There is no logical fallacy. The assertion that the institutional endurance of one form of discrimination over another means that the two cannot be compared is a logical fallacy.

Similar idiotic fears once prevailed regarding race: blacks were regarded as oversexed and unintelligent, and less than human. It wasn't simply some misguided idea that troops should be color coordinated or that people just like hanging around with their own kind. It was motivated by fear of difference, of "otherness," of what those "others" might do.

There are a number of reasons homophobia is still socially acceptable while obvious racism is eschewed, but here are two big ones: sexual orientation and gender identity are less visible than race and kept so by vile policies like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," while discrimination against GLBT individuals is legitimized and fostered by the dominant religious institutions who maintain control over our government and seek to control more.

if every straight male in the world regardless of age or physical attractiveness wasn't convinced that every gay male in the world was after his ass. :rofl:

So why is it that they can't be honest? Do other members of the unit have to hide their marriages or relationships if they're with members of the opposite sex?

Your humor is sooooo dry. Yeah, those gay men just can't contain themselves in showers while People of Alternate Skin Color can, eh? You are too funny.

as usual.

as usual. And no, I didn't.

Cheers then, TGIF!

I don't know about anybody else, but the thing that most occupies my mind when I'm in a foxhole, with bullets zinging just milimeters over my head, with possible death in seconds, is that hot guy's ass next to me, and wanting to rip his pants down right there!:eyes:

The total insipidness of this never ending argument is that these people are supposed to be heroes, the elite. "Our brave fighting men", etc. Yet, they're so innocent and fragile that they need absolute protection from the possibility of anybody who could check out their weenie in the shower. :crazy:

They don't know shit. It must be the motion of the ocean. :shrug:

I forget I'm even about to die with half of my face blasted off when I jump down into one (foxhole or boy, take your pick). :rofl:

Funny guy

Look. You made an astronomically moronic statement with that "Foxhole Desires" crack, and now you're too much of a wussie to stand up for it.

Defend that remark, retract it for the bullshit it is, or take the jokes.

I think I have done a good job of pointing out why I think that this still remains an issue while the rest of the military is integrated. It is not about sexism and who can do the best job, it is about sex, sex and sex. I am not saying it is right, I am just saying it is...How is that astronomically moronic, I have spent all day relaying my perspective on this issue based on my experiences seeing this policy as well as the integration of women into the military from the beginning, you are the one who is making a joke of it all and not countering what I am saying with experience or research of your own. I thought your joke was funny, the first time you made it. All other variations are just annoying to me, sorry.

Still a subculture of gay people, both male and female almost everywhere I went, including the ultra testosterone laden Cavalry. I know this was a time of ramped up witch hunts, especially in the Navy, but there have always been ways to find each other out when we're forced into it.

None of us. Straight, gay, bi, ever though about having sex in foxholes. They're dirty, smelly, muddy, have sharp tree roots sticking out and sometimes have pig shit in them, and to think that's the place to get it on is beyond astronomically stupid. I just didn't have my thesaurus handy for a more extreme term.

Being gay is not about sex, sex, sex. It's much more than that. You would know that (and probably do) if you weren't trying to salvage this insipid argument that it's all about sex, even after you admitted that the DADT policy is bad, and should be revoked.

The question you appparently never really asked yourself is what really is the purpose of the Armed Forces. Is it to provide the nation with a means of defense and support for our allies, or is it an exclusive breeder boy's club meant to stay that way as long as they have anything to say about it?

This is the fundamental argument I see going on here. Hormones are already there, and as long as they keep recruiting 18-22 year olds, it's ging to be that way for some time. The question really is... Who's hormones are worth the honor of serving?

I am confused as to why you attacked me. I am telling you the reason that this argument is not the same as the racial argument and presents a DIFFERENT set of challenges. I am not saying that those challenges to not need to be met.

The term "foxhole desires" is a play on "foxhole christians", dya get it now?

Thank you for serving BTW.

Second, I disagree. The sexual orientation arguments are recycled racial arguments from the 1940s. The issue as I laid out makes the racial issue front and center to the comparison... The Army, an exclusive white boys (or straight boys) club only and should stay that way. Look at their tired old arguments. Any other being of human diversity "damages morale and esprit de corps", "The Army is not a social Laboratory" when in fact it really is the best one, "Our strong, ready to die for us heroes, who are total men that are afraid of nothing, must be protected from someone else looking at their weenies in the showers, because they're that fragile".

The central arguments of any of these issues always boils down to nothing more than exclusivity for one specific type of human only. Straight, white young men. Nobody else is allowed to be honored as heores, because they (women, African Americans, Gays, Lesbians & Bisexuals) don't deserve it.

It's not about sex. It's about who deserves to be a hero, and only white breeder boys deserve it.

I do not think it is a proper comparison.

The arguments failed against women in the military. The same arguments, these are the real reasons now not the republican candidate reasons, apply for gays as for women. The difference is that gays can hide their sexuality (to a degree at least) and women can not. I am sure you would agree with me here, if there were a way for women to completely conceal their sexuality from the men they would be asked to do it in order to serve.


We will have to agree to disagree. PLEASE keep in mind though, I think that the counter-argument is wrong and needs to be framed to address the concerns I mentioned above not the ones you mentioned.

I do not support the arguments, I simply want to clarify them.

It has been very refreshing actually debating with someone instead of trying to defend unfounded accusations of bigotry. Thank you and Cheers :toast:

BTW, why is "breeder boy" so popular lately, I have heard it alot, I am not sure if I am offended by it. It seems so condecending...i dunno.

It's not nice, and I probably shouldn't be using it. Sorry.

While it is true that GLBs (not a lot of Ts though) can hide their orientation, the military ignores the morality that none of us should have to. It's actually psychologically damaging to do so. Secrets like this also create problems in espionage. It's much easier to control and blackmail a potential double agent in the closet than one who's openly and unappolagetically gay.

It's the akin to the female dilemma in the past, with women having to overachieve at work just to get respect/pay equal to men, and even sometimes that's not good enough.

Woman ARE in front line units, woman ARE aboard ships,(thousands of them). Do you have any real arguments?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And BTW women on ships=lots of sex and frat issues, this shit will never end no matter how many regs are put in.

Or are you pining for "the good old days"????

In a whirlwind of self-congraulatory cleverness, as always.

:eyes:

Just what is your point??

"I hoped originally that it would be a compromise between folks like me and the hardlines but I was wrong."

OK if I am not a "hardliner" and dont ask dont tell is a compromise between me and them, what is the reasonable inference that can be obtained from that statement.

Hoooray! I DO believe in gays serving in the military! you get a cookie :)

Cheers

The Squid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Njt92wgmU :evilgrin:

were indeed easier, it does not mean that integrating women was not the right thing to do.

They belong in the same place a women. If they have the sex on the ship, kick em out, just like if women and men have sex on the ship...equal service, equal standards.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But no PEOPLE cant effing control themselves, have you ever been on a mixed-gender ship? No matter how happily you think someone is in their marriage, no matter how nice you think they are, a HUGE majority of them end up bumping uglies on the ship.

Let me put my point is caps so you understand:
PEOPLE LOOSE THEIR MINDS WHEN IT COMES TO SEX, IT IS NOT THE SAME AS RACE. RIGHT OR WRONG THIS IS WHY IT STILL PERSISTS IN THE MILITARY...

:eyes:

:spank: Thank you, sir, may I have another? :spank:

My post is bigoted but making inferences about my own sexual pratices is ok

got it

but the self control supposed lacked by gays is inherent in the idea of "don't ask, don't tell". The self control argument is not tenable because right now homosexuals are controlling themselves in the military. If they can do that while in the closet, why wouldn't they be able to do that out of the closet?

not that it is a reason to keep gays out of the military.

WAY too many thoughts.

And dont care to of being a bigot, something I am most certainly not and it absoloutely disgusts me to be called that.

I was just trying to point out that the real reasons behind the ban are likened to the arguments about GENDER not RELIGION (sorry about the caps, I am agitated right now)

And suggesting that gay people need to be treated differently, denied opportunities or separated out from the rest of the military is certainly bigoted.

Only that the rational being advocated by the Rep Candidates and in the OP is not the real reason behind the policy. I do not defend the policy...i repeat.. I DO NOT DEFEND THE POLICY.

Just because it causes problems does not mean that it is not the right thing to do.

:sarcasm:

Inter unit ones very well could, thats why they should be punished, gay or straight.

See Spartans for reference.

Different culture, different times.

Did you not?

Sex within ones unit, gay or straight is a bad plan, baaaaaaaaaaad plan.

n/t

You got onto a tangent bringing up the sexual habits of a culture where bisexuality was not only condoned but encouraged. Pedophilia was condoned as well in those city states as long as the kids was over 13, care to discuss that as well?


NOTE: I am in no way linking pedophilia to homosexuality please put your flamethrowers away.

n/t

I believe it was one of his boyfriends who gave him that nickname, actually :evilgrin:

Clearly bi, but you were never sure who he preferred.

He did like the ladies but there is no solid evidence that he ever actually did the nasty with Hephestion.

Their minds may be loose, but they may lose them. Or not.

Edited to add, I know, it is just a grammatical error, but one that I find annoying, no matter whom does it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And because so many Americans would be aghast at women serving in combat jobs?

That's the fallacy, and it fails as a reason to discriminate against otherwise qualified service members and potential recruits.

As someone who has seen the Navy and Marine Corp change first hand in my short career I can tell you it is ALL about sex. At the end of the day it is not about the reason you mentioned or whether women or gay people can do the job, it is about sex and the fact that it will happen more and more on the front line instead of in the hotel room and brothels with townies.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

the 4000th time on this thread.

Please take the time to read it. I am tired of typing it out. I can talk slower to make you understand.

That's it?

Is more about sex than bigotry...


Once again,
I
DO
NOT
SUPPORT
THE
POLICY

I only meant to point out why it persists where others have fallen by the wayside.

If it was not, women would also have top hide among "don't ask don't tell"

Can hide gay folk a little better.

Belive me, if you could hide your feminity, that would be the policy.

For the same reason as above, sex, not bigotry.

...but I can tell you that this is discrimination based on bigotry. It's not defensible.

if every soldier in every army in the world was fucking someone on the front line instead of fighting. Would give "wars" a whole new allure.

Soldiers are rabbits, you now, they can actually control themselves and don't need to run around with their dicks and tits hanging out all the time begging to get it on with someone.

It is worse on ships when boredom gets the best of you, but it eventually does get in the way of productivity.

Best friend from high school was. Plenty of other people I know. My brother was in Vietnam. My dad in WWII. Heard plenty of horrible stories. None of them have talked about becoming sex-starved lunatics looking for someplace to sew their seed.

In the foxhole or on the ship with them.

This has been festering in the navy for a little while but is only becoming evident in the other services now since female units are on the front line more than ever before.

Your post proves it.

I am a proponent of getting rid of dont ask dont tell. I dont agree with the policy even though I once did. I hoped originally that it would be a compromise between folks like me and the hardlines but I was wrong.

I in no way even REMOTELY implied that!

She was persecuted in the '80s and her career in the service was threatened because of policies and beliefs like yours.

I know bigotry when I see it.

I was "told" by a fellow officer once and I did nothing, remained his friend and still keep in touch today.

How am I a bigot where did I state a belief that gays should not be in the military, quote my post.


BTW, I applaud your partners service and wish you both well despite your unfounded hatred for me.

:eyes:

Why would I ruin his career with a policy I do not agree with.

:eyes: see i can roll my eyes too



:toast: Cheers

Gay men with women. Lesbians with straight men. There, that takes care of the sex, attraction and foxhole desires. Now the only obstacle are the showers and bisexuals. A piece of canvas will solve the former. I'm not sure about the latter, but I'm sure a solution can be reached.


edited for those in doubt: :sarcasm:

And that would be...oh what the hell was it called, oh yeah SEGREGATION!:toast: YOU WIN


BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT

Oh maybe your not, maybe you were just pointing out a fallacy in someones argument, we will never know because the B word has now been used.

But then, the notion that women and men can't be mixed in front line units because of foxhole desires is a bit disturbing. Who the hell cares, really ? It's probably better to have soldiers and sailors screwing each other than some random locals who may be insurgents. Besides, the military is good at setting down rules and expecting people to follow them. No screwing within your unit sounds like it would be the formal solution.

And when it happens in your unit a whole shitstorm occurs, especially when it is between officer and enlisted and when it involves pregnancy (sure ticket home) which makes military men destest military women even more, and sets them back another 5 years.

The military men who detest military women should be drummed out of the service. The military dealt with racial inequality better than the civilian side did. It's come a long way with gender inequality. I think that if integrating sexual orientation tolerance were a priority the military would again step up to the plate.

The officer/enlisted liaison issue would remain regardless of the genders involved.

Miliary men do not except military women because there are some rotten apples that make it very hard to take them seriously (the pregnancy thing is just one example). The constant excuse making I have seen in my day for incompitent female officers is the freshest example in my mind. I have worked with about 65 female officers in my career, about 2/3 were compitent, about the same average as the overall officer population. But in the drive to "integrate" and "retain" almost all of them were just praised to high heaven for the smallest of tasks, the truly superior ones saw through it as BS but some ate it up with a spoon and created the type of mid-level senior officer you really hate and since she is female it makes it all the more obvious (like it or not). The current culture, in the officer commmunty at least, is that the bar for females is pretty damn low, and it is setting women in the military back futher than any asshole general or president ever could.

But it's something that can be corrected. What you describe is exactly parallel to the backlash against nonwhite military members back when the units were integrated. It takes time and a lot of effort to feel comfortable treating people who are different in some core way as equals. As I wrote in my previous post the military has a history of addressing it better than civilian companies and organizations but I know that issues remain with race and gender. One of my family members was the military equivalent of an EEO compliance officer until a few years ago and I've heard plenty of stories.

That is likely what your family member is. That is why I am familiar with these issues.

You have, indeed, now made yourself perfectly clear.

I suppose an honest conversation is not possible here because no one is capable of having one.
I told you, there are just as many idiot female officers as male officers, but there is very much a clear double standard and it is making things worse not better for women in the Military.

But keep making inferences based on your faulty assumptions about my character.

Cheers

an "honest" conversation.

I am making no assumptions or inferences. I am reading your words. I'm sorry that you can't see it.

simpering and barely concealed inferences about my character from my posts. Please, conduct an honest analysis of my argument instead of a one sentence attack on me as a person.

So I guess we should just end it there.

Namaste.

You say what I consider to be pretty damn hurtful.

You believe that sexual identity and racial identity cannot be compared. I disagree.

You believe that 1/3 of women you've encountered in the service are incompetent but promoted anyway. I cannot help but be skeptical of that, precisely because you are making a point of their gender. I would feel the same if someone said: "1/3 of blacks in the military are promoted when they are incompetent." Of course, we've already established that you consider the comparison of sex and gender to race a logical fallacy, so you will automatically dismiss that statement.

We clearly disagree on a profound level. You may need to develop a thicker skin for GD if you find that so very hurtful. After all, I don't know you from Adam.

I mentioned in my post that I said that they 1/3 incompetence is about average for the navy across the board. There is a VERY clear bias in the Navy for female officers, it is a matter of retention, most senior officer who are out will tell you this. There are insinuated orders to ensure that Navy females feel respected and wanted and this leads to the unfortunate consequence of their further degredation.

I love most of my female coworkers and often ended up with close friendships with many of them as I "taught them the ropes" of being a Surface Warfare Officer.


The overpromotion of race in the Navy is FAR less pronounced because the Navy has been integrated for much longer and race is far less of an issue than gender.

Also, leading to the addition of sex into the equation, which makes this situation different than race,
when you live and work constantly side-by-side with someone to whom you are inclined sexually for months and years at a time, almost 24 hours a day, away from family and other sexual potential, sex becomes a HUGE problem, I just wish you could understand why this makes this situation different, oh so different.

I, in fact, NEVER called you a bigot. I said the rationalization you gave for why the military has a DADT policy was bigotry, and as you had said it wasn't necessarily what you believed, I said quite clearly and specifically "for others' bigotry if NOT your own." In other words, if, as you say, it is not your own view, then I'm clearly not referring to you.

But since you're expending so much energy protesting this word that offends you so terribly, I suggest you take a long look in a mirror.

You just keep telling yourself that I just can't possibly understand because I'm not a straight man in the military if that makes you feel better. Whatever gets you through the night. My ex-girlfriend's experience as a bi woman in the military, and her husband's as a straight man in the military, do not in any way validate what you're saying.

Namaste.

"for others' bigotry if NOT your own."
This implied to me an inference of my bigotry, for that I apologize, I must have confused you with the 80 other people who called me a bigot on this board.


I called no one a bigot on this board, please provide an example and I will apologize to the end of time as I have to you.

Perhaps your ex's experience is different, but my experience comes from being a person who does not support DODT and has always been open and accepting of the GLBT community, I have seen things and made judgments based on my experiences. I have served in many different capacities and have known a few people who told me they were gay because they trusted me and a few who I was pretty sure were gay but I did not tell me personally (policy). DODT is most prominently a failure because for the most part we can figure out who is gay if you are stationed with them long enough. A large portion of the folks in the Navy dont care, perhaps this will change things down the road but my generation is not making the big choices right now.

Cheers, I hope you can let go of your judgments of me, I mean you no ill will.

I'm stumped.

Used very visibly by female service members as a way to get out of obligations and difficult billets. I know I am going to take another rash of shit but I will stick by it because I have seen way to many "convenient" pregnancies in my time. It is a rotten apple because these women every day degrade and set back the ACHIEVEMENTS that their predecessors made by crossing the military gender line and being exceptional. That is why it is rotten and pregnancy is such an issue with womens rights in the Military.

:toast:

Gays serve openly in the UK armed services for instance, which I am sure you know. Why is this a problem for our service and not theirs?

I had a pretty interesting conversation with a few British LT's, two of them female, on my last NATO deployment, from what I saw this is not a terribly popular decision, but they also said the UK Navy is a joke and a "placeholder". They were also quite drunk and used the word "poofster", so who knows.

Assessing a situation, or the reasons behind a policy (whether it be right or wrong) is different than advocating for it. At no point in this thread did I read that you AGREED with don't ask don't tell...you merely pointed out a false analogy (I'm not convinced its false, but okay).

It's funny, but people like to immediatly fit any discussion into an argument loop, and in doing so, often ascribe certain positions on others that don't really reflect what the person is arguing.

Though I consider religious choice more of a choice than race or sexual orientation. Good post.

Even if the other side considers homosexuality to be a choice, there are other choices that offend people just as much, yet the people who made the choice to be Mormon are not expected to hide that fact. So even if you call their bluff on the choice bullshit, they still sound like a bunch of bigoted idiots.

And for what it's worth, the evangelicals are dominating the military right now so that troops of other faiths do have to hide themselves. The Air Force Academy is apparently the worst. Ugh.

Women are serving, and while there are massive problems (I would call being raped by fellow soldiers in a combat zone a huge problem), they are serving with distinction alongside their buddies and getting killed, too. They have to tamp down their femininity, but LGBTs have to do far more than that. It's wrong.

and it is absurd.(DADT)

There's a lot of ignorance about the military - and a lot of lying by those running for office (and those in office) - in regards to gays and lesbians serving in the military.

DADT and other appeals to prejudice do nothing but destroy unit cohesion because it introduces a manufactured barrier based on hate - and it is hate regardless of what label it's cloaked in - that gives permission to people to act on their most base emotions.

Politicians (and other, ah..authority figures) create the problem when they appeal to hate. People who can only feel better about themselves if other people are discriminated against are part of the problem.

Gays and lesbians serving are not the problem and never have been.

it looked like you already had snatched quite a few bald :rofl:

the same ridiculous bullshit excuses that were used to keep the armed forces segregated through WW2, and couldn't believe that creep Duncan Hunter wasn't the least bit subtle about his own homophobia...

For example, does the military have a valid reason to have separate men+women latrines and showers and living quarters?

If so, that would indicate to me that it is acceptable to separate "opposite attractors" (straight men from straight women, gay men from gay men, gay women from gay women).

With a policy of "Dont ask, dont tell", the military is basically violating this principle. If the principle can be violated, then there is no reason to segregate men from women in latrines and showers and living quarters. Let them share these facilities. If the principle cannot be violated, then clearly "Dont ask, dont tell" is inappropriate, and open acceptance of all people into the military should be adopted.

Effin hell.

:)

prejudices. In order to combat such an enemy it just isn't feasible to ignore the reasons why it exists.

I find that people just have a hard time talking about it fearful of getting nothing more than a loud backlash of angry words instead of more of an attempt to explain the reasons why such should not exist and how in the long term such attitude defeats our need to be able to come together when disasters strike which considering the history of this planet, such is just around the corner.

We need each other world wide like it or not and we need to find a way to get along, be accepting and learn tolerance of each other's private beliefs or in the end it won't be a natural disaster that does humanity in, it will be humanity itself who will be the ultimate disaster scenario for the end world times.