SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Sep 22 2010 10:47 am

Is working with a gay person so uncomfortable that they'll leave the military?

I mean, they're in a war zone. So they're apparently comfortable enough with possible death and dismemberment. They're fine with killing people... even accidentally killing civilians. They tough it out when they see their buddies killed or maimed by firefights and IEDs. They can handle living in pretty rough conditions and carrying 70 pounds of gear in 100+ degree heat.

But fighting along side a gay person is too uncomfortable? Really?

That's basically saying that a bullet to the head is more tolerable than having a gay person nearby.

Joined: Jun 08 2010 Location: Termina Field Posts: 1541

Nekkoru wrote:

Okay, but what if you are gay and married? I mean, you do get asked about your family status et cetera - they need that kind of information so they know who to contact in case you get blown to pieces on a landmine?

Couldn't you just provide the contact details for their brother(s), sister(s), parents, etc.?

Joined: Dec 28 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 66

UsaSatsui wrote:

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

And seriously people if you don't care about the issue then don't post saying you don't care it's fucking obnoxious. Like going in to a movie and yelling I AM COMPLETELY NEUTRAL AS TO WHETHER THIS MOVIE IS GOOD OR NOT, JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW. Then sitting back down.

You know, I disagree. This is a flash point issue that people have been pretty passionate about. Being apathetic about it is kind of telling, when you think about it - people don't consider this an issue anymore.

Which, honestly, is the way it should be.

I kind of disagree with that. I think we should be apathetic about whether someone is gay., but that's not really the issue. Isn't being apathetic about DADT kind of like saying, "Whether or not you're accepted and allowed the same right as a heterosexual doesn't affect me, so I don't really care about it."?

Posted: Sep 22 2010 11:30 am

Mr. Satire wrote:

Nekkoru wrote:

Okay, but what if you are gay and married? I mean, you do get asked about your family status et cetera - they need that kind of information so they know who to contact in case you get blown to pieces on a landmine?

Couldn't you just provide the contact details for their brother(s), sister(s), parents, etc.?

Your spouses and/or children always take priority over your parents and siblings. You always give their contact details.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 12:53 pm

chazzlabs wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

And seriously people if you don't care about the issue then don't post saying you don't care it's fucking obnoxious. Like going in to a movie and yelling I AM COMPLETELY NEUTRAL AS TO WHETHER THIS MOVIE IS GOOD OR NOT, JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW. Then sitting back down.

You know, I disagree. This is a flash point issue that people have been pretty passionate about. Being apathetic about it is kind of telling, when you think about it - people don't consider this an issue anymore.

Which, honestly, is the way it should be.

I kind of disagree with that. I think we should be apathetic about whether someone is gay., but that's not really the issue. Isn't being apathetic about DADT kind of like saying, "Whether or not you're accepted and allowed the same right as a heterosexual doesn't affect me, so I don't really care about it."?

I agree, Yeah it's telling that people don't give a shit about anything if it doesn't directly effect them and that is not a good thing.

99.9% of all homosexuals aren't insane deviants that are going to ass rape you while your sleeping DURING A FUCKING WAR and if they love their country enough to die for it, more power to them. I don't necessarily want to know a lot of personal things about other people, but that's life. You have to deal with other people.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 02:43 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

sidewaydriver wrote:

They should compromise and change it to Don't Ask, Don't Be Flaming About It.

Second.

I'll third that.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 02:48 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

I honestly think it's disgraceful that people have to just hide who they are for the sake of public opinion.

100% agree. It's sad and disgraceful. Some people can be very xenophobic and like hating something that they are ignorant about.

chazzlabs wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

And seriously people if you don't care about the issue then don't post saying you don't care it's fucking obnoxious.

You know, I disagree. This is a flash point issue that people have been pretty passionate about. Being apathetic about it is kind of telling, when you think about it - people don't consider this an issue anymore.

Which, honestly, is the way it should be.

I kind of disagree with that. I think we should be apathetic about whether someone is gay., but that's not really the issue. Isn't being apathetic about DADT kind of like saying, "Whether or not you're accepted and allowed the same right as a heterosexual doesn't affect me, so I don't really care about it."?

Yea, Satsui, I have to disagree with you there. It's one thing to not care about whether someone is gay. I wish we were at that point. But obviously we aren't when DADT is still an issue. The fact that people are apathetic to someone being treated differently in this country is a big part of the issue.

Now if you just don't care either way, then what OWD said...show true apathy and don't even post about it.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 03:04 pm

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Because being a Christian is "socially acceptable" and being homosexual is not. Even though believing that faith is a total farce.

Yeah, former Forum Battle teammate, you pissed me off. I'm Christian, albeit a very open minded one, and I don't mind gay people at all. A few of my friends are gay, and they're great people. What they do in their bedroom is their business, and they should have every right (including marriage, provided they can find a faith to do the wedding) in my eyes, including military service. It's not my job to worry about what the ramifications of their choices are unless they're dangerous to me. Two guys porking or two gals scissoring the day away doesn't affect me at all. This might put me in the minority, but still.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 03:09 pm

aeonic wrote:

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Because being a Christian is "socially acceptable" and being homosexual is not. Even though believing that faith is a total farce.

Yeah, former Forum Battle teammate, you pissed me off. I'm Christian, albeit a very open minded one, and I don't mind gay people at all. A few of my friends are gay, and they're great people. What they do in their bedroom is their business, and they should have every right (including marriage, provided they can find a faith to do the wedding) in my eyes, including military service. It's not my job to worry about what the ramifications of their choices are unless they're dangerous to me. Two guys porking or two gals scissoring the day away doesn't affect me at all. This might put me in the minority, but still.

Yea pretty much this. I am pretty open to it, as this doesn't affect me at all.

Joined: Dec 06 2008 Location: Pearland, TX Posts: 88

I think that the military having no tolerance for gays for so long is merely showing that fundamentally, where it counts, it is still believed to be wrong. Is it really a progressive notion to be gay? If anything, its moving backwards in evolution. Its a warped and twisted way of life - nothing that nature intended. I haven't known a single gay that didn't have severe emotional trauma from childhood. Allowing gays into the military is not only showing compromise on the part of a foundation of our country, but also allowing possible "distractions" into the ranks (not during combat). I am not a homo-phobe, as may be assumed, but more so in the position of wanting to get to the roots of the issue.

Joined: Dec 06 2008 Location: Pearland, TX Posts: 88

[quote="Andrew Man"]

aeonic wrote:

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Because being a Christian is "socially acceptable" and being homosexual is not. Even though believing that faith is a total farce.

Yeah, former Forum Battle teammate, you pissed me off. I'm Christian, albeit a very open minded one, and I don't mind gay people at all. A few of my friends are gay, and they're great people. What they do in their bedroom is their business, and they should have every right (including marriage, provided they can find a faith to do the wedding) in my eyes, including military service. It's not my job to worry about what the ramifications of their choices are unless they're dangerous to me. Two guys porking or two gals scissoring the day away doesn't affect me at all. This might put me in the minority, but still.

Sorry about the double post, but I needed to respond to aeonic: What?
The entire outline of the Christian faith is positively affecting those around you, not worrying about yourself. Why be a Christian to do that? How can you say that being gay is alright when it is CLEARLY outlined in the bible that it is wrong? This is the reason we have cynics of the Christian faith - too much compromise.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 06:35 pm

[quote="glycerine92"]

Andrew Man wrote:

aeonic wrote:

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Because being a Christian is "socially acceptable" and being homosexual is not. Even though believing that faith is a total farce.

Yeah, former Forum Battle teammate, you pissed me off. I'm Christian, albeit a very open minded one, and I don't mind gay people at all. A few of my friends are gay, and they're great people. What they do in their bedroom is their business, and they should have every right (including marriage, provided they can find a faith to do the wedding) in my eyes, including military service. It's not my job to worry about what the ramifications of their choices are unless they're dangerous to me. Two guys porking or two gals scissoring the day away doesn't affect me at all. This might put me in the minority, but still.

Sorry about the double post, but I needed to respond to aeonic: What?
The entire outline of the Christian faith is positively affecting those around you, not worrying about yourself. Why be a Christian to do that? How can you say that being gay is alright when it is CLEARLY outlined in the bible that it is wrong? This is the reason we have cynics of the Christian faith - too much compromise.

I don't want to go off on an anti-religion rant here, but have you ever considered that your blind devotion to the book is the problem? Gay people are just being who they are. Who nature made them to be. Do you really think that gay people choose to be gay, and thus are sinners?

Sorry, but it just kills me how religious people "know" they're right about things because they read it in the Bible. Or in many cases.......someone told them it's in the Bible.

Joined: May 22 2009 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 353

sidewaydriver wrote:

They should compromise and change it to Don't Ask, Don't Be Flaming About It.

Is that even possible though? It may be possible but its not very realistic. You can't really expect a openly gay person to not be flaming about it, no offense. I've met some professional acting gay men before and you wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you, that is untill you and girlfriend visit their home and you notice a shrine to penises in their living room. I mean lets face it, their very nature is being fruity, not saying they are wrong for it, that is just how it is.

If they repealed DADT, how long will it be before someone feels uncomfortable or gets offended, and next thing you know there is dozens of lawsuits. If a gay person wants to serve in the military bad enough, they can. Its a shame that they have to hide the fact that they are gay, but hey, life is not fair. If you around a bunch of men who are trained to be mean, lean, killing machines, its probably a bad idea to tell them you are gay. I know I wouldn't if I was gay.

Joined: Sep 17 2010 Posts: 156

Quote:

I have heard from opponents of the repeal, that they are scared a full blown repeal would cause a "mass exodus" in the military causing all the people that don't support it to quit.

There are many perks for signing up and staying in the military, and downsides to just up and leaving, so i wouldn't expect a mass exodus. I would expect a slow cultural transition internally in the military, our society itself is slow to change on this issue.

I'm not a zealot for gay rights; however, it's obvious to me that it should play no meaningful factor as far as their individual rights.

The morality or immorality of homosexuality has no real bearing on what the laws on the issue should be (they don't always have to be the same). In the Christian faith, it's immoral to worship any god but God, but that doesn't mean we'll make it illegal for someone to have a different belief system. I see no reason to criminalize homosexuality, it's merely the urge to be attracted to the same gender.

Quote:

If they repealed DADT, how long will it be before someone feels uncomfortable or gets offended, and next thing you know there is dozens of lawsuits.

Overtime things of discomfort will become the norm, such a breast feeding outdoors, or two gay men kissing. In Africa many women walk around topless you don't see the whole village staring or gawking, people get used it, what's considered indecent will no longer be. As you pointed out, if people need to act a certain way in a certain situation they will, just like you didn't know your "very fruity" friends were gay until they wanted you to know.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 09:16 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

And seriously people if you don't care about the issue then don't post saying you don't care it's fucking obnoxious. Like going in to a movie and yelling I AM COMPLETELY NEUTRAL AS TO WHETHER THIS MOVIE IS GOOD OR NOT, JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW. Then sitting back down.

So you're for equal rights for gays in the military but you shit on my right to not care? I smell double standards.

phantasmzombie wrote:

sidewaydriver wrote:

They should compromise and change it to Don't Ask, Don't Be Flaming About It.

Is that even possible though? It may be possible but its not very realistic. You can't really expect a openly gay person to not be flaming about it, no offense. I've met some professional acting gay men before and you wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you, that is untill you and girlfriend visit their home and you notice a shrine to penises in their living room. I mean lets face it, their very nature is being fruity, not saying they are wrong for it, that is just how it is.

I don't know dude, I wasn't being serious.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 09:21 pm

phantasmzombie wrote:

sidewaydriver wrote:

They should compromise and change it to Don't Ask, Don't Be Flaming About It.

Is that even possible though? It may be possible but its not very realistic. You can't really expect a openly gay person to not be flaming about it, no offense. I've met some professional acting gay men before and you wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you, that is untill you and girlfriend visit their home and you notice a shrine to penises in their living room. I mean lets face it, their very nature is being fruity, not saying they are wrong for it, that is just how it is.

Heh, 'no offense'.

Well, no offense, but that paragraph is really ignorant. I'm not saying you are stupid, don't take it the wrong way, but you are obviously ignorant to homosexuals. You really think they are all 'fruity' and 'flaming'? Wrong. There are many, many homosexual men who 'act' just like a straight man would...they just happen to be gay. Just because you have only been exposed to the 'fruity' ones doesn't mean you should draw your opinion of the entire community based on that.

Believe me, you probably know way more gay men than you realize. And it's not because they're hiding their penis shrines at their houses...it's because they are exactly like you or me. They watch sports, they enjoy drinking beer, they watch action movies, they play video games, etc, etc. They aren't 'acting' heterosexual to fake us all out. That's how they really are...they just also happen to find men attractive.

This kind of thinking displayed here is a large part of the problem. I don't think you mean to be homophobic...you just are. You may not hate gays, but you obviously also don't understand them when you stereotype an entire group based on what you've seen from a few guys on TV or in movies.

Title: The Self-Titler Joined: Aug 14 2010 Posts: 598

Someone give phantasmzombie the rundown on Bears/Twinks and Tops/Bottoms. Bonus points for Power Bottom explanation.

I wonder where the closet gays in the military hide their penis shrines.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 10:51 pm

Good. I'm glad to see this shit got canned. Look, I'm no gay-hater or overly macho asshole, but this conversation has no place being held when we are fighting two wars. How about repealing not sending us into combat with the right amount of troops and or equipment. That would make more sense. Also, there is more to it than just lets all tie are shirts in knots and let the gays flood the military. You have to consider all the problems it will cause. Women Marines live in separate barracks than males, and can not be in your room unless the door is WIDE open. So do we separate the gays from straights? Even if you do that they can still sleep with each other so how do you deal with the fraternization issues. Also, if my commanding officer is gay, what is to stop me from saying he harassed me? Not to mention that if I am in a war zone and fighting the enemy and I see my boyfriend get his leg blown off, will I stop fighting and run to his side or keep fighting off the enemy as I am ordered to do. There is no place for this nonsense, they can serve, just keep it to themselves. If you want to serve, keep it on the DL, if you don't go join that asshole Dan Choi on CNN. That is all.

Posted: Sep 22 2010 11:34 pm

Don't they give troops some sort of medicine to curb sexual appetite anyway?

Posted: Sep 23 2010 12:34 am

Blackout wrote:

Don't they give troops some sort of medicine to curb sexual appetite anyway?

No.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 05:56 am

sidewaydriver wrote:

I don't know dude, I wasn't being serious.

You should be serious because what you said hit it right on the head. DADT basically is, "If you're gay, you can join the military; just don't be flaming obvious about it".

I worked with a guy who was a Lance Corporal in the Marines and was the most chiseled monument to manliness you'll ever see; but he was gay. And you'd never guess he was unless he told you, and he was very open about it and wasn't at all bitter about being a gay man in the military. All he had to do really was talk normally, dress normally, and not be a totally flamboyant about his gayness.

DADT is aimed at guys like him and is designed to keep out the more "fruity" members of the gay community who do, and this is a fact, make straight men very uncomfortable at times, especially if they're in close quarters all the time. I'm talking about the guys on Project Runway and Queer Eye who are essentially warped caricatures of women.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 08:14 am

[quote="glycerine92"]

Andrew Man wrote:

aeonic wrote:

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Because being a Christian is "socially acceptable" and being homosexual is not. Even though believing that faith is a total farce.

Yeah, former Forum Battle teammate, you pissed me off. I'm Christian, albeit a very open minded one, and I don't mind gay people at all. A few of my friends are gay, and they're great people. What they do in their bedroom is their business, and they should have every right (including marriage, provided they can find a faith to do the wedding) in my eyes, including military service. It's not my job to worry about what the ramifications of their choices are unless they're dangerous to me. Two guys porking or two gals scissoring the day away doesn't affect me at all. This might put me in the minority, but still.

Sorry about the double post, but I needed to respond to aeonic: What?
The entire outline of the Christian faith is positively affecting those around you, not worrying about yourself. Why be a Christian to do that? How can you say that being gay is alright when it is CLEARLY outlined in the bible that it is wrong? This is the reason we have cynics of the Christian faith - too much compromise.

Obviously you and I have radically different ideas about what Christianity is, probably the reason there are so many interpretations of it. My understanding is that the Christian faith is about tolerance and understanding, as well as living a decent life and caring for others. As it says in Mark 7:1-2
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

If you actually look at my post, you'll notice that I didn't say that I agreed with their choices, just that I don't see the choice that they as something they should be ostracised for, and I'm not going to disassociate myself from someone just because they're making a decision in their life that I don't necessarily agree with. In my faith, I believe that it's between them and someone/thing else with a vastly greater authority than my own imperfect self (who's made many bad decisions and asked for forgiveness, also a big part of Christianity) to work out their spiritual salvation, and whether they do or not, I'll still love them as a brother/sister and fellow human being(love, also a very Christ-oriented activity) and treat them well because that's what I feel I should do.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 09:03 am

After reading through this discussion, I now feel DADT must be repealed for the safety of America. I just sort of assumed that our military was full of bad-asses but it looks like I was completely wrong. According to many of you, our military is full of spineless pansies who can't function if they find out there is a gay man nearby. Hopefully the terrorists don't read Sydlexia forums or they'll figure out our weakness and start bringing a bunch of flaming homos to the battlefield. Our men and women would throw down their weapons and run, screaming, into the desert. I don't think I can sleep at night until this threat is corrected. We NEED openly gay people in the military to weed out these weaklings. God forbid the Chinese find out... the only thing more terrifying than homos are communist homos.

Seriously guys, I feel like if our soldiers can handle combat then everything else should be a cakewalk by comparison. Am I giving them too much credit? Are they weaker than I thought?

Posted: Sep 23 2010 10:11 am

Rogue Hippo wrote:

After reading through this discussion, I now feel DADT must be repealed for the safety of America. I just sort of assumed that our military was full of bad-asses but it looks like I was completely wrong. According to many of you, our military is full of spineless pansies who can't function if they find out there is a gay man nearby. Hopefully the terrorists don't read Sydlexia forums or they'll figure out our weakness and start bringing a bunch of flaming homos to the battlefield. Our men and women would throw down their weapons and run, screaming, into the desert. I don't think I can sleep at night until this threat is corrected. We NEED openly gay people in the military to weed out these weaklings. God forbid the Chinese find out... the only thing more terrifying than homos are communist homos.

Seriously guys, I feel like if our soldiers can handle combat then everything else should be a cakewalk by comparison. Am I giving them too much credit? Are they weaker than I thought?

Um. No. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. There are 3 service members on this site, and none of us have made that kind of statement. As for we need openly gay men in the military, no again. You know who had openly gay troops? Iraq. How did that work for them, they crumbled at the site of us. Another example, Rome. We don't want to be Rome.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 10:27 am

Ash Burton wrote:

Rogue Hippo wrote:

After reading through this discussion, I now feel DADT must be repealed for the safety of America. I just sort of assumed that our military was full of bad-asses but it looks like I was completely wrong. According to many of you, our military is full of spineless pansies who can't function if they find out there is a gay man nearby. Hopefully the terrorists don't read Sydlexia forums or they'll figure out our weakness and start bringing a bunch of flaming homos to the battlefield. Our men and women would throw down their weapons and run, screaming, into the desert. I don't think I can sleep at night until this threat is corrected. We NEED openly gay people in the military to weed out these weaklings. God forbid the Chinese find out... the only thing more terrifying than homos are communist homos.

Seriously guys, I feel like if our soldiers can handle combat then everything else should be a cakewalk by comparison. Am I giving them too much credit? Are they weaker than I thought?

Um. No. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. There are 3 service members on this site, and none of us have made that kind of statement. As for we need openly gay men in the military, no again. You know who had openly gay troops? Iraq. How did that work for them, they crumbled at the site of us. Another example, Rome. We don't want to be Rome.

We already are Rome, sad to say, although instead of actively acting as imperialist forces, we're going the subtle route and working to impose our political ideas on different countries over there. As for armies with openly gay troops, I think you forget the ancient Greeks too. Because those Spartans (who I guess technically were bisexual, making love to men in the field and their wives at home, but a dick in the butt is a dick in the butt), they were sissies.