SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Sep 23 2010 10:47 am

I know why Gays need to be able to be open in the Military, its not just about the "I want to be out of the Closet" Situation. Its for the benefits of their spouses. Life Insurance, Medical, Dental, all of that good stuff wouldn't apply otherwise.

But, Ash brings up an excellent point. Fraternization is already a huge isssue. I don't see anyone raising signs and screaming "Womens Rights" because the Military won't let them Serve on Submarines (which they are ATTEMPTING to try in the future) or in Special Forces.

On a ship, in a Berthing, you sleep in close quarters with 80 guys. Picture 3 coffin size "racks" stacked on each other. With 3 across from you making a cubical of 6, your only privacy is a thin blue curtain you slide over your opening. Then such said 80 guys are sharing 2 showers, and 3 toilets. Put just a couple of gay guys in the mix who are quite open about it, and someone (not saying I agree in anyway) is going to commit a hate crime.

Also the "Why wouldn't the Military take as many as possible" thing....

Well recruiting offices are already packed to the brim with the economy being Garbage. You can't get in the Military anymore unless your lucky or wait forever.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 11:35 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After reading through this discussion, I now feel DADT must be repealed for the safety of America.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.

Hmmmm, where am I getting that from?

Read what you just wrote. You're saying that allowing gay soldiers caused the Iraqi and Roman armies to crumble. Then you said that we don't want to be like them... implying that if we allow openly gay soldiers to fight then our military will crumble too.

Like I said, I think our troops are a hell of a lot more professional than that. I've talked to soldiers about DADT. Their answer is always the same: "We don't care about politics. They give us orders and we get the job done." I'll take their word for it.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 11:53 am

I was responding to your assumption that if we don't let gays in the military than our forces will crumble because we are scared to shower with gay men. It is absurd. My point is that allowing gays to serve openly does NOTHING to improve combat readiness, in fact, it hinders it. I am done with this argument though as I have neither the TIME, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think gays are entitled to!

Posted: Sep 23 2010 12:35 pm

I know you probably won't answer anyway then, but...

Ash Burton wrote:

So do we separate the gays from straights?

No. Plus, if they're going into the military they'd understand that they're not there for that shit. For the few idiots who can't keep it in their pants, a sensible person can just report the offenders, problem solved.

Ash Burton wrote:

Also, if my commanding officer is gay, what is to stop me from saying he harassed me?

The fact that you can be found out on your lie and shit will happen.

Ash Burton wrote:

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.

Which goes back to gay people enlisting would understand the military isn't the time or place to "get together".

We're the ONLY, and I can't stress that enough, ONLY major western country that does anything like this. Let's be progressive, people.

also itt: homophobes and people not letting people be who they want to be without fear or doubt

Joined: Sep 17 2010 Posts: 156

If we glance at other military organizations around the world they do fine without DADT, and have no problem with their fellow gay soldiers. The sooner we give off the impression that it doesn't matter if you're gay in this society, that it has no bearing on your person, the less judgmental people will be. Fellow soldiers won't have to live in fear if they're "found out"... and if they're found out they're not going to be mocked/persecuted. That'll be very helpful socially and militarily by creating better camaraderie.

Quote:

Put just a couple of gay guys in the mix who are quite open about it, and someone (not saying I agree in anyway) is going to commit a hate crime.

When you say openly gay are you expecting them to be flirting with all the guys?

Similar to you not agreeing with it, soldiers can come to that point as well. In the long term, if someone attacked a guy for being gay, then that person's going to be in a world of hurt from the other soldiers who don't care who the gay guy is attracted to because in the long term it'll be the norm.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 12:46 pm

Comparing our military to other militaries is kind of unfair because our military actually has to do stuff besides drills and marching in parades.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 01:04 pm

Mr. Bomberman wrote:

I know you probably won't answer anyway then, but...

Ash Burton wrote:

So do we separate the gays from straights?

No. Plus, if they're going into the military they'd understand that they're not there for that shit. For the few idiots who can't keep it in their pants, a sensible person can just report the offenders, problem solved.

Ash Burton wrote:

Also, if my commanding officer is gay, what is to stop me from saying he harassed me?

The fact that you can be found out on your lie and shit will happen.

Ash Burton wrote:

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.

Which goes back to gay people enlisting would understand the military isn't the time or place to "get together".

We're the ONLY, and I can't stress that enough, ONLY major western country that does anything like this. Let's be progressive, people.

also itt: homophobes and people not letting people be who they want to be without fear or doubt

It all sounds good in theory, but unless you have served in a line company it is hard to comprehend what I am saying. A good example was a few years ago we had a Marine Lance Corporal in our unit out in Okinawa who was good friends with a Sergeant. The Sergeant lent the Lance Corporal his laptop and when he got it back he discovered emails the Lance Corporal had sent to his friend back home talking about how hot the Sergeant was and some other unsavory messages. Needless to say the Sergeant wanted to kill him. The Marine was discharged and disappeared off the Island in a matter of 48 hours (For his safety). You can judge it all you want, but it is just life in the military (Marines at least). We don't train or live with women, but if we did do you really think we would not try to sleep with them? Please. It all boils down to this, we are already close enough to each other in the military that we need a sense of space. I don't care if the guy next to me is gay, or an adulterer or likes to boink pigs. Just keep that shit to yourself. I'm not making them all out to be equal I am just saying I don't need to know you are gay.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 01:38 pm

I can understand your position, Ash, even if I don't agree with it. But to get back on topic, if it were something that would garner them benefits for their domestic partners/spouses, would you be for soldiers being able to denote their sexual preferences with the administration/red tape types while keeping mum about it on active duty?

Posted: Sep 23 2010 01:47 pm

Ash Burton wrote:

I was responding to your assumption that if we don't let gays in the military than our forces will crumble because we are scared to shower with gay men. It is absurd. My point is that allowing gays to serve openly does NOTHING to improve combat readiness, in fact, it hinders it. I am done with this argument though as I have neither the TIME, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide (excluding the freedom of gay people to openly serve their country), then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think gays are entitled to!

*Corrected for accuracy

If you're going to protect freedom for some and deny it to others, I suggest you put down your weapon and leave your post. You're not cut out for this.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

I appreciate the time you took to talk about ash, I know this affects you more personally than the majority of the people on the site myself included.

I think some of the problems you raised could well happen now. What's to stop you saying your commanding officer is gay and harassing you now?

I agree this is an awkward time to discuss this and it isn't exactly cut and dry "boom it's done" issue, however this does need to occur.

Now do you feel that once the war is more or less over or the troop problems are solved in one way or another that this can be passed.? Is there a future you see where it would be acceptable for openly gay soldiers to serve?

Posted: Sep 23 2010 01:57 pm

Rogue Hippo wrote:

Ash Burton wrote:

I was responding to your assumption that if we don't let gays in the military than our forces will crumble because we are scared to shower with gay men. It is absurd. My point is that allowing gays to serve openly does NOTHING to improve combat readiness, in fact, it hinders it. I am done with this argument though as I have neither the TIME, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide (excluding the freedom of gay people to openly serve their country), then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think gays are entitled to!

*Corrected for accuracy

If you're going to protect freedom for some and deny it to others, I suggest you put down your weapon and leave your post. You're not cut out for this.

Thanks for the tip. I'll let my command know this and start my discharge asap. In the meantime you can go piss up a rope. Anyways, the best advise for anyone who wants to get rights for them and their partner is to not enlist. It is the way it is, and people with a lot more knowledge than any of us have come to this decision, and I just happen to agree with it.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 01:58 pm

I think what are troops need are:

1) Bigger barracks
2) A Wii in every barracks

Problem solved. Unless gay soldiers insist on downloading the controversial "put the dick in the mouth" WiiWare game by Activision.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

I would figure gay people would have better taste in video games. I mean look at katamari, it's fantastic.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 02:02 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

I appreciate the time you took to talk about ash, I know this affects you more personally than the majority of the people on the site myself included.

I think some of the problems you raised could well happen now. What's to stop you saying your commanding officer is gay and harassing you now?

I agree this is an awkward time to discuss this and it isn't exactly cut and dry "boom it's done" issue, however this does need to occur.

Now do you feel that once the war is more or less over or the troop problems are solved in one way or another that this can be passed.? Is there a future you see where it would be acceptable for openly gay soldiers to serve?

I do think that maybe someday it can be worked out, but right now with all the stress our military is under is not the time. I voted for Obama and agree with most of his policies. However, the gay community also voted for him and he owed them, so this was just an act of goodwill on his part, and a mistake to try and take this on right now. If we ever get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, then maybe. Like I said, I personally don't agree with homosexuality, but who am I to judge? Noone, so in my opinion they are entitled to all rights that I have, however this is a big change to undertake at this time and it can not be rushed. At this time with so many other more important issues this seems as big a waste as questioning baseball players on steroids.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 02:16 pm

glycerine92 wrote:

Its a warped and twisted way of life - nothing that nature intended.

Hundreds of animal species displaying homosexual behaviour would like a word with you.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 02:56 pm

Nekkoru wrote:

glycerine92 wrote:

Its a warped and twisted way of life - nothing that nature intended.

Hundreds of animal species displaying homosexual behaviour would like a word with you.

Then produce offspring. The end.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 03:08 pm

Ash Burton wrote:

Nekkoru wrote:

glycerine92 wrote:

Its a warped and twisted way of life - nothing that nature intended.

Hundreds of animal species displaying homosexual behaviour would like a word with you.

Then produce offspring. The end.

They still make turkey basters, don't they? Science!

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

[quote="aeonic"]

glycerine92 wrote:

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.

If gay people want to be gay, super. This country flaunts itself as this great, open-minded paradise for everyone. I don't think America should be run off of religion. Unfortunately, whipping out two verses Hannibal Lecter knows isn't going to change my mind. If you believe the Bible, everyone is a sinner at birth, meaning everyone sins. Being gay is a sin. You say you are fine with this. You may not 'necessarily agree with it' but you do not disagree, which sounds like more compromise. Leaving out the verses that condemn and tastefully sprinkling the ones that sound nice isn't what Christianity is about either. I can love them as a fellow human, yes, and ostracizing them is not the answer, but it is a joke to think you are going to heaven as a gay, and it is foolish to assume you have no responsibility to confront these people about their problem as a fellow Christian.

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

glycerine92 wrote:

If gay people want to be gay, super. This country flaunts itself as this great, open-minded paradise for everyone. I don't think America should be run off of religion. Unfortunately, whipping out two verses Hannibal Lecter knows isn't going to change my mind. If you believe the Bible, everyone is a sinner at birth, meaning everyone sins. Being gay is a sin. You say you are fine with this. You may not 'necessarily agree with it' but you do not disagree, which sounds like more compromise. Leaving out the verses that condemn and tastefully sprinkling the ones that sound nice isn't what Christianity is about either. I can love them as a fellow human, yes, and ostracizing them is not the answer, but it is a joke to think you are going to heaven as a gay, and it is foolish to assume you have no responsibility to confront these people about their problem as a fellow Christian.

I realize that this potentially brings the topic in a direction that it is better off not going, but I really have a problem with that last sentence. I don't understand why you'd think you have a responsibility to confront anyone about something you don't agree with because your religion says it's wrong.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 09:13 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Marry someone with a gender neutral name like Pat, Sandy, or Brad.

Brad is a gender neutral name?

glycerine92 wrote:

If gay people want to be gay, super. This country flaunts itself as this great, open-minded paradise for everyone. I don't think America should be run off of religion. Unfortunately, whipping out two verses Hannibal Lecter knows isn't going to change my mind. If you believe the Bible, everyone is a sinner at birth, meaning everyone sins. Being gay is a sin. You say you are fine with this. You may not 'necessarily agree with it' but you do not disagree, which sounds like more compromise. Leaving out the verses that condemn and tastefully sprinkling the ones that sound nice isn't what Christianity is about either. I can love them as a fellow human, yes, and ostracizing them is not the answer, but it is a joke to think you are going to heaven as a gay, and it is foolish to assume you have no responsibility to confront these people about their problem as a fellow Christian.

I'm not sure whether this trolling is intentional or not, but I'm thinking everyone should just ignore it anyway.

aeonic wrote:

They still make turkey basters, don't they? Science!

Posted: Sep 23 2010 10:37 pm

[quote="glycerine92"]

aeonic wrote:

glycerine92 wrote:

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.

If gay people want to be gay, super. This country flaunts itself as this great, open-minded paradise for everyone. I don't think America should be run off of religion. Unfortunately, whipping out two verses Hannibal Lecter knows isn't going to change my mind. If you believe the Bible, everyone is a sinner at birth, meaning everyone sins. Being gay is a sin. You say you are fine with this. You may not 'necessarily agree with it' but you do not disagree, which sounds like more compromise. Leaving out the verses that condemn and tastefully sprinkling the ones that sound nice isn't what Christianity is about either. I can love them as a fellow human, yes, and ostracizing them is not the answer, but it is a joke to think you are going to heaven as a gay, and it is foolish to assume you have no responsibility to confront these people about their problem as a fellow Christian.

So you totally missed my point, so let me go and bold it.

you'll notice that I didn't say that I agreed with their choices

That's a different way of saying I don't agree with it, but I don't have to confront people about it because I'm not a fucking proselyte. The spiritual salvation of any given gay person is something they have to work out for themselves with God, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or nothing at all. If you want to get in someone's Kool-Aid about their decisions and try to convince them not to do it, that's your ball of yarn, cat, so take your paws and beat it. I'm done the theological discussion unless you want to PM me about it.

Now, back on topic, I'm still interested in hearing what Ash thinks vis a vis my question regarding whether or not he'd be open to gays informing brass of their orientation in order to gain benefits for their partners. As for fraternization, they should be held to the same standards as any other soldier, that's only fair.

Posted: Sep 23 2010 10:57 pm

As a service member, I would be fine with Homosexuals getting the same benefits that me and my wife receive. If it was "wrong" for me to love my wife, I would still do it. Just as I assume Gays should too. I think they deserve the rights we do.

I think the problem is though, we are at War, they have enough problems, this is a bad time to introduce a potential damaging aspect to the situation.

I could be wrong, but I think thats what Ash is trying to say. Now is not the time. Wait until the dust settles and then have at it.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Atma wrote:

As a service member, I would be fine with Homosexuals getting the same benefits that me and my wife receive. If it was "wrong" for me to love my wife, I would still do it. Just as I assume Gays should too. I think they deserve the rights we do.

I think the problem is though, we are at War, they have enough problems, this is a bad time to introduce a potential damaging aspect to the situation.

I could be wrong, but I think thats what Ash is trying to say. Now is not the time. Wait until the dust settles and then have at it.

I can agree with this. Although actual gay members of the army might not like it. I can't say for sure.

Posted: Sep 24 2010 01:18 am

From what I understand, the issue with DADT (aside from everything else, that is) isn't that gay soldiers feel the need to shout it from the rooftops or advertise they're gay (although soldiers of different races certainly engage in that behavior--when uniformity is drilled into your skull, you take your individuality where you can get it), it's that soldiers who are "caught" living with or dating another man/woman, or in any other questionable circumstances, are almost immediately and involuntarily released, regardless of what they want or how on the DL they kept their orientation.

Not advertising it is one thing; asking a solider to completely hide who he is and who he loves on penalty of being kicked out is something else again, and that's what gay soldiers are facing and hating.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Well are you with the others in that this should be passed just not now?