DADT repealed

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

So you're saying then, that homosexuality is a genetic defect/disorder, like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis?

No, I'm not saying it's like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis.

 

[pourts]

Nobody's forcing you to gobble cock or accept homosexuality. But the expectation is that you get along with gays at work like the non-pork eaters have to get along with your pork-eating butt, and nobody tells the other what they can or cannot do outside of work. You don't want to be shut up, but you want the gays to.

"Gobble cock" is no longer acceptable in this new regime, it is offensive to gays. Please remember that in the future.
;-)

 

[insanebikerboy]

so if gays give you the heebie geebies- You should be feeling weird already.

No, he shouldn't. That's the point I think escapes most people. People don't have to like this even though it's the PC thing to do nowadays, and they shouldn't be ostracized for thinking so. Just because an opinion is different and against the apparent popular opinion doesn't make it a bad or wrong opinion.

I don't pretend to put words into pilot_man's mouth, but someone shouldn't have to be forced to shower or live with a gay person the same that a woman would not be forced to shower or live with a man, which is what I think he is trying to convey.

 

[Brunes]

No, he shouldn't. That's the point I think escapes most people. People don't have to like this even though it's the PC thing to do nowadays, and they shouldn't be ostracized for thinking so. Just because an opinion is different and against the apparent popular opinion doesn't make it a bad or wrong opinion.

I don't pretend to put words into pilot_man's mouth, but someone shouldn't have to be forced to shower or live with a gay person the same that a woman would not be forced to shower or live with a man, which is what I think he is trying to convey.

Lots of AD folks already are. DADT lets them keep their self righteous morals "intact" at the expense of the homosexuals in the berthing area/squad bay/lounge. It's not right to force someone else to lie so a everyone can sleep at night pretending that no one is gay.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Here is my take on this: Before the DADT was repealed, I didn't give a damn if you were gay, but I didn't want to hear about it. Now, I still don't give a damn if you're gay and I still don't want to hear about it. My main concern with DADT going away is that there will be those homosexuals in the military that will take this opportunity to throw it in everyone's face every chance they get, becasue they can. Then, when someone says something about it, they will raise gay hell because now they can. Note to gay people in the military: Keep it to yourselves and carry on. Questions?

 

[ghost]

... At no point would the military or society say it was correct to throw a woman in the middle of a bunch of naked men.

Already happens. There was a story in Stars and Stripes a few months ago about an American unit stationed on a Dutch FOB in Afghanistan. The Dutch have mixed gender facilities and the Americans (including women) had to use them. The women in the story said that is was no big deal. Everybody got used to it.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Already happens. There was a story in Stars and Stripes a few months ago about an American unit stationed on a Dutch FOB in Afghanistan. The Dutch have mixed gender facilities and the Americans (including women) had to use them. The women in the story said that is was no big deal. Everybody got used to it.

I find that very hard to believe that that would be no big deal.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Lots of AD folks already are. DADT lets them keep their self righteous morals "intact" at the expense of the homosexuals in the berthing area/squad bay/lounge. It's not right to force someone else to lie so a everyone can sleep at night pretending that no one is gay.

I think self-righteous is stretching it thin and a bit over the top. Again, reference my post you quoted. Someone has different values and morals than you doesn't mean they're self-righteous or wrong, it means they have a different look on life. If it is now going to bother them that they know of an openly gay person in their berthing/stateroom/barracks, so be it.


The ultimate conundrum going on here is who's morals are more important and at what cost? Does a gay man have to give up his rights to serve while not being able to recognize his sexual orientation? No, I don't think they do.

Does a straight man that has a moral conflict with living (not working, mind you, living with) a gay man have to give up his moral beliefs on homosexuality? No, he doesn't.

This doesn't even take into account religious beliefs, which cannot be discounted, otherwise you're blowing off an entire section of the military, and there are multiple religions that conflict with the idea of homosexuality.

So, where do we go from here? Who has to conflict their morals/beliefs to satisfy someone else?

 

[MAKE VAPES]

It is also not right to paint a picture like: "there is a very large population of homosexuals in the miltary"... I clearly see which side of homeplate you are swinging from, but let us be realistic... the population that DADT "liberates" (yyyyaaaayy!) inside the military is SMALL, the effect (even short term) is not small. Good for you, or good for the military? Riddle me that.

 

[Brunes]

I think self-righteous is stretching it thin and a bit over the top. Again, reference my post you quoted. Someone has different values and morals than you doesn't mean they're self-righteous or wrong, it means they have a different look on life. If it is now going to bother them that they know of an openly gay person in their berthing/stateroom/barracks, so be it.


The ultimate conundrum going on here is who's morals are more important and at what cost? Does a gay man have to give up his rights to serve while not being able to recognize his sexual orientation? No, I don't think they do.

Does a straight man that has a moral conflict with living (not working, mind you, living with) a gay man have to give up his moral beliefs on homosexuality? No, he doesn't.

So, where do we go from here? This doesn't even take into account religious beliefs, which cannot be discounted, otherwise you're blowing off an entire section of the military, and there are multiple religions that conflict with the idea of homosexuality.

I would call the desire to impose a set of mores on someone else for your own "comfort" (for lack of a better word) nothing thing less than self righteous.

–adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

They are both fully entitled to feel however they'd like. But when someone else's opinion forces a person who doesn't agree to act a certain way- That's not right. Things like murder, rape, theft-That's not really an opinion that those are bad. I think we can all agree on those. Homosexuality isn't wrong if you ask me. It's not for me...but who am I to pass judgement on someone else-I'm far from perfect myself.
So from my point of view- A moral (or religious) objection to a life style is is fine- Don't live that lifestyle. Don't hang out with others who do or condone it. But don't try to force others to act in accordance with your comfort zone...specially not when it requires them to lie about who they are.

On the flip side of that is what Ken_gone_flying was saying- Making a big spectacle of gayness at the unit isn't prudent either. But like I've said all along-Sex isn't really a "professional" topic...So it shouldn't be in the work environment anyways. And if it comes up-Be it straight, gay, with animals, or something else-It'll get dealt with.

It is also not right to paint a picture like: "there is a very large population of homosexuals in the miltary"... I clearly see which side of homeplate you are swinging from, but let us be realistic... the population that DADT "liberates" (yyyyaaaayy!) inside the military is SMALL, the effect (even short term) is not small. Good for you, or good for the military? Riddle me that.

You are right-There are not a huge number of discharges (13,000 total)...and that is a statistically tiny number. I would imagine the total number of gays still in the military is pretty small as well. If that's the tack you want to take- What are you worried about- There is a SMALL chance you'll have to worry about it.

Does nothing for me-but you budget concerns from before-DADT has cost in the neighborhood of 360 million dollars. And thats just the sunk money for training folks and then cutting them lose for something that doesn't affect any part of their job? Seems like a pretty weak move to me.

 

[Ducky]

While I don't support homosexuality here are just some things I feel are worth sharing. The only legitimate conversation I had with a gay dude was on a airline flight. The guy had been with his partner for 30 yrs. Prior to that he was married to a "beautiful wife with tig old bitties.". However, he felt something was missing from his life/marriage. He did not feel it was a choice and he said his life would have been much easier if he was straight. He hopes for the day that they find a cure.
He also explained that just like there are white trash and other people that cause a certain race or creed to be stereotypically branded, he could not stand the fags and ferries that just want to "flame everyone;" thus giving gays a bad rap. We also both shared mutual agreement that enemies of America should be dealt with swiftly and violently. This guy was a patriot in every sense of the word.

I guess my point is that aside from sexual orientation they are normal people looking to live the American dream. They are not a separate sex, race, or creed; and hopefully it stays that way. Finally, not all whant to rape you and your kids. That would make them a pedophile not a homosexual.

The repeal will be taken in stride and successfully implement. Those looking to flame everyone hopefully will be dealt with like any other sex offender.

 

[pilot_man]

Fine, I'll bite on your 'Muslim' analogy. We in fact DO make Muslims/Jews sit in rooms with pork. I've been in a number of DFACs where pork in multiple forms was served. As you've been so kind to point out, we don't make them eat it.

This situation is no different. We're putting people in the situation where they MIGHT have to shower with homosexuals. This is akin to having Muslims/Jews sit in the dining facility with pork all around them. We are not making you have sex with these gay men, just as we aren't forcing Muslims to eat pork.

Lastly, if you want to look down on me because I'm waiting to go to OCS, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. I'm choosing to be as professional as possible, and I would expect no less from anyone else.

All right, bad example, now if only the pork could look your way in the shower with a nice sly glance, or prance around your stateroom in a speed o. That would be just fabulous wouldn't it? You know what, I don't give a shit. Have it your way. I'll just go to the XO and ask to change rooms, and since I'll be in a two man, it will be easy. You want to prance around with all of your hair dressing buddies, have at it. I look down on you because you wrote "rant." That's it.

As far as the rest of it goes, what does repealing DADT do, it lets one minor group be comfortable, while making another uncomfortable. Repeal it and let me still be comfortable, then fine. I cant' wait until some cross-dresser wants to wear the opposite sexes uniform. That will be fabulous. What do you do then?

 

[insanebikerboy]

I would call the desire to impose a set of mores on someone else for your own "comfort" (for lack of a better word) nothing thing less than self righteous.

Not wanting to live or shower with a gay guy is not imposing one's morals on another, no one said the gay guy couldn't be gay.

Don't hang out with others who do or condone it. But don't try to force others to act in accordance with your comfort zone...specially not when it requires them to lie about who they are.

I think you may be misunderstanding the argument I'm making. I'm not for DADT, I could give a rats ass who you fuck, I'm looking down the road when I have Seaman Timmy, who grew up a Southern Baptist and believes homosexuality is morally and religiously wrong, and Seaman Jimmy who grew up and is openly gay, and they are in berthing together. You say if someone is against being gay, don't hang out with gay dudes or don't condone it. How do you solve the conflict of the people LIVING together though? That's a big difference than just working a 9-5 with a person and saying adios at the end of the day.

In that example, do I tell Seaman Timmy to suck it up and deal with it while I let the Seaman Jimmy go about his day? To me, that means I just told Seaman Timmy to go fuck himself and I consider the Seaman Jimmy more important. That just made Seaman Timmy violate what he believes in and has rights to (the whole religious freedom thing right?). Or do I maybe tell Seaman Jimmy to tone it back a bit, maybe move him to a different berthing, which could open a whole 'nother can of worms.

That's what I'm getting at. How would you deal with that?

 

[MAKE VAPES]

You are right-There are not a huge number of discharges (13,000 total)...and that is a statistically tiny number. I would imagine the total number of gays still in the military is pretty small as well. If that's the tack you want to take- What are you worried about- There is a SMALL chance you'll have to worry about it.

Does nothing for me-but you budget concerns from before-DADT has cost in the neighborhood of 360 million dollars. And thats just the sunk money for training folks and then cutting them lose for something that doesn't affect any part of their job? Seems like a pretty weak move to me.

Im curious on your source of 360 million dollar information being in 'the big easy' and all (wiki???). Regardless, that's 20 million a year, a drop in manpower's budgetary bucket. Day before cruise pregnant chicks likely cost more. The hate and discontent potential, affect on recruiting, readiness blah blah blah that I keep refering to will cost way more.

Besides we could change federal law around so as to reduce prosecution of lots of other violations too, MAYBE CONSENTUAL INCEST! It is after all between concenting adults right??? It's the way they were "born" right??? It could be a "gene"... ok, im just pot stirring now, I'll stop. Im trying to make a case to a generation with generally deaf ears... getting nowhere.

This dinosaur will go into his retirement cave soon enough to scoff at the cute, intellectual, earth loving, egalitarian little mammals scurrying about humping one another's asses. God forbid one of you little fuzzy mammals works for me before then, I will eat you immediatelly. BWAH!

 

[phrogdriver]

They BOTH need to deal with it. Now YOU need to figure out a solution, LEADER and OFFICER of sailors or Marines. The only difference is that now you know there's a problem and before you didn't.