Originally posted by Annee
Don't you find it interesting that a couple posters object to not being accepted as they are?

Well, I accept them, that's part of living in a semi-free country (although these American Taliban soldiers like Far Archer who say they fight for freedom would love to make it less free). We're fighting a war against religious extremism, allegedly, but seem to have a few religious extremists who aren't fighting extremism, just fighting to make their brand more dominant. That should be unacceptable, and people like that should be discharged long before gays.

Originally posted by Golf66

Just seems Annie and some others think thier beliefes are ok, while those of others are not.

LOL

I'm going to cherish this statement.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Annee
Don't you find it interesting that a couple posters object to not being accepted as they are?

Well, I accept them, that's part of living in a semi-free country (although these American Taliban soldiers like Far Archer who say they fight for freedom would love to make it less free). We're fighting a war against religious extremism, allegedly, but seem to have a few religious extremists who aren't fighting extremism, just fighting to make their brand more dominant. That should be unacceptable, and people like that should be discharged long before gays.

Oh - just putting up a "mirror" - - (those who want to be accepted - - but don't want to accept others).

Totally agree with what you are saying.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...as long as there is another country to invade (there are still plenty), the military will have a purpose...

Originally posted by Sinnthia
That is just not true.

...yes, it is...

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Without a homeland and populace, you have no home state from which to invade.

...why do you think the usofa military has so many bases around the world?... cultural exchange?...

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Without a tax base, you have no military funding. Get that?

...i get that you're clueless on this issue.. o'well...

Originally posted by FarArcher
Yeah, that would be the same God. That one that states what is wrong and thusly never be right. The JAHWEH of Judiasm, Christianity, and likewise taught by Allah of Islam.

Funny how that works. This, this, this, and this are not only wrong, but abominations.

Never changed His mind, never will.

You mean the one that supposedly handed down the 10 commandments? The biggie being thou shalt not kill? I guess, being in SF, you see that as more of a suggestion, than a commandment, huh? I didn't see the asterisk next to it saying when it was okay though. Why do you act so strong and independent, yet base your life on what ancient "prophets" said that god told them (well, the parts you personally agree with I guess)? In your mind, it's really that simple, huh? Cut and dry, because you were TOLD what to believe, and you do so. No questions asked. You never consider the fact that evil men could have lied, in order to control the weak minded and fearful? If your god hates gays so much, why does he create them? I was born straight, the moment I hit puberty, my attraction to women was never a question. At no point was it a choice for me. Maybe men who feel it is a choice, find other men to be a tempation that they have to fight off in order to do right by god? That, or they're just completely ignorant.

You're a twinkie, with a much higher percentage risk of HIV/AIDS, then I don't want you where I may be exposed to your blood and body fluids.

Again, HIV/AIDS dies when it comes into contact with oxygen. That's why risk factors for HIV, are unprotected sex, sharing needles, and bad blood transfusions. Not contact with injured and bleeding people. That's not on the risk factor list, otherwise nobody would help car accident victims, etc. You don't know who's gay and who isn' t. Please give me a hypathetical, or real life situation in your experience, where another soldiers blood has entered your blood stream directly, without contacting air first.

And that doesn't even count the problems with their oversensitive BS. That can be the most half-***ed soldier in existence, yet any complaints would be because he's "special."

Do you really think some feminine, drama queen gay dude is going to join an elite combat unit, much less make it through the intense training program? DADT being lifted isn't going to cause men with high estrogen levels to join the military, nor will it cause the military to give them special treatment. The ONLY thing it does is make it to where they aren't discharged simply because they are gay. All other requirements will be the same for them as anybody else. I'm sure you know that too, it just doesn't help your position as much as painting a picture of a bunch of sissies in pink camo jumping out of helicopters, then crying about a broken nail when they hit the ground. That's ridiculous.

And what about gay female soldiers? That's kind of the opposite of the spectrum. Many of them are tough, much tougher than straight female soldiers. Doesn't make sense to discharge them, using your logic. They aren't exposed to HIV at all either, so god must love them even more than straight men.

I don't need the headaches, and a lot of other combat soldiers would quickly come to the same conclusion.

Most of the soldiers who have been discharged for being gay, were in administrative or support positions.

You can call me intolerant, ignorant, biased, prejudiced, archaic, overly religious, or any other demeaning terminology you want, but I'm not the one practicing an intentional aberration.

Really not trying to demean you. I do not agree with the decisions our leaders make. I feel our government is bought and paid for, and uses our military to enforce corporate interests in exchange for "campaign contributions". That said, I do respect honorable soldiers, and respect you for your service. You were probably raised in a strict, religious household, and that's all you know. Personally though, I find any kind of religious extremism that promotes more hatred in the world, to be a cancer among humanity. I hope you have an experience in your life, that helps you see that too.

Of course then - there are those original commandments. They're really much better. But - hey - lets just shove them under a rug or something.

The Ten Commandments of Solon - the great Athenian born somewhere in the 600's BCE

I. Trust good character more than promises.
II. Do not speak falsely.
III. Do good things.
IV. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
V. Learn to obey before you command.
VI. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
VII. Make reason your supreme commander.
VIII. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
IX. Honor the gods.
X. Have regard for your parents.

Reference was made toward "Thou shalt not kill," and not to judge.

This is what makes things so difficult discussing such matters. Both parties have to have a basic familiarity with the subject matter, and when one party is very ignorant whereof they speak, it's just so difficult to be patient - something I don't come by naturally.

Thou shalt not kill is only used in the King James translation, and when one goes back to the Aramaic and later Greek texts, the more accurate translation is, "Thou shalt not commit murder."

Big difference. One might also note, if they knew diddly squat about the New Testament, the Roman Centurion who became a Christian. Note that a Centurion was a professional soldier, often required to do some rather distasteful deeds, and further examination of the texts show clearly a separation of dues. Including duty to the state.

The other thing suggesting thou shalt not judge is a joke. I'm not judging and making a call all on my own. It wasn't me who said it was an abomination. No judgment on my part required. It's stated not once, or twice, but multiple times that this is against nature and that the Creator finds such an abomination.

You have a problem with that - take it up with Him when you meet. I'm sure your viewpoint is going to sway the Almighty.

It was suggested that I was told what to believe. I'm a grown man, with a mind of my own, and I can make my own determinations. To even suggest such a thing is a cheap shot because I personally think your acceptance of such behavior is disgusting.

OK. I'm ignorant, and you're nasty. So? You don't have to be around me, but I don't have to be around that kind of behavior when my life is on the line. If you don't have standards, you don't have ****.

HIV/AIDS is killed by oxygen? Yeah, well, oxidation is the bane of many microbials, including TB, but as I said, I'm not going to hang around someone who may have that crap either. A risk is a risk, is a risk.

I'm all about risk minimizing. Combat holds enough risk and it's just dumb to increase the lot by even incremental levels.

Female gays? Hey - I'll fight alongside any female who can whiz up a wall as far as I can with both feet flat on the ground, and can match me as a sperm donor. Besides, those female gays and I have something in common - we're interested exclusively in the same thing.

To attempt to minimize my beliefs, you suggest I somehow had a strict upbringing based upon a strict religious household.

In turn, I suggest that you have no moral compass, your toleration for nasty, aberrant behavior is beyond any moral level whatsoever, that your situational ethics has no floor, and your ability to determine right from wrong is indiscernible.

It is this level of tolerance for all things aberrant that is a cancer on humanity, and has already cost the lives of millions and millions of innocents.

No, I don't have to accept aberrant behavior around me in a combat unit where we must have high standards among personnel, standards that we all have in common, standards that can be relied on through thick and thin.

I don't have to "judge."

The Great Judge is fully capable of doing that all on His own.

He has His house, His realm, and I temporarily have mine.

I'll no doubt get flack for this post, but I'm going to post it anyway.

I'm a US Army veteran. I was in for 6 years, and I've been out for 9. I have experience with the things I'm about to entail about why allowing gays in the military to be open about their orientation is a bad thing.

1. Barracks life. You have a bunch of kids working and living together 24 hours a day. Most of them are between 18 and 25. In combat units, they're all male. Testosterone runs high in the military, much like it does in professional sports. Now add alcohol to that, which is very prevalent in military barracks. You have fights, it happens, and they're usually over the dumbest things you can think of. Guess what's going to happen when some straight drunk soldier gets belligerent with, and punches, some gay soldier? He's going to be accused of targeting the guy because of his orientation. Now it's a hate crime, when in fact he was just drunk and would've punched him no matter what.

2. Corrective action. When a soldier does wrong, their NCOs correct them. Sometimes that means a counseling statement, sometimes it means corrective training such as push-ups or, for example, bringing a razor and shaving cream in a bag with them to formation for a week because they forgot to shave one morning. What's going to happen when a gay soldier who's a screw-up gets tired of doing corrective training? He's going to file a complaint on his NCO saying he's being treated unfairly because of his orientation, when in fact he's just a screw-up and is being treated like all screw-ups.

3. Promotions. Through E4, promotions are made by the chain of command and the criteria include time in service, time in grade and, when a waiver is given for TIS and/or TIG, merit. E-5 and E-6, in the Army at least, are accomplished by going before a promotion board, attending a leadership school and attaining a certain number of promotion 'points' which are based on certain things such as fitness scores, education, marksmanship training and others. E-7 and above are made at the congressional level. As for those waivers I mentioned for E-4 and below, units get waiver allocations each month. This tells them how many soldiers they can promote using the waiver for TIS or TIG. Let's say 3 soldiers are submitted to the unit commander for a waiver promotion from E-2 to E-3. The waiver allocation comes down and there's only 1 allocation that month. What most commanders will do is get those soldiers' counseling files from their first line supervisors, pull their fitness test records and their marksmanship range scores. The soldier who has the best combination of counseling file, PT score and marksmanship is the one who'll end up with the waiver. Guess what's going to happen, in this scenario, if the 2 E-2s who don't get the waiver are gay and the E-2 who does get it is straight? Again, complaints because the gay soldiers feel they're discriminated against.

So you're probably thinking, none of this matters because the investigation will clear anyone who isn't doing wrong from any wrongdoing. Truthfully, it might, but that's not the point. Complaints like these are a morale killer and are extremely destructive to unit cohesion. Not only that, EO representatives are taken away from their regular job (EO is an additional duty in the Army, not a full-time job), and others have to cover for them while their doing any investigation, which further drags down morale because others are being overworked. Supervisors start to fear the complaints by the minority, and thus become guilty of reverse discrimination against the others, further reducing morale. Soldiers start to resent each other, and they're having to do more than someone else because their leaders are afraid of having a complaint filed against them by the other person. Which leads to more arguments, more fights and even lower morale.

Morale and unit cohesion are huge in the military. How do I know this will happen? It's already happened once, when women were integrated in. No, I'm not saying all women in the military are guilty of it, but they're held to seperate standards than the male soldiers are, and when there's a crap job that no one wants to do in an integrated unit, 99 times out of 100, it's going to be a male soldier who's made to do it. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, and I'm not against women being in the military, I'm just stating what happens; and it will get worse in an open orientation military. The mixed gender issues are not nearly as prevalent as same gender issues would be, because most people are wired to not fight with the opposite sex.

Are gays under more stress when forced to hide their orientation? I'd say they likely are, yes. However, if there's an option of having a few soldiers under additional stress because they can't 'be themselves', or having the entire military under additional stress if they can, I think the choice is obvious. Unfortunately, there is no case where everyone can be in harmony here. If you're gay and want to serve but can't keep your orientation personal while doing so, then serving isn't for you.

Nothing in this post is meant to be offensive to anyone, and if something is, my apologies.

Originally posted by FreeSafety
I'll no doubt get flack for this post, but I'm going to post it anyway.

I'm a US Army veteran. I was in for 6 years, and I've been out for 9. I have experience with the things I'm about to entail about why allowing gays in the military to be open about their orientation is a bad thing.

1. Barracks life. You have a bunch of kids working and living together 24 hours a day. Most of them are between 18 and 25. In combat units, they're all male. Testosterone runs high in the military, much like it does in professional sports. Now add alcohol to that, which is very prevalent in military barracks. You have fights, it happens, and they're usually over the dumbest things you can think of. Guess what's going to happen when some straight drunk soldier gets belligerent with, and punches, some gay soldier? He's going to be accused of targeting the guy because of his orientation. Now it's a hate crime, when in fact he was just drunk and would've punched him no matter what.

I get your point - - and I am fully aware how young most of the military is.

But - can not agree.

Its the same argument against Native Americans - Blacks - Women.

You can not suppress a minority for the benefit of the majority.

I think you answer the question in your first paragraph. There will be fights and they are over the dumbest things. Its just one more thing.

Life must progress - - - not stagnate in fears - prejudices - and ancient ideologies/taboos.

Originally posted by AnneeI get your point - - and I am fully aware how young most of the military is.

But - can not agree.

Its the same argument against Native Americans - Blacks - Women.

You can not suppress a minority for the benefit of the majority.

I think you answer the question in your first paragraph. There will be fights and they are over the dumbest things. Its just one more thing.

Life must progress - - - not stagnate in fears - prejudices - and ancient ideologies/taboos.

edit on 12-1-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

I agree with you that we can't tolerate prejudices and unsubstantiated fears and we should definitely not enable them. The soldiers and leaders who do discriminate against anyone for anything should be held accountable. Discrimination is despicable.

What I'm saying is that gays will receive special treatment because of their orientation. Any time something doesn't go a soldier's way, they look for reasons why. Many people, especially young people, are unable or unwilling to look at their own faults, and they look for faults in everyone else when they don't get their desired result. For many gay soldiers who are open about their orientation, the first thing they're going to think is the one they feel is the most obvious. In their case, that will be "it's because I'm gay". When a complaint is filed, the investigators and the subject of the complaint are charged with proving the negative that their orientation isn't the reason why. Sometimes, things are arbitrary. You have to choose one person to do something, and you chose that one, there was no reason behind it. Now prove you didn't choose him because you were picking on him. How do you do that? Without a pattern of that behavior, no pattern can be established, but need there be a pattern to establish discriminatory behavior? Discriminatory behavior can occur as an isolated event. It's impossible to convince someone of intent when they're presenting a straw man's argument.

Racial discrimination is pretty rare in the military. One reason is because the military is so diverse, when it is really happening it's hard for it to get by unnoticed. In other words, someone above or below the one discriminating is going to catch on pretty quick and it will be handled. Also, racism is pretty taboo now. Those who do harbor racist sentiments keep them to themselves, mostly.

Sexual discrimination has pretty much just been accepted as that's how it is, but morale has taken a hit. Females can't serve in combat arms units, that's life. In an integrated unit, the males will be made to do the heavy lifting, carry the larger and heavier weapons, do the dirty work, et cetera. It's part of life, that's just how it is. However, having served in both all-male units and in integrated units, I can say that morale is generally higher in the all-male units. In all-male units, leaders don't fear repercussions for who they choose to do a detail, which makes them choose more fairly. Guys aren't trying to impress other guys, and one guy can't do a little flirting to get someone else to do his work. Unfortunately that stuff does happen in integrated units. Not everyone is guilty of it, of course, but it only takes one to bring everyone else down.

Originally posted by FreeSafety

What I'm saying is that gays will receive special treatment because of their orientation. Any time something doesn't go a soldier's way, they look for reasons why. Many people, especially young people, are unable or unwilling to look at their own faults, and they look for faults in everyone else when they don't get their desired result. For many gay soldiers who are open about their orientation, the first thing they're going to think is the one they feel is the most obvious.

I get it - - but it is still an excuse.

I'd say most gays are fully aware of what this all means - - and simply want to be accepted.

I don't think it is the gay soldier who is going to be the problem. I don't think they want or are getting special treatment - - they are getting Equality.

The only people who keep claiming "special treatment" are the heteros. It seems to be their issue - not the gays.

Originally posted by AnneeI'd say most gays are fully aware of what this all means - - and simply want to be accepted.

I don't think it is the gay soldier who is going to be the problem. I don't think they want or are getting special treatment - - they are getting Equality.

I have to disagree. Gays are people like everyone else, and as such are just as fallible and faulty as everyone else. While I'm sure they do want to be accepted, I think many also see an opportunity to grab an upper hand, and this will certainly get them one. Like anyone else, why would they not want that?

I think they do want special treatment. I'm not saying that's exclusive to gays, though, I believe it's human nature. The special treatment may not be the sole motivation for it, but I'm certain they don't hate the idea that it could get them promoted quicker, put more money in their pockets and benefit them in other ways I mentioned before. Most people will say they don't want special treatment, but most can't even see it when they receive it. Of those who do, well it was about time they got something positive from that...

The only people who keep claiming "special treatment" are the heteros. It seems to be their issue - not the gays.

Very true. Reason being, why would the gays have a problem with something that benefits them? It's the heteros who have a problem with it because they're the ones who'll get the short end of the stick.

Originally posted by FreeSafety

I have to disagree. Gays are people like everyone else, and as such are just as fallible and faulty as everyone else. While I'm sure they do want to be accepted, I think many also see an opportunity to grab an upper hand, and this will certainly get them one. Like anyone else, why would they not want that?

You keep answering your own question in your posts.

People - - yes they are people. Not gays - - people. People are People.

They are as diverse in personality - likes - dislikes - wants - needs - brave - whiny - - etc - - - as all people are.

They are not a group think.

Heteros are the ones who want to make the sexuality an issue.

Originally posted by AnneeHeteros are the ones who want to make the sexuality an issue.

If this is true, why does DADT need to be repealed? Remind me again which side wants it repealed, or in other words, is making it an issue.

Forgive my explicit text, but I'm assuming we're all adults here.

Why not simply revise or delete section 925 article 125 of the UCMJ that prohibits sodomy among military members? At current, any member of the military is committing a violation of the UCMJ if they have oral or anal sex with anyone. It doesn't matter if they're gay, straight, married or single. The UCMJ strictly forbids it.

What I'm saying is even if DADT is repealed and remains as such, this article of the UCMJ still prohibits gay sexual relationships, as there can obviously be no male-female vaginal sex in a homosexual relationship. The UCMJ strictly forbids all over forms of, as it states, "unnatural carnal copulation" and "sodomy".

Now I realize that gay relationships, just like straight relationships, are about much more than sex. However, we know that sex is an important part of a relationship. I doubt that the gays would be happy to hear that they can tell everyone they're gay, but they can't have sex.

Chapter 15 of AR 635-200, which covers discharge for homosexual behavior in the Army, could be deleted as well. Likewise for any similar discharges in the Navy and Air Force regs.

So why not just remove this article of the UCMJ and the discharge for homosexual conduct and leave DADT alone? Why does anyone else need to know if someone is gay, if not for special treatment?

Originally posted by FreeSafety
So why not just remove this article of the UCMJ and the discharge for homosexual conduct and leave DADT alone? Why does anyone else need to know if someone is gay, if not for special treatment?

It's not for special treatment, it's to stop them from being fired if for some reason they just happen to admit to being gay. I can't see how that point is so elusive. It's not about being able to rub it in anybody's face, or engage in gay acts on duty. Are straight soldiers allowed to have sex with female soldiers on duty? No.

Originally posted by 27jd
It's not for special treatment, it's to stop them from being fired if for some reason they just happen to admit to being gay. I can't see how that point is so elusive. It's not about being able to rub it in anybody's face, or engage in gay acts on duty. Are straight soldiers allowed to have sex with female soldiers on duty? No.

My post included removing the chapter of the regulation that covers discharge for homosexual behavior. Therefore, keeping them from "being fired" for it. That will have to be done anyway, if DADT is repealed.

What I'm getting at is why does anyone need to ask anyone else their orientation, and why would anyone need to tell anyone else their orientation? Either way, it only serves to set up a discrimination complaint by the individual in question.

Why would a blind man need to know your skin color? Let's say that blind man is your employer. A promotion has opened up and you've applied for it. He comes up and asks you what color your skin is. Why's he asking? Likewise, why would one of the other applicants go up to him and say "hi sir, I'm John Doe and I'd just like to tell you I'm Chinese,"? What difference does it make unless it's going to affect the decision?

Make the asking or telling of one's orientation in any official capacity an administrative infraction of violating a regulation. Correct the soldier for it with the same methods as with other administrative infractions. Let the gays be gay, let the straights be straight. Who cares? Just don't let it affect how the soldiers are treated or who gets what.