Originally posted by The17sss
Dude, I understand that. It's natural human nature for strait dudes to have reservations about serving in combat with homosexuals-
:wtf:
I really don't understand the debate on this issue. It's a civil liberties issue and has no bearing on effectiveness, etc. There are already gay servicemen in the military, and you don't see any problems with effectiveness. What hurts effectiveness is drubbing out gay servicemen with great records simply because they told someone a core component of their identity.
The political right is trying to argue that straight guys knowing that their mate is gay is somehow going to change how they operate in the field? The craziest part of this is that you already have straight men in units with straight women... where exactly is the claim to distraction there? Somehow gay men are more forward than straight men are toward women?
To impose a policy whereby gay soldiers - all of whom are willing to die for their country - have to actively hide who they are because some other idiot in their unit is prejudiced? Patently un-American.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Personally, if I were the president of the United States, I'd ban all vegans from the military. Just because.
If I were in the service, I know it would probably bring down my morale if I was out in the field worried about whether the cook back at mess was secretly passing off veggie tofu burgers as red meat. Would really impact my effectiveness. Clearly that's not my problem, and warrants us banning vegans entirely to avoid that kind of scenario. And anyone else I don't like, too.
Silky Johnson
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Any port in a storm.
:stongue: :stongue:
CaliCard
Well, I am in the service and I am straight, but my opinion is that it does not matter. The DoD DID poll a large number of service members across all four branches of the US military. Really, I don't care about someone's sexual orientation. What matters to me is can the Marine/soldier/sailor/or, ugh, airman do his/her job to the best of his/her ability? I really don't care who someone chooses to sleep with at the end of the day as long as they have my six when we are facing the enemy. I have known several friends who came out once they were done with their active duty and most people were very surprised, which goes to show that sexual orientation doesn't make a difference. If someone volunteers to serve, they should be evaluated on their service, not their sexual preferences.
Renegade
If you oppose gays serving openly in the army then you're probably a terrible person. I think the only reasoning behind it must be the idea that all gay men are hyper-sexualised and would go all weak-kneed and be rendered incapable of performing their duties if they so much as caught a glimpse of a nice, butch marine in their unit. THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE:
Zewad
The system wasn't broken. Why did they fix it? Gays are allowed to serve in the military just as straights are and in neither case are you ever to disclose your sexual preference.
I run across guys with "flaming" tendencies and suspect they might be gay. But I don't ask nor do I care. I may suspect they are gay, but as in current policy I am not allowed to ask. Hell, I could be wrong, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and think nothing of it.
Allowing it to be open is unnecessary. This workplace is not the normal population of people and is nothing like society.
The issues I see come to what Will talked about. The housing, insurance, formal functions etc... The federal gov does not recognize same sex marriages so their partners will not be afforded any of those privileges.
With this new law gays might technically allowed to bring their "partner" to a formal function, but it certainly won't be received well. If they have any sort of "flaming" traits then god help them.
I work in a total male workplace in combat arms. I have deployed to multiple places and lived in the and in close quarters with guys. I have seen many a cock-and-ball in my day. One example is for our piss tests... We are required to have a guy be the "watcher" to go with the guy to the latrine to watch him piss. This will obviously be a point of contention.
My bottom line is that everybody is allowed to serve now. Let's not bring unnecessary drama to unit cohesion. In more units than not, this won't be an issue(like the AF and Navy), but in combat arms in the Marines and Army it will be.
Moongoose
quote:
Originally posted by Zewad
The system wasn't broken. Why did they fix it?
because people asked even when they weren't supposed to, people didn't tell just like they were supposed to but god kicked out of the army anyway. The system was broken. It got fixed. Its how its supposed to work.
tubularbills
out of curiosity, were you one of the folks who got the survey?
I hope for the sake of everyone, both hetero, and homo, that everyone's just respectful and professional about it. Leadership needs to stand tall and tell everyone (both hetero and homo) that they won't tolerate any unecessary drama and/or harassment.
the problems are going to arise when those flaming homosexuals make it ALL about being gay. it won't be received well (as zewad mentioned). because being in the military isn't about YOU, it's about your SERVICE.
example 1:
"OMG THIS IS MY BOYFRIEND" says the homo with glitter spewing out his mouth, accessorizing and flaming everywhere. this will not get you respect and/or "good" attention.
example 2:
"hey so this is my boyfriend" says the homo like any normal human being, like any straight says "this is my girlfriend". no glitter. no flames. just a regular dude. while it may not be 100% open arms for everyone, at least it'll give you more respect than the flaming homosexual.
odds are, very few people will come out (like chris mentioned). but if it gets more folks a relief off of their shoulders that they won't be fired, then I think that's great for them. who knows, now that the stress is off their backs, they'll perform their job better?
Moongoose
You know i simply have to ask...do you guys think that most gay people are the flaming gays like you see in the tacky tv shows? Whats this sudden fear of an influx of flamers into the military?
tubularbills
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
You know i simply have to ask...do you guys think that most gay people are the flaming gays like you see in the tacky tv shows? Whats this sudden fear of an influx of flamers into the military?
No, i don't believe that. and i've never come across anyone who was like that in my career. well, maybe one or two....but i just dismissed it and could have cared less and moved on in life.
so, no, i don't think there will be rainbows everywhere. might run in to it here or there....but no, not everywhere.
along those same lines, i don't see this as de-masculine-izing (:wtf: ) the military. think about this: there's what....2-5% of the US population is gay? ....well, we have about 310,000 folks in the AF....so, assuming the same ratio, that's...what....6,200-15,500 folks? that's pretty small numbers relatively speaking. and say 50% of those are the stereotypical tv-flaming homosexuals....that's less than 5,000 (on average)....spread out across the globe? even smaller.
PivotTechno
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Zewad
The issues I see come to what Will talked about. The housing, insurance, formal functions etc... The federal gov does not recognize same sex marriages so their partners will not be afforded any of those privileges.
With this new law gays might technically allowed to bring their "partner" to a formal function, but it certainly won't be received well. If they have any sort of "flaming" traits then god help them.
The bigger issue in the litigation on it was support groups. I don't think anyone is asking to bring their gay partner to a ball, but the fact that straight partners have access to various support services provided by the military while gay couples have to lay in hiding seems a pretty big distinction.
