# Obama to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell



## Nolerama (Jan 15, 2009)

*Barack Obama to end US army's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy towards gays *

* President-Elect Barack Obama will end the "don't ask, don't tell"    policy towards gays in the military as part of moves to sweep away remnants    of the Bush era. 
*


  			 				 				 					 			 		By Alex Spillius in Washington 
			 			Last Updated: 6:15AM GMT 15 Jan 2009


[Article]


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 15, 2009)

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a remnant of the Bush era?  Really?  Huh.


----------



## grydth (Jan 15, 2009)

The policy is a relic of the *Bill Clinton* era; it was adopted in 1993.


----------



## Carol (Jan 15, 2009)

Is there anyone other than me that thinks its curious that Don't Ask Don't Tell was President Clinton's first major move upon taking office, and now it is shaping up to be President-Elect Obama's first major move in office?


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2009)

Sounds like a plan. As Barry Goldwater said about gay troops "They don't have to _be_ straight. They just have to _shoot_ straight."


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2009)

grydth said:


> The policy is a relic of the *Bill Clinton* era; it was adopted in 1993.


 

Actually, the policy was the culmination of a few things, not the least of which was the military's absolute schizophrenia over this particular (non) issue. Look up "queen for a day" if you want a real laugh...

THe government had concluded as early as 1957 that homosexuality didn't constitute any kind of security risk, and over the years there had been a few court challenges to the DOD "heterosexuals only" policy. Additionally, in 1992 the GAO had their own investigation, and reached the same conclusions as the 1957 report. Bill Clinton had campaigned on simply opening the military to gays, but there was wide resistance, and "don't ask don't tell" was a compromise, crafted by Colin Powell. The moves toward it, however, began during Bush I's administration, and even before then......


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 15, 2009)

elder999 said:


> ...Bill Clinton had campaigned on simply opening the military to gays, but there was wide resistance, and "don't ask don't tell" was a compromise, crafted by Colin Powell. The moves toward it, however, began during Bush I's administration, and even before then......



Agreed. It's not a Bush legacy. Clinton raised the issue, but backed down. It wasn't so much a policy as a retreat.


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2009)

It's very Catch-22. 

"We have to kick out the homosexuals and revoke their security clearances."
"Why?"
"Because they're security risks."
"Why are they security risks?"
"Because if anyone found out we'd kick them out and take away their security clearances."
"..."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

Of ocurse Obama has gona back on SO MANY THINGS he said he was gonna do that we dont really know if he will follow through on this one,

judging by his record of saying and doing, it prob wont happen

I hope it does tho.

We had 2 gay dudes on my ship, one never had a problem, even though everyone knew, the other one fell up a stairway a couple dozen times.

wanna guess the difference?

one never made it anyone's business, the other one climbed into someone's bunk un-invited.

I still say that if you really want to be FAIR- you have to tell everyone, male and female that they have to share bathrooms, showers and bunk space.

If men are gonna be told they have share facilities with someone that might find them sexually attractive, then you should be willing to tell females the same thing.

fair DOES mean equal after all, and equality isnt always nice


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 15, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Is there anyone other than me that thinks its curious that Don't Ask Don't Tell was President Clinton's first major move upon taking office, and now it is shaping up to be President-Elect Obama's first major move in office?



In Clinton's case I think it was an overture. It made him look bold, but he caved pretty quick. I thought it was ingeniously strategic that he could could simultaneously appeal to equal rights and military conservatism. 

That said, I suspect sixteen years later that many Americans have changed their minds on this issue and would like to move forward. I was listening to some pundits on CNN yesterday, saying, _Oh, this is the wrong time. It's a distraction. It'll disrupt the unit. Yadda yadda._

How exactly does one distract an in-country soldier contending with IEDs, insurgents, terrorists and the like? I suspect they're pretty focused.


----------



## Carol (Jan 15, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> In Clinton's case I think it was an overture. It made him look bold, but he caved pretty quick. I thought it was ingeniously strategic that he could could simultaneously appeal to equal rights and military conservatism.
> 
> That said, I suspect sixteen years later that many Americans have changed their minds on this issue and would like to move forward. I was listening to some pundits on CNN yesterday, saying, _Oh, this is the wrong time. It's a distraction. It'll disrupt the unit. Yadda yadda._
> 
> How exactly does one distract an in-country soldier contending with IEDs, insurgents, terrorists and the like? I suspect they're pretty focused.



As the aunt of an 18 year-old serving in the Army National Guard, I concur.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 15, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Is there anyone other than me that thinks its curious that Don't Ask Don't Tell was President Clinton's first major move upon taking office, and now it is shaping up to be President-Elect Obama's first major move in office?


Typical politicans... the ole "in and out"... 



Twin Fist said:


> I still say that if you really want to be FAIR- you have to tell everyone, male and female that they have to share bathrooms, showers and bunk space.
> 
> If men are gonna be told they have share facilities with someone that might find them sexually attractive, then you should be willing to tell females the same thing.
> 
> fair DOES mean equal after all, and equality isnt always nice


So we're going to try for the ole' Starship Troopers scene? Sorry, but I don't think we're facist enough... but we're getting there.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 15, 2009)

This is great news. Based on my experiences with officers and cadets, I foresee few problems (though I'm sure there will be a few high-profile unfortunate incidents).

As to Bill Clinton, he improved things...but not nearly as much as he should have.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

tellner said:


> Sounds like a plan. As Barry Goldwater said about gay troops "They don't have to _be_ straight. They just have to _shoot_ straight."



It personally doesn't bother me......the Theban Sacred Band apparently were fine enough soldiers.......there's no reason homosexuals can't serve more than adequately (since they already have been this entire time).

It's all irrelevant anyway, as the left will gut the military before it's all said and done.


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

Personally I'm glad to see the policy go.  A good soldier will make a good soldier regardless of their orientation, and an unwanted sexual advance is an unwanted sexual advance, regardless of whether the aggressor is of the same gender as the victim.  

However, I do think that this was too much of a nod to the Clinton election.  Remember "Its the economy, stupid" and all the hopes that were on the Clinton presidency, and what his first step would be?  His first step was "Don't ask don't tell" and seen as a softball.  Sound familiar?

Its too orchestrated.  This isn't Barack Obama taking control, this is Rahm Emmanual pulling the strings.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2009)

Being gay in the forces was legalised in 2000 here and it really doesn't bother anyone. Accomodation is in single rooms or flats so what anyone gets up to is their own business. If same sex partners get married they are entitled to a married quarter just the same as a male/female couple. 
The things causing the biggest problems are the same for everyone, back to back tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, poor kit, government etc etc. No one cares about other peoples sex lives probably because the squaddies are fairly amoral to start with when it comes to sex lol!


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 16, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Its too orchestrated.  This isn't Barack Obama taking control, this is Rahm Emmanual pulling the strings.



I'm waiting for the fecal matter to hit the fan with Obama (Rahm Emmanuel)... I just know it's going to happen, regardless of the fact that I voted for the man. There got to be a skeleton or ten in his closet. He's a US President.

I fully agree with you Carol. A good soldier is a good soldier, regardless of sexual orientation. And an unwanted sexual advance is an unwanted sexual advance, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'd like to think that we've advanced enough as a society to not really put someone's sexual orientation out there as a deciding factor on their validity in a life, unit, and military.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 16, 2009)

I can't shoot him, he's faaaaabulas! I mean, look at that bum.  Oh, hold my rifle, I need to calm douwn! 

Maybe that's what they're afraid of.  How could they fight a war if everyone was having erotic fantasies?  I mean, the army has gone to hell after letting women in, hasn't it.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 16, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> I can't shoot him, he's faaaaabulas! I mean, look at that bum. Oh, hold my rifle, I need to calm douwn!
> 
> Maybe that's what they're afraid of. How could they fight a war if everyone was having erotic fantasies? I mean, the army has gone to hell after letting women in, hasn't it.


 
TLL,

Here's the real deal, dudes are afraid of being treated by other dudes the same way they treat women.


----------



## crushing (Jan 16, 2009)

Do men and women in the military still have separate showers and latrines?  Why was that practice started in the first place?


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

crushing said:


> Do men and women in the military still have separate showers and latrines?  Why was that practice started in the first place?



Depends on where you are my friend.  My cousin's husband is on his fourth tour and he's shared a cardboard box (makeshift latrine) with men and ladies alike.


----------



## searcher (Jan 16, 2009)

Makes me wonder how many more of the groups that helped him get elected is he going to tick off BEFORE he gets sworn in next week.


And many of us thought Wild Billy C. changed his opinions a bunch.   This guy is going to set a record.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 16, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> TLL,
> 
> Here's the real deal, dudes are afraid of being treated by other dudes the same way they treat women.


But what is wrong with being covered in baby oil and whipped by someone in a leather g-string?


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> But what is wrong with being covered in baby oil and whipped by someone in a leather g-string?



Well, skin eruptions for one.  Sunflower oil works much better...plus its a great massage oil


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2009)

Is that really a concern for military brass?  I mean, do the expect the 1st squad to set up a gay bath house after securing a building, or a pilot to be distracted by phallus shaped roofs or something?

Found this btw, been floating around a while. Seem to fit.


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Is that really a concern for military brass?  I mean, do the expect the 1st squad to set up a gay bath house after securing a building, or a pilot to be distracted by phallus shaped roofs or something?



No, its more a concern about alienating potential recruits, that are often hesitant and nervous about joining the military to begin with...and are often from areas that have traditionally not held a progressive view of homosexuality.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 17, 2009)

Yes.  It makes sense.  Be not afraid of bullets, nor bombs, but cover your *** in case of buggery.  How stupid.
Sorry, I just find the policy asinine.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2009)

It's not the policy.  It's the idiots who need the policy.  This is about marketing.  Carol's post stabbed the issue right to the heart.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

no, she really didnt. It may be true, in fact i think it is true that marketing comes into play, but that isnt the reason for the ban.

having been in the service, 2 branches in fact, I can speak to this prob better than ANYONE can that hasnt been

and here is the rub, and sorry, but i am gonna say it.

If you havnt been in the military, you really ought to zip it on this subject, since your knowledge is too limited to make an educated decision about it

it doesnt matter what we LIKE to think, as elections have undeniably proven the fact is that most people still disapprove of homosexuality on a very basic level.

thats a given, you can argue it, but the facts speak for themselves.

it is a given that life in the military is a close quarters life.

Serve on a ship sometime. We had 18 people living in a 30X20 room. Over 120 people shared 4 showers and 4 toilets.

Now how many of you would tell the military to *force* a woman into that environment with men?

If you are not willing to FORCE women to live co-ed with men, you are being hypicritical by saying men should be forced into that environment with openly gay men.same with women and lesbians.

You can say "get over yourself, they dont want you" all you want. You can say "misbehavior will be punished, people just have to behave"

Are you willing to FORCE women to share quarters with men?

if not, then you need to re-think your stance on this subject.


me? I am ok with the ban going away. But then I am ok with making women live co-ed with men. ONE set of standards, ONE set of rules, ONE set of showers, ONE set of bunks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2009)

As I was in our military I guess I'm entitled to an opinion then! Frankly it's all a fuss about nothing, as I said before we've had gays legally in the military for 8 years now and if someone is telling me that the American service people can't be as adult as British service people about this I'd be very surprised.

About ten years ago there was a survey done in the services asking about attitudes to homosexuality, the results were that the men didn't approve of male homosexuality but weren't bothered by it as long as they weren't approached by gays. On the subject of female homosexuality they weren't bothered by it as long as they could watch. Seriously! the top brass were a bit discomforted by this but they should have known what squaddies were like!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

Hey irene
I believe that about the british military

but we aint talking about the British

different country
different culture

like the British and Australian rules for alcohol on ships.

it works for you guys, wouldnt work for us.


----------



## Joab (Jan 17, 2009)

The military is a conservative organization, anyone who is homosexual should be quiet about it. They often live in bunks, sleep very close to one another, take showers close together, having a gay nearby would make some uncomfortable. In some branches, like the Marine Corps, the gay would likely get his butt kicked every day. Serve honorably but be quiet about your homosexual orientation I say.


----------



## Carol (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Serve on a ship sometime. We had 18 people living in a 30X20 room. Over 120 people shared 4 showers and 4 toilets.
> 
> Now how many of you would tell the military to *force* a woman into that environment with men?
> 
> If you are not willing to FORCE women to live co-ed with men, you are being hypicritical by saying men should be forced into that environment with openly gay men.same with women and lesbians.



Not the same thing.  If you go with the NIH figures that 3% of men and 1.5% of women are gay, then out of those 120 men, chances are 116 of them are attracted to women.

No, I didn't serve (not that I didn't try...LOL)


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

No Darlin, it is exactly the same thing.

Why wouldnt most women serve in co-ed berthing? they would be uncomfortable getting dressed next to someone that MIGHT see them as a sexual object

it is exactly the same with men and gay men

in fact it is worse, cuz at least with women and men, the attraction is natural. many people, feel at a very basic level that homosexuality is in fact unnatural.

so you got DOUBLE the feeling of un-ease

I gotta disagree Carol


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> No, I didn't serve (not that I didn't try...LOL)



well, if you are still interested in supporting the troops, I am pretty sure I still have some of my uniforms around here someplace.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2009)

Joab said:


> The military is a conservative organization, anyone who is homosexual should be quiet about it. They often live in bunks, sleep very close to one another, take showers close together, having a gay nearby would make some uncomfortable. In some branches, like the Marine Corps, the gay would likely get his butt kicked every day. Serve honorably but be quiet about your homosexual orientation I say.


 
I have to say something about men at this point...how typical arrogant of them to think they are attractive in the first place! You find this with the guy with the beer belly and bad breath trying to chat a girl up and not understanding he's just not attractive. Oh and of course men and women can't be friends nor can gay men be friends with men because well, they'll just want to get them all in bed right? Wrong!
Sharing accomodation doesn't mean a gay man is thinking anything sexual about his room mates at all, and do you know something his room mates accept that! The gay man isn't a stranger to them, he's someone who's been through the same training, been shot at by the same enemies, watched the same friends die and be blown to pieces. That makes a stronger bond between them than any sexual attraction. In fact its that bond between comrades that makes life difficult for them 'outside' with their families.

TF why wouldn't it work for you? Are your service people less mature, less intelligent? I can't believe that. Your troops have no problems with gays when serving with ours.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> No Darlin, it is exactly the same thing.
> 
> Why wouldnt most women serve in co-ed berthing? they would be uncomfortable getting dressed next to someone that MIGHT see them as a sexual object
> 
> ...


 

What happens when men and women serve to gether and share accomodations etc is the opposite of sexual attraction. They stop seeing each other as members of the opposite sex and they just become colleagues. I've seen a few relationships break up because of that. Well look at marriage, after a while if you're not careful you start taking each other for granted etc. It's not a joke that sex stops in a marriage after 2 years lol!


----------



## Carol (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> well, if you are still interested in supporting the troops, I am pretty sure I still have some of my uniforms around here someplace.....



Now its my turn to swoon


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

irene
does the british military force women and ment o share berthing space on ships?




Tez3 said:


> What happens when men and women serve to gether and share accomodations etc is the opposite of sexual attraction. They stop seeing each other as members of the opposite sex and they just become colleagues. I've seen a few relationships break up because of that. Well look at marriage, after a while if you're not careful you start taking each other for granted etc. It's not a joke that sex stops in a marriage after 2 years lol!


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> . It's not a joke that sex stops in a marriage after 2 years lol!


 

Pretty sure it is. A_ joke_, that is... Sex just keeps getting better, or it isn't any kind of marriage, is it? Or any kind of _sex_, anyway.... :lol:

That said, I think you're probably right. While I was denied the opportunity to serve myself, I often work in close contact with members of the military. From what I've seen of them-while there probably would be instances of people being attracted to each other and acting on it, just as I'm sure there are in the British military-for the most part, the job and protocol would tend to get in the way of such things.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2009)

My guess is that if the ban does go away, our men and women in the military will be professional enough to handle it.  Whether or not it's a good or a bad decision, it will work out.


----------



## tellner (Jan 17, 2009)

Sixty years ago we had exactly the same fears about *shudder* Negroes serving in the same units and _*living in the barracks*_ as White Men. There was the same twaddle about unit cohesion, the suitability about the Scary Other of the day for new duties, questions about whether a White Man was capable of taking orders from someone Colored and so on.

Somehow the military survived. 

If soldiers are really so emotionally fragile that they can't function professionally with anyone who isn't just like them we need a better class of soldier.


----------



## crushing (Jan 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> What happens when men and women serve to gether and share accomodations etc is the opposite of sexual attraction. They stop seeing each other as members of the opposite sex and they just become colleagues. I've seen a few relationships break up because of that. Well look at marriage, after a while if you're not careful you start taking each other for granted etc. It's not a joke that sex stops in a marriage after 2 years lol!


 
I thought most affairs start with colleauges working and spending a lot of time together.  I've know several people that have married people with whom they worked after they developed a closeness at work.

I don't know how the joke/myth of sex stopping after marriage got started.  Hollywood?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> irene
> does the british military force women and ment o share berthing space on ships?


 
Forced? No, why would they be? There's different messes for different people, there's the females messing, male, senior ranks, officers. Officers and junior ranks don't share accomodation so there's always discrimination in the forces. Gays and lesbians use the respective accomodation with no problems. People simply don't care enough to worry about it. 
In the Army, on exercise the men and women share accomodation, showers if they have them etc, everyone tends to be so tired and focused on work I don't think they care much about who they sleep next to.
I think some people perhaps are focusing on sex way too much! perhaps theres something in fact in the old wartime saying that the Yanks were _oversexed,_ over paid and over here? goodness knows the British squaddie isn't backward when it comes to sex but they tend to look for it outside the workplace, there's a saying that you don't mess on your own doorstep that is mostly adhered to, so gay or straight they tend to look for their fun outside of their units.


----------



## Joab (Jan 17, 2009)

I stand by my original point, the military is a conservative organization, and those who are gay should be quiet about it. Branches of service like the Marine Corps will never tolerate gays, the gays will get their butts kicked every day, it won't work. If you want to serve, go ahead and serve, just be quiet about your sexual orientation if your gay.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

Joab said:


> I stand by my original point, the military is a conservative organization, and those who are gay should be quiet about it. Branches of service like the Marine Corps will never tolerate gays, the gays will get their butts kicked every day, it won't work. If you want to serve, go ahead and serve, just be quiet about your sexual orientation if your gay.


 
I don't know if you've served or are serving, Joab, so I don't know where you're coming from, but  this Marine's experience says otherwise. I saw the film about him, and they interviewed members  and former members of his unit, and before he "came out" _everyone knew he was gay_, and they mostly just didn't care, _because he was a good Marine._ They relied upon him, and they knew that they could, and that was all that mattered.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Forced? No, why would they be?  there's a saying that you don't mess on your own doorstep that is mostly adhered to, so gay or straight they tend to look for their fun outside of their units.



different country, different culture

what works for you wont always work for us

pretty sure i said this before


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

no one but Carol addressed my point, so in typical TF fashion, I am gonna keep asking it.

If you support forcing men and women to serve,live,shower, whatever with OPENLY gay men and women, do you support FORCING women and men to share berthing, showers, toilets, etc?

if not, why not, since it is the exact same situation




maunakumu said:


> My guess is that if the ban does go away, our men and women in the military will be professional enough to handle it.  Whether or not it's a good or a bad decision, it will work out.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2009)

I've met numerous military officers who are in the military in part as a lifestyle choice. They want a certain structure and sense of purpose and adventure and respect that the military life gives them, and have been raised in such an environment. (I shared an office with such an individual when I taught at West Point.) They are very patriotic and come from a long line of officers and have a certain noble view of what a life of military service is, and this doesn't match their notion of tradition and conservative values. To them I say: Adjust.

When I taught at the Naval Postgraduate School during the early part of the Clinton years this issue came up. A Marine Corps major said it to me very plainly:

_"Don't matter to me if they're straight or gay. They're gonna do what I tell 'em to do either way."_

I believed him. My guess is just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there won't be any gay-bashing of the Navy corpsman. A team is a team.

It worked with racial and gender integration...heck, before that there were issues of religious and social-class integration, esp. of the officer corps. This is a good thing.


----------



## tellner (Jan 17, 2009)

Joab said:


> I stand by my original point, the military is a conservative organization, and those who are gay should be quiet about it. Branches of service like the Marine Corps will never tolerate gays, the gays will get their butts kicked every day, it won't work. If you want to serve, go ahead and serve, just be quiet about your sexual orientation if your gay.


 
They said the same thing about:

Jews, Catholics, Blacks  and women in their day. The Services adjusted. The first thing that a Marine is supposed to be able to do is obey orders. If a couple dozen are sentenced to 3-5 in a military prison for disobeying orders and aggravated assault against fellow Marines during time of war the rest will figure it out pretty quickly. 

Again, if the Marines can't obey simple orders and can't refrain from committing violent crimes against their brothers and sisters in arms they shouldn't be wearing the damned uniform.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> If you support forcing men and women to serve,live,shower, whatever with OPENLY gay men and women, do you support FORCING women and men to share berthing, showers, toilets, etc?



Are men and women given separate facilities based on shared sexual interests, or shared anatomy (plus tradition)? My understanding is that the big thing this does in the service is to protect women from sexual predation by their heterosexual male colleagues. Homosexual women have a low rate of sexual assault on heterosexual women.

Many colleges are heading toward co-ed restrooms and even dorm rooms. (Yes, at many schools men and women can share a room non-romantically.) The world _is _changing in that way.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

ever been in the military tellner?

i am betting no.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

sure it is, and I long for the day, but it is BY choice.

are you willing to FORCE it on women to share showers, toilets and bunks with men?





arnisador said:


> Are men and women given separate facilities based on shared sexual interests, or shared anatomy (plus tradition)? My understanding is that the big thing this does in the service is to protect women from sexual predation by their heterosexual male colleagues. Homosexual women have a low rate of sexual assault on heterosexual women.
> 
> Many colleges are heading toward co-ed restrooms and even dorm rooms. (Yes, at many schools men and women can share a room non-romantically.) The world _is _changing in that way.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2009)

They do that in the field when necessary. When it isn't necessary, they don't. Why is this a problem? It's like the arguments that if a man can marry a man then a man can marry a goat. The proposed change is only to end the discrimination against heterosexuals. I don't understand why they can't do that without forcing men and women to shower together. I understand that that matches your personal sense of fairness, but then, discrimination against homosexuals violates mine.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> no one but Carol addressed my point, so in typical TF fashion, I am gonna keep asking it.
> 
> If you support forcing men and women to serve,live,shower, whatever with OPENLY gay men and women, do you support FORCING women and men to share berthing, showers, toilets, etc?
> 
> if not, why not, since it is the exact same situation


 
I don't think it's quite the same situation because a homosexual can blend in better.  I seriously doubt you'd even know if the guy next to you in the shower was gay.  And if you did know the guy was gay, he'd be an idiot to act on anything.  That said, I think it'll be a non-issue.

Now, as to forcing men and women to shower together.  I don't support that.  I support forcing the hot ones to shower with me!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

arnis,
military service isnt a right, it is a preveledge.

no one is entitled to be allowed to serve. Including gays

there are plenty of reasons someone isnt allowed in. Flat feet, bad hearing, being over wieght, drug use, etc etc etc

in reality, gays are not being descriminated against, they ARE allowed to serve, under certain conditions. Just like you can get in if you have taken drugs, you just cant take them any MORE.

same same

that being said, I still support the lefting of the ban, i want ONE standard, ONE set of rules

fair means equal

you are either down with fairness or your not. there is no "just a little unfair" just like there is no "just a little censorship" or just a little pregnant


----------



## crushing (Jan 17, 2009)

tellner said:


> Sixty years ago we had exactly the same fears about *shudder* Negroes serving in the same units and _*living in the barracks*_ as White Men. There was the same twaddle about unit cohesion, the suitability about the Scary Other of the day for new duties, questions about whether a White Man was capable of taking orders from someone Colored and so on.
> 
> Somehow the military survived.
> 
> If soldiers are really so emotionally fragile that they can't function professionally with anyone who isn't just like them we need a better class of soldier.


 
The same fears?  I haven't heard much about attraction and sexual tension between the races from 60 years ago.  Maybe race and sexual orientation really aren't the same thing?

Even though it is obviously a very different thing, this still shouldn't prevent gays from being able serve in the military.  But at the same time, I can understand people's,straight or gay, conerns about sleeping in close quarters and showering with those that they may find sexually attractive or those that find them sexually attractive.  People, like all other animals, are wired to spread their genes and nature has created incredibly strong reactions to various stimuli to help push the process, maybe even stronger than baseball stats and thoughts of Roseanne Barr (well, baseball stats anyway).


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2009)

Serving in the military isn't a privalege or a right, *its a job* for goodness sake.

It's arrogant to assume that if you serve with a gay person they are going to try something on with you.

TF, how are our cultures so different that we are more tolerant than you are then? Why can't you accept gays serving in the forces and we can? 
Why all the stuff about forcing men and women to shower together? The British Military accomodation for the most part now (training establishments have four man rooms but still have private showers) has single rooms with en suite bathrooms (the rooms have double beds btw) so no one is forced to shower with anyone, the single rooms without en suite bathrooms have showers with cubicles so no one has to see anyone shower. All toilet facilities are private too. On exercise and on ships it's no different, what sort of armed forces do you have when eveyone has to shower together?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 17, 2009)

tellner said:


> Sixty years ago we had exactly the same fears about *shudder* Negroes serving in the same units and _*living in the barracks*_ as White Men. There was the same twaddle about unit cohesion, the suitability about the Scary Other of the day for new duties, questions about whether a White Man was capable of taking orders from someone Colored and so on.


 
From an episode of The West Wing...



> *"The West Wing: Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (#1.19)" (2000)*
> 
> _Major Tate_:   Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
> _Admiral Percy Fitzwallace_:   You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
> ...





> If soldiers are really so emotionally fragile that they can't function professionally with anyone who isn't just like them we need a better class of soldier.


I agree with your conclusion. But I think the argument made against gays in the military is a spoiler. It'll disrupt the unit. It's bad for morale, bad for security. And on and on... When Clinton raised this issue years ago, my brother-in-law, a very conservative person employed by the a US defense contractor, made what I thought was a very interesting argument:

"The US Military works for The President. If he says, 'Yes,' to gays in the military, that's what they do."


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> arnis,
> military service isnt a right, it is a preveledge.
> 
> no one is entitled to be allowed to serve. Including gays
> ...


 
Getting hired by a company isn't a privilege either, but if you refuse to hire them for being a woman or being black, you can bet your a** you'll be in for a lawsuit.  Being overweight or flatfooted or using drugs are all legitimate reasons to keep someone out of the military.  There really isn't a particularly legitimate reason why gays can't serve.  Sure, you don't have the right to serve in the military, but that doesn't mean they can discriminate for whatever damn reason they choose.  I mean, the military's the government, after all.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

ah, but shouldnt the MILITARY determine what is a legit reason for disallowing someone the priviledge of serving?

better them than some bleeding heart social scientist.

If the military says "bad idea" about something related to the military, i tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

like i said, one rule, one standard, ONE military.

not one for men, one for gays, one for women, one for..........



RandomPhantom700 said:


> Getting hired by a company isn't a privilege either, but if you refuse to hire them for being a woman or being black, you can bet your a** you'll be in for a lawsuit.  Being overweight or flatfooted or using drugs are all legitimate reasons to keep someone out of the military.  There really isn't a particularly legitimate reason why gays can't serve.  Sure, you don't have the right to serve in the military, but that doesn't mean they can discriminate for whatever damn reason they choose.  I mean, the military's the government, after all.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ah, but shouldnt the MILITARY determine what is a legit reason for disallowing someone the priviledge of serving?



Absolutely _not_. Civilian control of the military is essential.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

control isnt the same as setting standards


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ah, but shouldnt the MILITARY determine what is a legit reason for disallowing someone the priviledge of serving?
> 
> better them than some bleeding heart social scientist.
> 
> ...


 
And they are in control of determining what is a legitimate reason, but frankly, if the military decided to revert to "blacks can't serve" or "women can't serve", I think you'd agree that there'd be an unconstitutional discrimination there.  Even though the military's in control of setting the standards, they still can't make prejudicial ones.  So if it's wrong for them to bar blacks or women from serving in the military, why is it legitimate for them to bar gays from serving?  What interest is being served by the distinction other than reinforcing prejudice?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> control isnt the same as setting standards


 
No, but when those standards set by the military administration run contrary to the civilian control, civilian control trumps, as it should.  And by civilian control, I don't mean just some group of "bleeding heart liberals", I mean the elected powers, i.e. the President and Congress.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

Gays are not barred from serving





RandomPhantom700 said:


> why is it legitimate for them to bar gays from serving?  What interest is being served by the distinction other than reinforcing prejudice?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Gays are not barred from serving


 
Nope, quite right. They're just barred from _"being gay."_


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2009)

They're not barred from serving if they agree to waive more of their First Amendment rights than other servicemembers must.


----------



## geezer (Jan 18, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Nope, quite right. They're just barred from _"being gay."_



Bottom line:_ "Don't ask, don't tell" is not working._ I suspect President Obama will address this issue. If not, sooner or later, someone will. And, whatever our personal fellings are, we'll get over it. Look, I was raised to be as homophobic as the next redneck. I've also learned to deal with it. At various times in my life, I've had to share sleeping quarters and bathrooms with both girls and gays. I learned to deal with it. In fact it was _no big deal._ And when homophobic young recruits learn that the gay and lesbian soldiers they serve with "have their back" and will risk their lives to save their butts in combat, same as any of their other "brothers", this BS will all go away real fast.

And no, I'm not a vet. Tried, but didn't pass the physical because of bone fusions in my ankles. Didn't matter how fit, strong, or willing I proved myself to be. So go ahead and discount my opinion in advance.

Oh, and Tez... Keep on reminding us about how the British do things. You guys also eliminated slavery a generation before we did -- after the scandalous horror of the "Zone" case. As a buddy of mine, a history teacher here (who actually happens to be a _Canadian citizen_) often likes to point out, we Americans would probably be a bit further along if we'd lost the damn Revolutionary war!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

geezer said:


> Bottom line:_ "Don't ask, don't tell" is not working._



it works well for everyone BUT bleeding heart social engineer wanna be's

even though i think it is crap.

Arnisdor,
EVERY service member gives up that freedom of speech crap. There are LOTS of things that military people cant talk about. It's part fo the gig


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2009)

Yes, but gay service members give up more than do others. Some people can introduce their girlfriend to their CO...others can't.


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2009)

TF, I'm sorry that your tender delicate feelings are hurt when you're forced to be around people who are different than you. But we really don't have time for your narcissistic social engineering. Catering to irrational fears, superstitious prejudice and girlish panic attacks at the thought of not being the Lord of Creation just isn't in the cards anymore.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2009)

In this day and age having an argument like this is surely ridiculous! Using excuses like sharing showers is feeble, these days the only people who share showers are people who want to, sleeping together (as in sleeping not a euphemism for sex) is hardly a problem as far as any sexual connotations are concerned, the snoring and farting usually see to that! 

Our club attended a martial arts seminar down south a while back and the Sensei of the host club put us all us, ten of us male and female in sleeping bags on his sitting room floor, bless him he fed us all too. We shared the bathroom too, singly. Students here share accomodation either in the accomodation provided or in houses they've rented. They'll be male, female, gay and lesbians.  No one cares as long as no one pinches others food or doesn't pay the rent. it's about priorities.

That's the thing though isn't it? Concentrate on what's important, mates regardless of sexual orientation, who are there for you when it counts. Those bullets whizzing past your ear or mortars being dropping on you don't care whether you fancy men or women.

and really does it matter it someone of the same sex fancies you? if an approach is made and you don't fancy them back all you have to do is politely decline the same as you would with a person of the opposite sex. Personally I don't fancy women but if one was to fancy me I'd take it as a compliment, it's nice to be thought of as fanciable to my mind. There is no reason to suppose that gay people force their attentions on anyone, I think actually they are more likely to be more reticent, it's the 'macho' type men that tend to force their attention on women if anything.

It's really just a matter of respect, respect people and treat them as you would want to be treated, it works as well in the Forces as anywhere else maybe even better as service people tend to have better self discipline!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 18, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> In this day and age having an argument like this is surely ridiculous! Using excuses like sharing showers is feeble, these days the only people who share showers are people who want to,


 
Don't take my participation in this as Anti Gay or as Supporting TF in any way, cuz I dont care if you like fish or steak, its your business, but I have to point out, that Unless things in the U.S. Military have changed Radically since the late 80s and early 90s you aren't given a choice to share showers; they tell you "Shower" and you do so with 50 other guys in your barracks.  At least thats how it is durring Basic and AIT in the Army at Ft. Benning and NO you don't have a choice about it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Don't take my participation in this as Anti Gay or as Supporting TF in any way, cuz I dont care if you like fish or steak, its your business, but I have to point out, that Unless things in the U.S. Military have changed Radically since the late 80s and early 90s you aren't given a choice to share showers; they tell you "Shower" and you do so with 50 other guys in your barracks. At least thats how it is durring Basic and AIT in the Army at Ft. Benning and NO you don't have a choice about it.


 
Then it's time your forces were dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century!
Rooms here in basic training are shared but the showers and toilets are still in cubicles for privacy, nor are the recruits yelled at to shower, it's assumed they have the sense to know when to without being ordered to. They aren't much good as soldiers if they have to be told stuff like that.
Attitudes and training shouldn't be so old fashioned that it fails to train modern soldiers.

http://www.army.mod.uk/training_education/training/9992.aspx


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 18, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Rooms here in basic training are shared but the showers and toilets are still in cubicles for privacy, nor are the recruits yelled at to shower, it's assumed they have the sense to know when to without being ordered to. They aren't much good as soldiers if they have to be told stuff like that.
> Attitudes and training shouldn't be so old fashioned that it fails to train modern soldiers.


 
Well, the toilets are in cubicles.  The showers are semi-divided. But as far as being told to, you gotta understand,_ over here_ they arent taking tea and crumpet breaks and all... they run em hard morining to night... if they didnt tell these guys GET UP AND S!S!S! most of them would try for that extra 10 minutes of rack time before formation.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, the toilets are in cubicles. The showers are semi-divided. But as far as being told to, you gotta understand,_ over here_ they arent taking tea and crumpet breaks and all... they run em hard morining to night... if they didnt tell these guys GET UP AND S!S!S! most of them would try for that extra 10 minutes of rack time before formation.


 

Really? We train the hardest soldiers in the world, that'll be the SAS, the SBS, the Parachute Regiment, The Highland Division, The Royal Marine Commandos (the ones who hitchhike on Apache helicopters to save their mates), the Kings Division, The Gurkhas etc etc. Here they don't need to be told because they get up in time, it's called self discipline! 
Doesn't American military instructions say not to play cards, drink or fight with British soldiers because they'll get beaten and drunk under the table every time? :ultracool

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MY9O_Wr3rpE&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1bg7OnFWeEA&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NGz0JybyV38

the Paras idea of tea and crumpets.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgoP37DVNSs&feature=related
The MMA record of the PTI reffing the milling
http://www.mmauniverse.com/fighters/SS354


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

a long, non contributary ad hom that's been reported

but
i will respond

1- LEARN TO FRIGGIN READ TELLNER

i have said all along that WANT the ban lifted. Or did you miss that? ir, as i suspect, you dont really care what i or anyone else thinks, so long as you get to spew your ****? Go back and read Sparky, i have said, at LEAST 5 times that i think dont ask dont tell is pretty retarded and needs to go

2-we? who is "we"? you got a mouse in your pocket or something?


3- you never answered me when i asked if you had ever bothered serving in uniform. i will take that as a "no"

4- you got slapped around alot as a kid didnt you?




tellner said:


> TF, I'm sorry that your tender delicate feelings are hurt when you're forced to be around people who are different than you. But we really don't have time for your narcissistic social engineering. Catering to irrational fears, superstitious prejudice and girlish panic attacks at the thought of not being the Lord of Creation just isn't in the cards anymore.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2009)

Well as things are getting a bit heated on here perhaps this will calm things down a bit,
Ladies and Gentlemen I present the Royal Dragoon Guards.(tankies)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kPaRQ1BYjzU&feature=PlayList&p=C257771C162D6B0A&index=9


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist, I know how to read. I know how to reason. Thanks for asking. 

What you are showing here is a lot of fear. You are afraid, for no good reason, of anyone who is different than you. You are afraid of all Muslims. You are afraid of anyone whose positions on economic policy aren't just like yours. You're afraid of men who sleep with men and women who sleep with women. You are afraid of anyone who votes for a different Party than you do. 

I know I'm missing a few.

So what do you want? You want laws to punish people who take jobs that you don't want them to have because they are people you are afraid of.

You want to make war against over one and a half billion people because you're afraid of their religion.

You were happy when your President destroyed the rule of Law and announced that he had Supreme Power to do whatever he wanted. You cheered when he took away our civil rights. You supported every act of torture and every war crime because you were afraid. And he made you feel safe.

We spent at least one and a half trillion dollars on the social engineeering programs that were designed to make you feel happy and comfortable. We trashed the Constitution and threw away the Bill of Rights as an expermiment in pandering to your feelings. We invited the witch-burners into the halls of government because they were your sect and made you feel safe and happy.

And the minute someone punctures your happy bubble and shows that your cult or sect isn't perfect you react with blind rage. 

And you accuse the rest of the world of dangerous unwelcome social experiments.

Lord have mercy, I hate to think of what you'd support next in your (to quote a famous Republican) "vain search for absolute security".


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

Does your head hurt from the overly tight tin-foil beenie?

and those mind reading 101 classes you took? get your money back dude 

seriously. You are not smart enough to read my mind.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 18, 2009)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
*
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.*

*Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator
*


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 18, 2009)

*.
*


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 18, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well as things are getting a bit heated on here perhaps this will calm things down a bit,
> Ladies and Gentlemen I present the Royal Dragoon Guards.(tankies)
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kPaRQ1BYjzU&feature=PlayList&p=C257771C162D6B0A&index=9



I love this little clip. I've seen it before.

Thanks.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

where's that pic of the bunny with a pancake on it's head when you need it?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 18, 2009)

this one?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2009)

One of the original reasons for discrimination against homosexuals was that they were subject to blackmail if anyone found out about their sexual orientation. I'm glad that that is no longer a general concern.

I'm not in favor of social engineering _via _the military, but looking at the number of states that have passed gay marriage/civil union laws, and the number of companies offering domestic partner benefits, the point is, the military may now be falling behind society.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

arnisador said:


> looking at the number of states that have passed gay marriage/civil union laws,



2

everywhere else, every single time, it gets voted down

which i also think is crap. let them get married, let the poly's get married too. doesnt bother me


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> this one?



i LOVE THAT PICTURE!!!!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I love this little clip. I've seen it before.
> 
> Thanks.


 
Well it was a good try to lighten the atmosphere wasn't it?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

nothing works like a bunny witha pancake on it's head.

Do they have pancakes in england?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> nothing works like a bunny witha pancake on it's head.
> 
> Do they have pancakes in england?


 
British pancakes are more like crepes, and served for dessert, or as part of a dinner, rather than breakfast.

They have pancakes similar to ours in other parts of Europe and Great Britain, they call them "griddle cakes" or some kind of _scone_, and I think they do have them for breakfast-I know that I did in Scotland, and they weren't bad, though they don't have maple syrup; they use jam.....

Bunnies, of course, are almost _everywhere_....:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

that is one WIDELY dispersed mammal


----------



## Joab (Jan 19, 2009)

A lot of people have the idea in this forum that not wanting openly gay people in the miltary is the same as not wanting racial minorities and the like in the military. I understand the arguement, but I think there is a difference. Homosexuality is a behavior, race is not. And while it could be argued that one doesn't choose his sexuality (Like any major public University's psychology department, thinking University of Washington for certain from personal knowledge) acting it out in a way that makes it clear you are a homosexual to everyone around you and offending people is definitely a choice. When in the military be quiet about your sexual orientation if its homosexual. It's a conservative organization, very macho, especially in branches like the Marine Corps. Just be quiet about it, not to hard to do I say.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

Hush now, there will be none of that "common sense" stuff around here.


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 19, 2009)

Joab said:


> A lot of people have the idea in this forum that not wanting openly gay people in the miltary is the same as not wanting racial minorities and the like in the military. I understand the arguement, but I think there is a difference. Homosexuality is a behavior, race is not. And while it could be argued that one doesn't choose his sexuality (Like any major public University's psychology department, thinking University of Washington for certain from personal knowledge) acting it out in a way that makes it clear you are a homosexual to everyone around you and offending people is definitely a choice. When in the military be quiet about your sexual orientation if its homosexual. It's a conservative organization, very macho, especially in branches like the Marine Corps. Just be quiet about it, not to hard to do I say.



I think your heart is in the right place, but your view on homosexuality is not.

Not all homosexuals fit the common stereotypes we see in our media. Most certainly most homosexuals in the military, as well as any other field of study or work, don't act out on their sexual urges at work, because like the rest of humanity, they're decent human beings with respect for others.

Besides, there are some VERY macho gay males out there in the same respect that there are some VERY effeminate straight guys out there (think "metrosexual").

I think that to deny someone entrance to the military because of their homosexuality is wrong in the same way that denying someone entrance to the military because of their skin color is wrong. That's because that's a fundamental element as to who that person is. It's not a compulsive action or predatory nature that needs to be squashed; it's just that person.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> that is one WIDELY dispersed mammal


 
We didn't have rabbits in this country until the Normans brought them over after the Norman conquest. They were brought over and bred for food.
Griddle cakes are made by cooking on a griddle or flat pan similiar to a heavy frying pan on the top of a stove. The Scots will eat all sorts of things for breakfast, black pudding is one of the best!

It may be the history of our armed forces that enable it to absorb people of any type easily. The army was thought to be the scum of the earth until relatively recently. It wasn't a respectable thing to be in unless one was an officer. Until the late 1960s it was common for judges to give someone found guilty of a crime to be given the choice of prison or the army. The Navy is very old of course going way back to 900CE so there's little thats new to it, the RAF had women in from the very first day and has always been technical minded rather than discipline mad so it's a easy place to work if you are 'different', I know a chap, died recently, who was gay but had been an RAF pilot during the war and won the DFC. We owe him much. Did his fellow aircrew know he was gay? I don't know but do you think it would have mattered really if they had, life expectancy was 87 flying hours and priorities were sorted very quickly. It would have been a luxury that would have to wait for peacetime to worry whether fellow piolts fancied men or women, they'd be lucky if as many of them were only 19 or so if they ever found out what their sexuality was.


----------



## Joab (Jan 19, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> I think your heart is in the right place, but your view on homosexuality is not.
> 
> Joab: My view of homosexuality is that it is a sin because the Bible clearly says it is. But were not a theocratic nation, however, the military is a very conservative institution, and those who are gay should be quiet about it.
> 
> ...


 
Joab: Again, the military is not an institution conducive to individuality. It is a place to conform and be a team player. The person may very well have a certain sexual orientation, but he can keep quiet about it. And he or she should if they are in the military.  

Regarding race, in the marine corps everyone is the same color green. In the same way everyone should at least act straight.


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 19, 2009)

I understand completely. The military is certainly not the place to be an individual.

What I'm trying to say is that homosexuals can and do "act right" in today's military.

However, don't military members go out and party like normal people? Fraternization is a common practice in the military (Just like college, but with uniforms). Airman1 can and will (due to alcohol/hormones/loneliness) hook up with Airman2. Does it really matter if they're both male? It's certainly okay if it's a straight couple. Would that fall into "acting right"?


----------



## Joab (Jan 19, 2009)

That's an understatement! Yes, in the macho, military enviroenment service members go out and party and fraternize and let loose with their heterosexual urges, no doubt about it. But I still think homosexuals in the military should be quiet about it. I think we will have to agree to disagree agreeably on this issue, have a nice day.


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 19, 2009)

No problem


----------



## arnisador (Jan 19, 2009)

Joab said:


> A lot of people have the idea in this forum that not wanting openly gay people in the miltary is the same as not wanting racial minorities and the like in the military. I understand the arguement, but I think there is a difference. Homosexuality is a behavior, race is not. And while it could be argued that one doesn't choose his sexuality [...] acting it out in a way that makes it clear you are a homosexual to everyone around you and offending people is definitely a choice.



This would be more palatable if it wasn't so eerily similar to what was said about racial (esp.) and gender integration. Don't "act black" by playing "that music," speaking "that way," etc. Go along to get along. As to offending being a choice...in many cases, so is choosing to _be offended_.

If someone isn't tough enough to handle being near a homosexual, maybe they're not ready for the service.



> When in the military be quiet about your sexual orientation if its homosexual. It's a conservative organization, very macho, especially in branches like the Marine Corps.



It's getting less conservative all time, and macho is perhaps not the best word for the military's toughness in this gender-integrated age.



Twin Fist said:


> Hush now, there will be none of that "common sense" stuff around here.



You say common sense, I say oppression. Would it be as common-sensical to you if you weren't allowed to discuss your heterosexuality? Never mention your wife? Majority rule, minority rights...that's what my military better be fighting to protect for me.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2009)

This is where I think the difference is between our military and yours, ours are definitely team players but are also individuals. it's important that if needed troops can act on their own initiative which they do often, they can't wait around for an officer to make decisions for them, often they don't have officers with them. A huge amount of training time and effort is given over to initiative and leadership training. 

As for squaddies going out and party like normal people ...er no.. rofl, they tend to be animals! You would not believe the stories I could tell and aren't suitable to be repeated here! A couple of chaps linking up is the least unusual thing they tend to do!
http://www.metacafe.com/tags/squaddies/

Enjoy!


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

Closed for review!


----------

