Don't ask don't tell

[jimbo12345]

Which ever side of the fence, homeosexuals should be encouraged to join up i reckon.

Those for the "fagtallion" appreciate that homosexuals are human, and can die for their country just as the rest. Sod what churches think.

And, coming from a military background, i can say that if any inappropriate homo action was tried within a barracks, it would be dealt with.

Those against the "gay guides" should also think again. As you are against homeosexuality anyway, this means you hate them and generally a little mental. So you want to see them die. So i suggest you start a campaign to start this homo-corps. They can be used as mine detectors. Similar to my idea during "mad cow disease" times, round them up, send them to a minefield, let them graze/be homosexual, problem sorted. Choose it for a national day, and you can give the other troops a great firework display. "Wow, look at that Spinning Mary fly!!"

It would work. In deserts, vehicles are painted pink for camoflage. Give the "G-string Unit" pink clobber, send them to a snowy conflict, see how the fuckers fall to enemy fire. Again, you'd find this amusing.

Also, think of the merchandise potential. A whole new line of clothes etc could come out. 105th Tank Brigade tops, Spando Commando pants, Queer Gear.

Think on, you discrimination can effect even the discriminators.

The fook?

That's called a quality strategy. It please all:

- gay soldier. Wants to fight and die in the army. Definitely will, one way or another..
- anti gay soldier people. Gays die. In horrible ways. All roads lead to Rome.
- pro gay soldier people. Human rights are exacted.
- government. Revenue from merchandise boosts coffers.

[Busyman™]

Why are there separations for men and women?

That's not an answer and has nothing to do with it.

Who does the distraction affect?

You said you have no problem with gays serving as long as they hide their sexuality. So how is that any less of a distraction. Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to hold hands in the showers.

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea why you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.

The fook?

That's called a quality strategy. It please all:

- gay soldier. Wants to fight and die in the army. Definitely will, one way or another..
- anti gay soldier people. Gays die. In horrible ways. All roads lead to Rome.
- pro gay soldier people. Human rights are exacted.
- government. Revenue from merchandise boosts coffers.

Uh yeah, whatever. That's a strategy for the Lounge.

[jimbo12345]

That's not an answer and has nothing to do with it.

Who does the distraction affect?

You said you have no problem with gays serving as long as they hide their sexuality. So how is that any less of a distraction. Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to hold hands in the showers.

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.

When will the division stop? Man/Woman. Gay/Straight. Black/White. Likes rock music/likes pop music. Men and women are not seperated because they dont like each other, they are seperated due to their orientation, probably sexual .

Therefore, i thinks gays should be in the army. Have a split barracks. Not due to their sexual orientation, but out of respect for it.

Man and Woman is the most broad of groupings, whereas we all know that each has many subcatergories, preferences and needs.

[Busyman™]

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.

When will the division stop? Man/Woman. Gay/Straight. Black/White. Likes rock music/likes pop music. Men and women are not seperated because they dont like each other, they are seperated due to their orientation, probably sexual .

Therefore, i thinks gays should be in the army. Have a split barracks. Not due to their sexual orientation, but out of respect for it.

Man and Woman is the most broad of groupings, whereas we all know that each has many subcatergories, preferences and needs.

Good post.

Gnite folks. Gotta watch the rest of the Wizards/Pacers game, some of the Mavs/Suns game, and rip Harsh Times and Casino Royale.

[vidcc]

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea why you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.

My apologies I am confusing segregation arguments with banning, however what I am trying to get out of you is why it would be a distraction and who would be distracted. I gave my points as to why I disagree.

which leads me to ask again who it is that suffers from the distraction. Just asking why men and women are separated is irrelevant to the point.
You have a problem with the person being kicked out just because he is gay, therefore how was his being gay detrimental to his service (or anyone else's)
If however you wish to draw the comparison between male/female segregation could you please explain exactly your point.

How is separating hetro males and females the same as separating hetro/homo. surely the first is to prevent hetro sex, whereas the latter will prevent nothing as hetros and homos do not mingle sexually........... the only comparison would be separating homos.
I will rephrase the holding hands comment.......

Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to have sex in the barracks/toilets etc..

EXACTLY the same rules would apply as with male/female troops.

What your argument seems to suggest is that they should be banned/segregated in case someone breaks the rules. Well perhaps we should get rid of barracks altogether in case one trooper goes nuts and attacks another because they don't like their religion/color/football team.

[Snee]

What your argument seems to suggest is that they should be banned/segregated in case someone breaks the rules. Well perhaps we should get rid of barracks altogether in case one trooper goes nuts and attacks another because they don't like their religion/color/football team.

Why on earth do you think they seperate women and men, then?
Oh, right, to prevent hetero sex, you say, which is to say it's to prevent them from breaking the rules, I suppose.


I'd say it's about more than that, tho'. I'd wager a lot of women would feel very uncomfortable if they had to go unisex on the showers. And I'd also wager they'd feel very uncomfortable being in a situation where they had no privacy from said men. Which would be a part of why men and women are separated from each other, in the army.

I think that's Busyman's point, and one I agree with. The same way a man might consider a woman, or a woman a man, for that matter, can make people feel very uneasy if they have no retreat, no control over it, anywhere.

With that in mind, should the fact that a straight man (same goes for straight women vs. lesbians, obviously) wouldn't be interested in someone who still might feel attraction to him take away his rights to chose when and where he might be objectified, or somesuch?


Gay men aren't somehow automatically excluded from feeling attraction towards men who aren't gay.

[vidcc]

life is full of unwanted attention. What is being suggesting is that gay men/women are unable to control their desires or that they are somehow all sexual predators that the hetro men will have to fight off. A preconception based more on fear, bigotry and ignorance (3 things that feed each other)

We are not talking about sensitive little flowers here, we are talking about fighting men and women. If they would be broken down by the thought of someone looking at them in the shower how would they cope facing an enemy that wants to kill them?

[bigboab]

The system seems to have worked up to now. If a person wants to be a soldier and is capable of carrying out all the duties involved then their sexual preferences should not be brought into question.

If you start segregating soldiers because of sexual preferences then you are opening a can of worms. The same rules should apply to all soldiers who are physically alike.

[100%]

Does any one have any info on the views of other nations armies (other than usa) in relation to this topic?

[Snee]

life is full of unwanted attention. What is being suggesting is that gay men/women are unable to control their desires or that they are somehow all sexual predators that the hetro men will have to fight off. A preconception based more on fear, bigotry and ignorance (3 things that feed each other)

We are not talking about sensitive little flowers here, we are talking about fighting men and women. If they would be broken down by the thought of someone looking at them in the shower how would they cope facing an enemy that wants to kill them?

I'd say that is still the primary reason to separate straight men and women.

And if any sort of sex going on in that context is against the rules, and we separate men and women because they may be attracted to each other and may have sex because of it, we're still assuming someone isn't going to be able to control their urges, and then we should give everyone the same allowance or the opposite of that, as it is.


Actually, you've invented your own brand of discrimination, I'd say. Seeing as you won't allow (or because you assume that their breaking the rules somehow merits segregation while others possibly breaking the rules may not) straight men something you'd allow straight women, for instance.

Me, I say they should go unisex on the barracks.

If they aren't timid little flowers, why should we separate anything? We shouldn't assume someone will break the rules, then.

Like it or not, keeping men and women apart most likely has more to do with what I said than what you claim.

EDit: In line with what zed asked above, I can say that I'm pretty much certain it's for reasons of personal integrity men and women would be kept apart here. Well, that and the fact that sexual tension may drag down the performance of units, I think.