|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:44 pm
So, gay rights have come up again. Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is up for picking at. The gay community are wanting Obama to retract the policy.
What do you guys think? Should the policy be upheld? Why or why not?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:27 pm
The poll is for whether you intend to join in this discussion, right? I voted yes, didn't mean to support the policy. Anyhow, I'm very divided on this. I need confirmation from other people, so let me just throw somethings out there, since this topic has just started. Is this correct? I need someone to confirm: (1) The military is against homosexual relationships because their argument is that it'll destabilize their work environment, where masculinity and whatnot are held as a very valuable asset, and to allow gay people to express themselves would undermine their effectiveness. How about, (2) The policy itself is flexible enough, perhaps this is all that we can expect at the moment in order to cause change. Afterall, change comes about not in short periods of time, but after gradual adjustment? Also, does anyone think this way? (3) The military is our defense of our nation. What would happen if they were caught up in something as trivial as the sexual orientation of their soldiers? Male or female, this will undermine their overall mentality, and soldiers will be subjected to unnecessary stress or pressure due to their personal opinions about this. Eliminating the possibility makes it one less thing to think about in the field, and that could make all the difference. This is serious business, lives are at stake, and the people who want to argue for gay rights in the army clearly aren't taking things seriously enough. The obvious reaction from some people: (4) Who gives a damn about this? Let them squabble over it, we know it's not going to change, the army won't deter from its traditional and longheld stance about the topic, so it's pointless to try? (5) We need to pursue gay rights in the army, because it's wrong and unequal. This is therefore an affront to the very liberties and rights that the army is defending! So, that's it. Those are the ideas swirling around in my head right now. Personally, I thought of those ideas and statement in that order, so I assume that's what my mind is really honest about. Upon inspection, I want to think in the way of (5), but (3) is what I keep coming back to. People, feel free to add your ideas and opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:08 am
lonetrey (1) The military is against homosexual relationships because their argument is that it'll destabilize their work environment, where masculinity and whatnot are held as a very valuable asset, and to allow gay people to express themselves would undermine their effectiveness. lonetrey (2) The policy itself is flexible enough, perhaps this is all that we can expect at the moment in order to cause change. Afterall, change comes about not in short periods of time, but after gradual adjustment? lonetrey Also, does anyone think this way? (3) The military is our defense of our nation. What would happen if they were caught up in something as trivial as the sexual orientation of their soldiers? Male or female, this will undermine their overall mentality, and soldiers will be subjected to unnecessary stress or pressure due to their personal opinions about this. Eliminating the possibility makes it one less thing to think about in the field, and that could make all the difference. This is serious business, lives are at stake, and the people who want to argue for gay rights in the army clearly aren't taking things seriously enough.
I myself would like to say that there are people all over who will and won't tolerate the thought of 'gay.' That means there are those 2 types of people in the military as well. Since the policy is in place, there's no way to take an accurate count of how many gays are in the military, but the fact is there ARE gays in the military which I feel is great. Why? Because all the people in the military are initially there because they want to defend their country. Defend the life they have. Being gay doesn't mean you're a sissy boy, because would the stereo-typical gay guy go out and wield a gun and get dirty and wear that same bland outfit? No. That's because not all gay guys are like that. So, they DO have a right to be there and are there.
HOWEVER, I DO think it's unfair for gay men to be able to sleep in the same living quarters and shower together with all other men when straight men aren't allowed to shower and sleep with women. But I heard someone talking about that (on talk radio) and the way he came off when he made this point was that if there is a gay man showering with your group or team or whatever it's called, he was going to look at everyone like a starving beast. A gay man is just like a straight man or woman. You are attracted to some, not all. If a gay guy sees any c**k, he doesn't fall in love with it and wanna suck it and day dream about it in the shower. Gimme a break. Of course, I'm not a gay guy, so I can't say that's FOR SURE, but I will say it's rediculous to automatically think that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:53 am
 For the Rose is a Beautiful FlowerWe should all be forced to deny our individuality and become mindless drones.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
Seriously though,
I don't understand why people should be forced to deny what is in their heart,
or even conceal it. A Beautiful Flower with Thorns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:40 am
To summarize (even further) my previous points, it's not the fact that they're gay that's the problem, it's the imperfect soldiers who will be exposed to unnecessary psychological pressure when their own personal bias kicks in and affects their performance.
I support the idea of people joining the army, and being gay has no impact on my opinion of that. It's the part where they're -openly- gay that I don't agree with.
I don't agree with them being "openly gay" not because my opinions on homosexual men or women (I'm not against homosexuality actually). I disagree with being "openly gay" in the army because of -other people's opinions- toward gay people.
Their imperfect opinions and intolerance will affect their performance, attitudes, and general interaction within the military, therefore creating a subtle negative movement in the chain of command.PukeFacedFreak Seems like in this case that it's not a matter of integrating straight and gay (openly), it's a matter of people not being openly acceptant of what was already around them. So I feel this situation shows military persons to blow stuff out of proportion for a reason that is their own.
PukeFacedFreak I myself would like to say that there are people all over who will and won't tolerate the thought of 'gay.' That means there are those 2 types of people in the military as well. Since the policy is in place, there's no way to take an accurate count of how many gays are in the military, but the fact is there ARE gays in the military which I feel is great. Why? Because all the people in the military are initially there because they want to defend their country. Defend the life they have. Being gay doesn't mean you're a sissy boy, because would the stereo-typical gay guy go out and wield a gun and get dirty and wear that same bland outfit? No. That's because not all gay guys are like that. So, they DO have a right to be there and are there. PukeFacedFreak HOWEVER, I DO think it's unfair for gay men to be able to sleep in the same living quarters and shower together with all other men when straight men aren't allowed to shower and sleep with women. But I heard someone talking about that (on talk radio) and the way he came off when he made this point was that if there is a gay man showering with your group or team or whatever it's called, he was going to look at everyone like a starving beast. A gay man is just like a straight man or woman. You are attracted to some, not all. If a gay guy sees any c**k, he doesn't fall in love with it and wanna suck it and day dream about it in the shower. Gimme a break. Of course, I'm not a gay guy, so I can't say that's FOR SURE, but I will say it's rediculous to automatically think that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:57 pm
SerpentRose For the Rose is a Beautiful Flower We should all be forced to deny our individuality and become mindless drones.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
Seriously though,
I don't understand why people should be forced to deny what is in their heart,
or even conceal it. A Beautiful Flower with Thorns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:05 pm
Lone, as far as the shower thing goes, I understand. The point is, there is a separation between men and women in the showers because if they were in the same shower it would obviously cause sexual tension to thicken and result in cat calls and all that stupid s**t. But what I'm saying is that BECAUSE those sexual attractions are cut to a minimum (separate showers), it isn't fair for gay men to be showering with any other man (gay or straight). But I was just stating that not every gay man is gunna walk in the shower and go 'OMG, dicks everywhere OOOH!'
There's lots of stupid immature adults just as there's lots of stupid immature kids. Immature men do cat calls and make perverted comments to women. An immature gay man might look at another man in the shower (maybe even stare, how stalkerish), but not all men are immature. I KNOW there are gay men in the army who are there to be in the ARMY, not to shower with men.
I know I'm going in circles, I'm in between doing work and doing this (and singing to the radio), ... so I'm gunna stop. I'll come back later maybe to comment on the other stuff you said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:54 am
PukeFacedFreak Lone, as far as the shower thing goes, I understand. The point is, there is a separation between men and women in the showers because if they were in the same shower it would obviously cause sexual tension to thicken and result in cat calls and all that stupid s**t. But what I'm saying is that BECAUSE those sexual attractions are cut to a minimum (separate showers), it isn't fair for gay men to be showering with any other man (gay or straight). But I was just stating that not every gay man is gunna walk in the shower and go 'OMG, dicks everywhere OOOH!'
There's lots of stupid immature adults just as there's lots of stupid immature kids. Immature men do cat calls and make perverted comments to women. An immature gay man might look at another man in the shower (maybe even stare, how stalkerish), but not all men are immature. I KNOW there are gay men in the army who are there to be in the ARMY, not to shower with men.
I know I'm going in circles, I'm in between doing work and doing this (and singing to the radio), ... so I'm gunna stop. I'll come back later maybe to comment on the other stuff you said. Cool with me, the issue I'd like to address the most is primarily the "Area of Effect" that the people who are gay have on *Others*, not their own intrinsic properties. Afterall, i'm sure if people think things through, most would be aware of the fact that our inherent human capabilities do not change due to our sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:41 pm
I think 'don't ask, don't tell' is a good thing to keep, even though the protest people are doing is due to freedom of speech and to express one's self. I think that by forcing gays to stay 'in the closet,' it's helping to protect them from physical attacks inside the force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:01 am
PukeFacedFreak I think 'don't ask, don't tell' is a good thing to keep, even though the protest people are doing is due to freedom of speech and to express one's self. I think that by forcing gays to stay 'in the closet,' it's helping to protect them from physical attacks inside the force. Now, you see, that's is PRECISELY what I'm finding the problem at. I know that the army will take a long time to acclimate themselves to having gay people in the army. But my focus is here: The constitutional rights of people comes first and foremost. But so does the protection of life. So, how do we keep both interests in check? On one side, people will always demand that people not discriminate against them for their sexual orientation. Afterall, All (hu)Men Are Equal in America. The other side will protest that their sexual orientation is not vital to their own life, they won't die from not being true to themselves while a compromised military force WILL lead to increased numbers of deaths. The partial solutions that our government have come up so far is to either enforce tolerance/reduce ignorance or to suppress the rights of gay people for their own protection from the ignorant/intolerant masses. The key focus has always been education, or maybe re-education, of either group of people. To tell gay people to keep it to themselves or to tell the dissidents to keep a lid on it. ... Anyone with any ideas for a mutually beneficial solution that isn't unrealistically optimistic or at least plausibly feasible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:04 pm
Look how long it took to integrate the black race into America as an equal people (lets not get into if it's truely equal or not). There's no quick fix on acceptance of gays either. No way to fix the lack of acceptance of gays by other soldiers so the other option is to protect them, which there ARE steps that can be taken to do that. THAT is something that can be controlled. Tolerance isn't. Sure you can set rules and consequences, but that won't stop hatred and violence on gays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:14 am
PukeFacedFreak Look how long it took to integrate the black race into America as an equal people (lets not get into if it's truely equal or not). There's no quick fix on acceptance of gays either. No way to fix the lack of acceptance of gays by other soldiers so the other option is to protect them, which there ARE steps that can be taken to do that. THAT is something that can be controlled. Tolerance isn't. Sure you can set rules and consequences, but that won't stop hatred and violence on gays. Well, as an asian from a community that is mostly made of asians and jewish people, I can't say I've spoken, met, or interacted on any sort of appreciable level with any black/african/mixed people, so it's hard for me to say much about that. So, you support "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. But have you considered cases such as Lt. Daniel Choi? A friend of mine who goes to Syracuse recently brought to my attention the case of Mr. Choi, since he's going to be speaking there. Anyhow, what about people like him, who are invaluable to the Army but discharged because of his honesty? He's fluent in Arabic, yet he has been subjected to the same bias as every other gay person who came out the closet about it. Who is this protecting then? He freaking speaks the native tongue of the people whos land we occupy right now for crying out loud!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:06 pm
lonetrey PukeFacedFreak Look how long it took to integrate the black race into America as an equal people (lets not get into if it's truely equal or not). There's no quick fix on acceptance of gays either. No way to fix the lack of acceptance of gays by other soldiers so the other option is to protect them, which there ARE steps that can be taken to do that. THAT is something that can be controlled. Tolerance isn't. Sure you can set rules and consequences, but that won't stop hatred and violence on gays. Well, as an asian from a community that is mostly made of asians and jewish people, I can't say I've spoken, met, or interacted on any sort of appreciable level with any black/african/mixed people, so it's hard for me to say much about that. So, you support "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. But have you considered cases such as Lt. Daniel Choi? A friend of mine who goes to Syracuse recently brought to my attention the case of Mr. Choi, since he's going to be speaking there. Anyhow, what about people like him, who are invaluable to the Army but discharged because of his honesty? He's fluent in Arabic, yet he has been subjected to the same bias as every other gay person who came out the closet about it. Who is this protecting then? He freaking speaks the native tongue of the people whos land we occupy right now for crying out loud!
In his case it seems like the thing to do if the gov. is worried it might have someone from the 'enemy' in it's ranks. Easiest way to fix that is to kick him out rather than spend the time to investigate. It's not right, but that's how it is. I can't do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:11 am
PukeFacedFreak SerpentRose For the Rose is a Beautiful Flower We should all be forced to deny our individuality and become mindless drones.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
Seriously though,
I don't understand why people should be forced to deny what is in their heart,
or even conceal it. A Beautiful Flower with Thorns I concur.
Plus I don't think it's anyone's business in the military anyway to care if someone is gay.
They are all soldiers standing together for one cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:16 am
PukeFacedFreak lonetrey PukeFacedFreak Look how long it took to integrate the black race into America as an equal people (lets not get into if it's truely equal or not). There's no quick fix on acceptance of gays either. No way to fix the lack of acceptance of gays by other soldiers so the other option is to protect them, which there ARE steps that can be taken to do that. THAT is something that can be controlled. Tolerance isn't. Sure you can set rules and consequences, but that won't stop hatred and violence on gays. Well, as an asian from a community that is mostly made of asians and jewish people, I can't say I've spoken, met, or interacted on any sort of appreciable level with any black/african/mixed people, so it's hard for me to say much about that. So, you support "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. But have you considered cases such as Lt. Daniel Choi? A friend of mine who goes to Syracuse recently brought to my attention the case of Mr. Choi, since he's going to be speaking there. Anyhow, what about people like him, who are invaluable to the Army but discharged because of his honesty? He's fluent in Arabic, yet he has been subjected to the same bias as every other gay person who came out the closet about it. Who is this protecting then? He freaking speaks the native tongue of the people whos land we occupy right now for crying out loud!
In his case it seems like the thing to do if the gov. is worried it might have someone from the 'enemy' in it's ranks. Easiest way to fix that is to kick him out rather than spend the time to investigate. It's not right, but that's how it is. I can't do anything about it.
And here's my point. It is much easier to do something if we have irrefutable logic backing us up, as well as physical evidence of wrongdoing. They can't stop us if they have no defense against a clear cut case of right and wrong.
Not only that, but today there are clear cut cases where there is nothing wrong being done by the gay soldier in question. Such as Lt. Daniel Choi. His subordinates knew, and they had nothing against him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
