Bullshit. Military personnel are bound by SOME or MANY of the same laws as the rest of us. They are not allowed to beat the piss out of someone because they don’t condone their bedroom habits. They are NOT allowed to kill someone because they don’t like their choice of partner. As millions of gay military personnel over the years have proved, it does NOT jeopardize the “unit cohesion”, because if that were a true issue, women would not be serving with men, either. And if we’re hiring people who don’t stop it, it’s a military problem; not a gay problem. You don’t have to be a soldier to see that your excuses are just a lame cover for bad behavior and bad policy.
It seems a more reasonable question to ask you to prove that eliminating rules against homosexual soldiers would reduce recruitment.
i went to boot camp in san diego, so there were no females…but it for sure would have rocked to be in the field with some sexy women. 
i know i probably just confirmed many things by saying that…but it would have been nice. i’ve heard some interesting stories about Air Force boot camp, since it’s coed…if they are true, i picked the wrong branch
Sorry, I meant DADT. Why does DADT not apply to everyone, regardless of orientation?
I’m not calling the Marines barbarians - but this policy (DADT) takes that respect you describe, and spits in its face.
DADT is just passive acceptance. They can lure the gays into the service and send them to Iraq. They will not openly state that they need or want them. But they do. If recruiting was overly successful and they could pick and choose, they would push them away.
uh…the military is not bound by the same laws as civilians…you are totally wrong. the military is bound by the UCMJ…now that’s provided you stay on base. obviously anyone is bound by local laws off base…so i guess you’re right, but your hostility clouded your point.
i never said troops were allowed to beat anyone up…and yes romance/emotional attachments that filter over to the battlefield jeopardize unit cohesion…whether gay or straight.
i don’t think you really responded to much of anything i actually said
look at the body count in iraq, that has much more of an impact on combat readiness then some females pregnant or in sick call
very true. the whole recruiting thing seriously bugs me. in boot camp there were guys who were sent home that never should have been there to begin with. but recruiters seeking that quota will often do whatever it takes to put you on that plane
we were told all about hillside
we were told all about hillside, but i dated a girl who had a lot of gay friends that frequented that area, and they soon became my friends. it was cool being around there and refreshing to be able to drop the macho marine attitude, and just have some drinks, and hang out. so other than the constant attempts to convert me, i had many good times around there. i felt like a stud free drinks, lots of attention…i say this in a good way, so don’t bash me
I didn’t get the impression that rednecks were any more prevalent in the Army than in civilian life. You’ll have to provide a cite otherwise or stop insinuating that the military is chock full of bigoted hillbillies.
BATTLEFIELD or no, the military doesn’t currently make any attempt to discourage heterosexual romance outside of fraternization.
Furthermore, females can and often do serve in combat; I personally know many of them. They’re not a problem for the military and neither are gays.
Frankly, usmc, I don’t think you’ve thought this thing through all the way. You don’t sound bigoted, but there really is no way to justify DADT except by resorting to bigotry. Do you really want to defend that?
If you’re talking about San Diego, then I think you mean Hillcrest. But there were bars down around the Marine depot, too.
yeah, that’s it…hillcrest. never knew about the ones near base though
There’s nothing to respond to. Your take that it somehow protects the military is pure crap. The military might call their laws something different than the rest of us, but it amounts to the same thing. It has nothing to do with the fact that the group of people who are supposed to be protecting the rights of Americans are the first ones to take a steaming shit on them. Hostile? You bet I am. Shame on you for defending DADT.
dude or dudette, understand this since i’ve said it a hundred times…the policy in part is to protect troops on the battlefield…the concept of emotions crossing over. i never stated any opinion about beating up gays and how it’s ok, blah, blah.
since you’re getting personal, i’ll offer up my opinion. i could give a crap less about who is gay, straight, female, male. do your job, live life, be cool and do whatever the hell it is that makes you happy. the DADT…the policy in its essence makes some sense. has it been twisted, tweaked and torn to crap…yeah, much like my words here.
so i’m not going to let you drag me into some crap ass conversation accusing me of supporting something that discriminates people. i know who i am, and i know i do the right thing…so if you want to play with my words, have at it.
and no military is crapping on your precious rights anymore than any other schmuck out there…so save the self righteous, take the power back spiel. be hostile, or whatever it is that floats your boat.
But that’s the thing: I’m not convinced that it is. Sure, it’s a stated reason, but let’s not kid ourselves as to its true purpose.
To me, it’s like trying to justify the usage of segregated water fountains to cut down on the spread of mono. Sure, maybe it helps some (less people using a particular water fountain), but it’s a ridiculous argument and a facade.
Could you explain this more? There are already as many gays on the battle field with DADT as there will be without DADT. What emotions are going to cross that already are?
It doesn’t even come close to following the same principles. If a female in the military swoons for some random guy, in or out of the military, she’s not booted. If a gay does, he is. Hell, he can be married and faithful to a civilian partner, and he’s still gone if it becomes known.
Of course you did. You keep talking about the negative effect gays would have on “unit cohesion”, which means that you don’t think that gays can be part of the same bonds of trust as the rest of the soldiers.
Yes, and we’re telling you that it’s both a stupid, and bigotted purpose. Not one or the other, both.
Now, if you want to acknowledge that the real reason for DADT is to coddle the homophobes in the military (and outside of it, for that matter), of whom there are likely more than there are gays, you won’t get a lot of disagreement.
i never said gay people negatively affect unit cohesion…i said females AND gay people, ACCORDING to the policy, WHICH I DIDN’T WRITE, contends that romantic emotions compromise safety and jeopardizes unit cohesion in the sense that acting on romantic feelings could lead one to make a foolish decision. there is nothing negative about it.
and i never claimed or implied that gay people can’t be part of the same bond as straight people…so don’t put words in my mouth.
take your head out of your ass and instead of your own biased interpretation…quote me where i said gay people negatively affect, and they can’t be part of the same bond as straight people.
and lastly, i’m not going to acknowledge any bit of whatever you claim is truth in some sort of attempt to avoid a disagreement.
i never claimed that DADT was morally right or a totally legit thing. i was just offering a point of view from someone who was in the marines, and like it or not, has to go along with what big brother decides is right. the military’s reasons and policies are not my beliefs, so once and for all, stop putting words in my mouth like i’m the damn one who wrote it.
i can name a bunch of policies and standards in the marines that make no sense, defy common sense, and are borderline criminal…such as hazing. but if i told you the marine corps view of hazing, does it automatically mean it’s my belief?
read my posts…i know there are alot…and i guarantee you will not find one comment by me that says anything close to me “personally believing” it’s right. now i know i said practical, and that was from the military’s point of view. nowhere did i say being gay is bad, etc.
another example: during vietnam, the military discovered that if they made targets that looked like a human silhouette, troops would be more willing to engage the enemy, because the human silhouette desensitized them. practical…yeah, effective…yeah, did it get the job done…yeah, was it moral…of course not.
locking marine corps recruits in a tear gas filled room, forcing us to take our masks off, and finding amusement in watching us suffer…is it practical…yeah, we learn to withstand and control the pain. is it effective…hell yeah. did it get the job done, yeah. was it moral…hell no!
i know the last one was more of people taking advantage and less about policy, but i hope you see my point that what the military deems practical might not be moral. and that’s all i was getting at before people started twisting my words around like i authored the frickin’ thing, or i’m the go to man for all the jaded things the military does
ok it’s like marine bootcamp, they separate men and women and we have no contact with females for 3 months. there are many practical reasons and such, but is it morally right? would emotions really cloud our “mission accomplishment,” probably not but you decide.
that’s what i’ve been trying to do with this whole damn thread…keep my moralities out of it and just explain where the military is coming from, which is not my own personal belief. yet somehow i’ve become a bigot, gay bashing, crapper on of america’s rights, homophobe.
i’m just waiting now for someone to tell me i’m still in the closet, because i’m sure someone will interpret something i said as admitting to be a man lover