I certainly have no experience of armed force life myself, but it seems to me that veterans talk quite a bit about the bonds they shared with other soldiers, quite platonically. If anything, it seems like being in combat with a group of other soldiers you get to know well itself is going to cause some considerable emotional attachment and group cohesion, and surely that’s partially the idea. It seems to me if you’re already partially relying on building a connection between soldiers, turning around and saying that romantic bonds on the other hand aren’t just bad but must be prevented at to the cost of discharging soldiers seems a mite silly.
Beyond that, gays are serving now. Those romantic attachments, if they are there, are there already. All DADT does is mean that commanding officers aren’t going to know about it, which means that if romantic bonds of this nature are a problem then all the current policy does is mean the problem exists out-of-sight. It’s a terrible reaction to that problem.
quick sidenote:
i’m curious, i see an ad here for something military, and on my myspace (yes i have one, so don’t make fun of me) i see alot of marine corps ads.
so is there some kind of web crawler in these ads, spitting out ads based on words we are using or something? or is big brother watching me. with all the damn shots i got in boot camp, not even knowing what most of them are for, i wouldn’t be surprised if i was chipped.
you know what i found out after the fact (how nice is that), we got vaccinated for the “black plague” in boot camp
Except it says nothing of the sort. Here is the code, so show me where it talks about the romantic emotions. Hell, it even says that they’ll get booted for being married, or even trying to marry, someone of the same sex.
Then what are you claiming?
Again, if they don’t negatively affect that bond, what’s the problem? That’s the problem as the military sees it. You’re defending the militaries stance (albeit not very well), so you should either defend what they actually say, stop defending it at all.
And I was offering the point of view of someone who was also in the military, and feels no need to defend a homophobic policy, just because the military happens to have that policy.
So, since you now claim that it’s not your policy, that you think gay people can form the same bonds as straights, and that it’s some bizarre fear of romantic feelings leading to a possible poor decision (which is nowhere in the policy) on the part of gays, and that you’re just explaining it to us, is DADT a reasonable policy or not?
ok, so i’ll concede that it might not be an across the board vaccination. so maybe those of us who did get it, got it because the jobs we had would have put us at “risk.”
and i guess i should have clarified better, but my shot records have it on there, and i once went to my bro-in-law who is a navy corpsman to decipher what the medical mumbo jumbo meant.
so i guess it was my bad for assuming that because i got it, everyone got it.
maybe it’s not something i should be laughing about…because i always wondered why the hell i got it…and apparently it’s not as common as i thought
You keep saying that, but you don’t say anything to back it up, it’s just argument by assertion. As counter-argument, I’ve already mentioned other militaries that have open serving homosexuals. Note ountries like the UK and Israel there.
However, you have presented the military position as though it was based on a fact rather than as a burden you simply have to accept. Nowhere in your initial posts (and only tangentially in your more recent posts) have you tried to explain the rule as though you were talking about someone else’s beliefs. So there is every reason for other posters to believe that you think the military rationale is correct and no reason to believe that you are simply quoting someone else’s reasons.
Getting upset that other posters are responding to your actual words is not going to keep the discussion on an even keel.
Let’s make it easy: do you accept the arguments behind DADT as valid? We know what the military says; what do you say?
I agree that you have not posted that you believe the anti-gay stuff that was blathered around by Colin Powell and others at the time that DADT was put in place. Your manner of posting, however, strongly suggests that you accept all the anti-gay “cohesion” nonsense that was used to support the rule. Now that you have presented the military’s case, what is your position?
Ok, let’s look at exactly what you did say…I wouldn’t want to misinterpret:
Yes, it IS bigoted policy. It has no basis in fact and is designed to keep the icky queers from breathing the same air as the macho military boys. By telling me I must have military experience to understand it is not only a DEFENSE of the policy, but it’s a lame defense.
This policy doesn’t save lives. It marginalizes the very citizens whose rights the military claims to protect. If you don’t believe in this policy, spouting this kind of crap won’t convince anyone. You have to follow up with something along the lines of, “I completely disagree with this stupid backward thinking.”
Telling soldiers that they’d be arrested for breaking the law for giving gay soldiers a hard time would have the same effect. They know it and you know it.
We know that. It doesn’t have any bearing on this conversation.
So…back in the day we saw the horrors. It was illegal to do it then and it’s illegal now. What does DADT do except marginalize gay people for having the same feelings and desires as everyone else? What’s the purpose of this statement here?
Again. You have not made a point relative to DADT. You’re insulting those of us who see the flaws in the military logic and telling us we have to be on a battlefield before we can understand the true benefit of this ridiculous policy. And we’re calling bullshit.
Show me again, tough guy. Show me where you’re not defending it or insulting those of us stupid civilians who just don’t get it unless we’ve walked in your combat boots. I mean, it’s a pretty confusing sentence, but I’m not hearing opposition to the policy.
As it stands currently, I think that a simple and effective addition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy would be to “Not Out” somebody. The witch hunts are pretty fucked up. Or the crap where someone sees a person’s Myspace page or Blog where he’s making out with men, and that person makes it known to the chain of command and they kick him out of the Army.
I think if a person stumbles across information that someone is gay, he should be restricted from disclosing such information. Out of sight, out of mind.
If a person’s sexual oritentation is not immediately and obviously effecting job performance or living conditions (being in the barracks, sharing rooms with other males), then it shouldn’t become a command issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I would support a full “Who gives a flying fuck” policy where gays could serve openly. But until then, I think making it against policy to out a homosexual against his will, should be implemented. It would at least stop the witch hunts and accusations amongst peers. It would cut down on the costs of ridiculous investigations as well.
But if you’re going to change the policy at all why not just make it from “fucked up shit” to “who cares?”. Underpinning all this is the fact that it’s not permissable to be gay in the military, as the policy stands now they can’t ask you about whether you are or not, but it’s still not allowed because if it comes out (so to speak) your arse is out of the service.
Speaking as a person from a country that does allow gays in the military openly (you know, in compliance with basic human rights, those things western solidiers are dying to defend) I don’t get any claims that if DADT was removed this or that negative consequence would happen because we have living proof that it’s not a problem in the UK. Gays have been able to serve openly for about 8 years and the military is just as effective now as it ever has been.
I also think that any violations of the DADT(DO) policy should be handled at the Inspector General level and not by the local command. This would keep things confidential during investigation of policy violations, and would solve the problems and inconsistancy of enforcement. As it is, a more conservative, more religious, more anti-gay commander would handle things differently than a more liberal commander who may simply look the other way. So the spectrum is to wide and too open for personal convictions.
Let the IG handle it anonymously.
Oh, and another thing I considered was that if there is an incident that happens and it becomes known… like say a homosexual living with two same sex soldiers in a barracks room, say he brings home a male lover and has sex with him in the room. And the other two soldiers can’t stand homosexuals and make an IG complaint about the whole thing…
That offending soldier, if he desires to stay in the Army, should have the option to do so and be immediately PCSd to another unit where the whole incident is unknown to everyone except the IG, and maybe his branch manager. I dunno… anything to keep valuable, hard working soldiers in the Army. Give a guy at least another chance and a fresh start somewhere else, ya know.
Like I said, I would support a policy to allow soldiers to serve openly gay. But lets be honest, it’s not going to happen in the next 10 years or so. In the meantime, I think the things I’ve suggested would be possible to implement and true stepping stones.
Well that would be great. But it’s just not going to happen. As unfortunate as that is, it’s just not a reality. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I just don’t see a policy allowing gays to serve openly in the US Military being implemented in the next decade. Especially after the disgusting display of hatred in America made evident in the latest batch of anti-gay props and amendments passed across the country.
you know i was done with this topic until i read this, and i have to say thank you. you’re the first person to ask what i personally think without being judgmental, assuming, or twisting my words with little snippets that lose the context of what i was saying.
i have to say too, this site is way too damn addicting…i swear, i had a dream last night about posting on here.
so as far as getting upset to people responding to my actual words…i’m not. i’m only getting upset when people are taking my words and assuming i personally think one way or another. i said a million times i was not speaking of my personal opinions…but then yes, later on i clarified.
the military UCMJ has a catch all article/law called article 134. it’s a vague article which basically lets the military charge you with something that may not have been specifically addressed in the former articles. so when the military says “…seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission,” you’re darn right i can say as a fact that they feel emotions…and all that jazz i previously said. i don’t know about civilian law, but the context of that quote covers many facets like article 134. so i’m not interpreting the policy based on how i see it, i’m speaking from what we were specifically told by top brass…even though we’re Marines, we do ask questions and want clarification with what’s called SOP.
so now, my personal opinion…it’s tough. on a personal level, and only from my OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, i’ve had gay friends in the past, but no matter how cool everything was, they never respected the boundaries…however, i have never met a gay military person so i can’t really say whether they would respect that line.
i do think it’s absolute bullshit that the military would just lay out a general judgment towards someone. gay or straight, there are sexual harassment laws, and those who cross the line should be dealt with on an individual basis.
i think homosexuality is the new black, and as ignorant as it is to discriminate, it exists, and i can only hope one day people will take their heads out of their asses and see people as people, and judge based on sexual preference.
the whole thing i was saying about the policy, which is why i kept saying that i wanted to keep my personal opinions out of it, is that at the root level, barring the ignorance of discrimination, there are parts that make sense, and serve a purpose. but then, the ends don’t justify the means.
gay people aren’t the only ones bound by crap ass policies either. if you look up the UCMJ, you’ll see there are alot of mind baffling idiocrasies in there. so on a larger scale, i think the whole system needs to be reconfigured to ways of the 21st century. i mean sodomy is a crime, and yes, people do get charged with it…mostly in adultery cases where they are looking to pile on charges…and yeah adultery is illegal too.
so i hope i cleared some things up and the call for my head will be called off.
and what’s up with this “queen for a day” thing i briefly read? i’ve never heard of that before…so even though i was in the marines, is that really a military policy? does it work? has it worked with someone.
i think that has to be one of the most retarded and funny things i’ve ever read…it’s ok to be gay for a day.
I’m curious about this - could you elaborate? Are you saying that all your friends couldn’t keep their hands off you or something? Or that they would talk about gay things in your presence when you’d asked them not to?
Genuinely curious what respecting the boundaries means in this context.
i meant that they would try to get me to experiment and cross over. 2 different friends at one point tried to jump in bed with me and get me to cuddle. another guy i was out drinking with i guess thought because i was drunk i would kiss him, so he totally went in for the kiss. here in chicago there is a sex club thing where gay guys go to have sex and watch each other have sex, another friend constantly pestered me about going. another guy kept bugging me about letting him perform oral sex on me with the idea that it’s not gay, and i can close my eyes and imagine a girl. and there have been other situations too.
and i’m not saying all gay people reflect my examples, it’s just my personal experience. maybe i’m just a hot piece of ass…j/k
so i’m not hateful or anything and i don’t judge, but i just learned that it isn’t my crowd, so to remain in that kind of "scene’ i was opening myself up to that sort of thing.
when i was younger, i always wanted to be a marine, so when all my friends began experimenting with drugs, they slowly phased me out of the picture because it was not my scene.
i really believe that when you find where you fit in and where you don’t, you naturally avoid where you don’t fit in…and i don’t think that is mean, hateful, discriminating, etc.
i don’t know if your allowed to post personal websites here, but you seem like a cool person illuminati…so if you have myspace, add me as a friend
