Evilbeth,
I never said that women couldn’t fight. Through out the history of the world women have proven that they can fight.
My point is that it is the job of the country, the military, and all the men to protect women so they don’t have to fight. If you disagree I understand, but I’ll keep my opinion.
Count me out, labdude. I distinctly remember my oath of service, and it didn’t mention anything about “protecting the womenfolk”.
One of the duties of teh military is to protect the body politic: men, women, and children. If a woman has the desire and the ability to accept that duty, then I applaud her. I didn’t used to, but even a dumbshit grunt can learn a new trick if he tries hard enough.
Society tends to look at the armed forces as a model of professionalism and admires its methods of selecting and training its leaders, witnes the number of executive selection processes that use military models of training.
If the armed forces decide that women and gay people cannot be trained to acceptable standards then what sort of message does that send out ? Either the military is is hopelessly out of touch or that straight men are in some way superior.
Neither seems a good idea to me, and various posters have already shown that women do make valuable contributions so that leaves the gays.
If I’m stuck on board a ship with holes in it and fires all around then the sexuality of any fellow rating is irrelevant .
I want to stay alive and that might well rest on the ability of another, who cares what that person does with their lover.
When we were desparate in our struggle with Germany the recruiters were less concerned with sexuality and more concerned with trainability. Many gay people, no doubt, died.
It seems wrong to me to deny them their chance to serve in peacetime if they were prepared to give their lives to serve their fellow man, it just dishonours their memory.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by labdude *
**
(emphasis mine)
Well, you learn something new everyday. I guess I must have missed all those recruitment posters: “Join now! It’s your duty to protect the womenfolk! It’s what we’re here for!”
All of a sudden I feel like a damned spotted owl–it is apparently “the job of the country” to protect me!
Tee-hee! What big muscles you have, divemaster! Thank you for doing all the big, scary fighting for me! You know I just hate to get dirty!
(Now I have this John Wayne voice going through my head…“Don’t worry little lady, I’ll fix yer wagon.”)
Not only do I disagree with your statement, I find it insulting, ridiculous and completely asinine. I’m glad you understand!
Of course, that imaginary conversation was directed to labdude–NOT divemaster.
The homosexual issue is not at all about combat performance, but about peacetime conduct and “military image.” Military life is at times substantially different than civilian life, and if it were simply a “go to work, do your job, go home” proposition I don’t think there would still be any debate over this issue. But there are times when you are forced to share a tent, or shower together in a big gang shower. Nobody at the top wants to try and figure out if or how to segregate gays and straights in these situations. Nobody at the top wants to face the troops below and say that “from now on you can just shower and live with the homosexuals.” They don’t want to deal with the inevitable hate-induced incidents that will happen or the bad PR that it will garner the services. They don’t want J.Q. Public thinking that “our boys” are doffing their uniforms and instantly turning into flaming drag-queens. And nobody, but nobody in the higher echelons wants to bring this kind of thing up during a time of very poor retention in the ranks. Nevertheless, barring gays from the military will not endure forever. Their day in uniform (openly) is plainly in the cards if current trends in society continue.
cornflakes wrote:
… so to speak. <rimshot>
Oh please,
I’m gay and I’m glad that if some country storms the United States I can just throw down my pink flag and be immune. I personally don’t see what the big deal is, I like being barred from the military.
Regards,
B. Williams
Well, goody for you! I am glad that someone who does not want the responsibilty for protecting the lives of my loved ones does not have to accept it. However, do not cheapen the debate because of it.
There are many gay and bisexual people, male and female, who do want to accept this responsibilty but because of ignorant individuals who cannot get over their own weaknesses, they are not allowed to.
And so far as this scenario goes,
you may be immune from having to fight but you will not be immune from getting yourself (with your little pink flag) tortured, raped, mutilated and killed by these invading forces simply because the squad of soldiers assigned to protect your particular area was a few hands short because the army ran out of straight men to train.
So it is fine for gay people to serve and die in war to protect their nation but as soon as the treaty is signed then we must kick them out ?
When a person reaches a certain age they are entitled to all the benefits and responsibilities that are enjoyed by all other citizens.
What is the point of going to war to defend the rights that you are denied in peacetime ?
Of that there can be no debate.
Just my two cents…
I can’t ever serve in the military. This is because I’m hearing impaired. My dad, however, was in the Navy. I talked to him about gays in the military, and he said that he felt that they had their place as much as anyone.
Side note: Up until the 70s, women were not allowed to be married and serve in the military. It wasn’t until the mid 70s that women could be pregnant and not be discharges.
So there’s a group of women who can’t get married and can’t get pregnant, and the military is wondering where all those dykes came from?
I recently saw the play “Another American: Asking and Telling.” It’s a one man show- simply phenomenal- where the actor plays about 20 different people and explores the different sides of gays in the military. He interviewed about 200 people for it. Some stuff I remember: (And this is dealing with the American armed forces. Several countries have openly gay servicemembers.)
The framers of the constitution intended that the military be the most constitutionally regulated part of government, because it was the most dangerous. Today, it’s the least regulated in the sense that service members are being denied freedom of speech. As in, if a service member tells his mom that he’s gay, the military could supena her to testify in court.
Also, the treatment of gay soldiers is simply brutal. There have been cases where gay solders have been brutally attacked and raped while they were awaiting discharge, been slandered… one guy who was interviewed for the play talked about how he was dropped off at the back gate of the base, 17 miles from the nearest pay phone, with only the clothes on his back.
Gays have and always will serve in the military. Can’t stop that. Allowing them to acknowledge themselves- and I’m not talking about wearing lavender fatigues- will hopefully come soon. I mean, speech?
andygirl
I have served in the military. I have had to stop a fight where a newly discovered homosexual was being beaten by
several men.
I have watched women under my command attempt to flirt to gain favor.
My points? Easy.
If you’re homosexual, and want to be in the military, fine and well. Have fun. Be forewarned that you’re entering an “Old Boys’” network, and might be subject to more danger than normal.
The men in charge in the military need to be more in control of their hormones. In my case, as soon as I realized what was happening, the young lady was reprimanded SEVERELY. It was my choice to bend, and I did not.
Women, homosexuals, I don’t care. If you can do your job, and don’t cause difficulty for me while I do mine, we’ll get along great. Otherwise, don’t enlist.
If you change “homosexual” to “black” and “Old Boys” to “Good Old Boys” would you still say the same thing?
While the danger is real, I think you’re warning the wrong people. I’d rather the abusers get warned that they’d be court martialed, no lienency. The gays already know about getting singled out and abused.
As a female veteran who has been to sea on a wespac and on land with the Seabees I definitely think that women should be in the armed services. I am not saying that every person is cut out for the military. This is why so many recruits do not make it through basic training or even the first year without being booted out either by choice or through pure stupidity. But woman and homosexuals have just as much right to be in the service as men do. It was not so long ago that this debate would have been …
Do you think women homosexuals and blacks should be allowed in the military?
Now, we recognize that not allowing African Americans in the military is not only racist but ignorant, but not so long ago that was not the case. When I was in the Navy there was never a time that I could not perform my job because of my gender. I may have had to do it differently physically I am not as strong as a man, I had to work smarter not harder is all.
As far as the debate about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed in the service it is a mute point. Hello, they are already there. What I always found interesting though, was the silent acceptance of lesbians and bisexuals in the service. We had several lesbian and bisexual women in my berthing area that everyone knew about. No one seemed to care. But I also knew a couple of guys who were in the closet and had to stay there for a reason. I think that it is because men find the idea of women being lesbian or bisexual titillating and men being homosexual or bisexual threatening to their masculinity, and women just don’t care. In general I have found that women are much more comfortable with their sexuality so those sorts of issues do not come up.
Good point, Telemark.
Yes, I would. It’s still the same kind of network, whether it is prejudiced against sexual preference, or race. Not that it doesn’t suck, or that I would call those old boys Good.
Sadly, the abusers ARE warned. It’s made very clear these days that not even disparaging words will be tolerated. However, the enforcement reminds me of a parent who won’t actually give the child the spanking it’s been promised.
In essence, my sentiment is: Watch out for the system, because it sure doesn’t seem to be watching out for you.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by casdave *
**
Oh no. Firstly, don’t take what I posted to be my arguments. They are not. I am trying to post what I think are the real hang-ups that the powers that be have with the idea. Combat performance really isn’t among them. The issues are ones of image, retention, and money.