-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" To repeal or not to repeal...
- Thread starter Familyguy1
- Start date
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
Many factors, but the most important one is that most women desire to be segregated from men in close quarters; to ask them why seems patently absurd.
Men who are homosexual don't seem to have/need that same dynamic around men in general.
It seems strangely academic to have to explain such a fundamental thing.
If we're to debate "don't ask don't tell," it seems prudent to focus on the motives of those who say it's necessary for some reason, not on imagined scenarios comparing gay men to women.
Men who are homosexual don't seem to have/need that same dynamic around men in general.
It seems strangely academic to have to explain such a fundamental thing.
If we're to debate "don't ask don't tell," it seems prudent to focus on the motives of those who say it's necessary for some reason, not on imagined scenarios comparing gay men to women.
Crude
Android Expert
So homosexuals don't want to be separate but maybe straight service men do?
btw there is a difference between skin color and sexual orientation.
I support the repeal of DADT. I have one simple reason. A service member should never have to be afraid like they are under DADT. There are enough issues in the military, without that kind of situation. It would be better to either go back to banning all homosexuals or allow homosexuals to serve openly, than to continue under DADT. That being said, I support a rational repeal of DADT.
Just anecdotal. Service members have the least freedom of any of our citizens (with the possible exception of prisoners... I say possible because there are some things you can order a service member to do that you could NEVER order a prisoner to do).
There are a few things that you have to understand, and apparently don't. Sexual assaults happen in the military. Sexual assault is A LOT more complicated in the military (For instance, some people will not believe you, and your life depends on THOSE people). Homosexuals are no worse, and no better than ordinary people. Homosexual men and women both commit sexual assault, although from the statistics that I've read this is more common in women than in men.
The incidents of sexual assault will go up if you try to integrate openly homosexual service members into the current living situation for the military. It won't happen right away. Sexual assaults on women didn't start right away when women began serving in the military. It did begin though as relationships between service members became more commonplace.
I like that. Let's forget about preventing sexual assaults, and just prosecute them after the fact.
Most sexual assaults in the military are from miscommunication. I've personally seen both the victim and the assailant pass a lie detector test, because they were both telling the truth. The assailant honestly believed it was consensual sex. It didn't save him, or her for that matter. Women need a place where they are safe (their rooms) and don't have to worry about protecting themselves.
My point is... you are highly oversimplifying the situation. They are separated for their protection.
Something to think about, the only service that hasn't had a sexual scandal in their boot camp (in the past two decades) are the Marines, and they strictly segregate their boot camps between gender. People shouldn't, but they do. It's simply a fact of life. To not take that misconduct into account in how we integrate openly homosexuals into the military would be negligent to the point of being criminally liable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My solution... convert the barracks into a series of one person rooms, each with an individual bathroom/shower. The rooms WILL be smaller per person than they are now, but service members are used to these kinds of living conditions and should adjust easily.
This will prevent "SOME" of the sexual assaults that will result.
Just anecdotal. Service members have the least freedom of any of our citizens (with the possible exception of prisoners... I say possible because there are some things you can order a service member to do that you could NEVER order a prisoner to do).
SamsungVibrant said:
There are a few things that you have to understand, and apparently don't. Sexual assaults happen in the military. Sexual assault is A LOT more complicated in the military (For instance, some people will not believe you, and your life depends on THOSE people). Homosexuals are no worse, and no better than ordinary people. Homosexual men and women both commit sexual assault, although from the statistics that I've read this is more common in women than in men.
The incidents of sexual assault will go up if you try to integrate openly homosexual service members into the current living situation for the military. It won't happen right away. Sexual assaults on women didn't start right away when women began serving in the military. It did begin though as relationships between service members became more commonplace.
hakr said:
I like that. Let's forget about preventing sexual assaults, and just prosecute them after the fact.
Frisco said:
Most sexual assaults in the military are from miscommunication. I've personally seen both the victim and the assailant pass a lie detector test, because they were both telling the truth. The assailant honestly believed it was consensual sex. It didn't save him, or her for that matter. Women need a place where they are safe (their rooms) and don't have to worry about protecting themselves.
My point is... you are highly oversimplifying the situation. They are separated for their protection.
Something to think about, the only service that hasn't had a sexual scandal in their boot camp (in the past two decades) are the Marines, and they strictly segregate their boot camps between gender. People shouldn't, but they do. It's simply a fact of life. To not take that misconduct into account in how we integrate openly homosexuals into the military would be negligent to the point of being criminally liable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My solution... convert the barracks into a series of one person rooms, each with an individual bathroom/shower. The rooms WILL be smaller per person than they are now, but service members are used to these kinds of living conditions and should adjust easily.
This will prevent "SOME" of the sexual assaults that will result.
I agree with Crude on this one. When it comes to homosexual men, heterosexual men would take the role of women, not the other way around.
From your viewpoint above, it is as necessary to separate homosexual men from heterosexual men as it is to separate heterosexual men from homosexual men.
I personally feel that it is more important to separate homosexual men from each other. Many "acquaintance rapes" involve perpetrators who don't actually think they've done anything wrong. Through either miscommunication, or misunderstanding, or sometimes alcohol, they think it's mutually consensual and acceptable.
This is one reason we don't put men and women in the same room together, and why we shouldn't do the same with a homosexual man and any other man.
Every victim that can be protected, should be protected. Whether male or female.
Though, the discussion should really focus more on homosexual women, because they have a considerably higher incidence of sexual assault.
I would've thought there are far more practical reasons that prevent women being as effective as men on the front line due to to physical capabilities, than there are reasons to discriminate based on sexuality.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
True, I believe the IDF used women on the front line when necessary due to a lack of men.
I personally have no problem with women fighting on the front line, but I do think that, as a rule, women lack the strength of men, and therefore a man is a better candidate, all else being equal.
There are other issues too, like treatment of female POWs.
I guess it depends on who you're discussing it with, any reasonable person would recognise the difference in physical capabilities between the sexes; have you ever brought it up, or had you not noticed?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
No; we, at least I, recognise it in all careers; but we're talking about military service here.
You never answered (Shock!) whether you'd ever brought the matter up in gender equality discussions before, or whether it was something you just hadn't noticed; I guess as you say it's never been brought up within discussions you've had on the subject, it's something you hadn't noticed! I guess now it's been brought to your attention you may have to reevaluate any consideration of the matter, as clearly that's a huge hole in your comprehension you've had until now.
Odd, because you stated earlier that it hadn't come up in discussions regarding equality in the past; why didn't you bring it up if you were aware of it?
Actually it was me that pointed it out here, but if you feel better taking credit for something you previously knew, but for reason not yet apparent hadn't thought to bring up, you go right ahead; kudos smacky, yay!
Nope, you're veering from erroneous toward fictitious, my views on equality are objective; everybody's equal, but with the caveat that every position, or opportunity etc. be awarded on merit.
What's with asking the question you already asked, and I answered already smacky? You've berated me before about seeking clarification when you've not answered a question put to you; you're showing yourself to be a hypocrite. I'm happy to answer the question again however, because rather than hide behind bluster like you're inclined to do, I'm happy to stand by my arguments: I believe there should be equality in all workplaces, including the military, which is a work place BTW.
You believe in equality in workplaces, including the military...until it comes to the infantry.
People often overlook this aspect of "inequality" and don't seem to be bothered by it.
I don't know if it's hypocritical or stupid to first state that there is a difference between genders, yet still fight for everything to be equal....except when it comes time to risk your life. Then there's difference and one group should be protected while the other is not.
When this fact is brought to light in discussions by anyone, people take the hypocritical stand that you take saying "oh, there's differences between the two."
Equality and respect are two different things. Which one do women seek from society? Both? Get on the front lines then.
infil
Well-Known Member
I think the entire debate is a bunch of crap. I'm being dead serious when i say if richard simmons wanted to fight for our freedom, he has every right to do so.
I have never been in the military, so this is a guess, and probably a naive one.
If i am laying in a hole in the ground, filled up with shrapnel/bullets/etc and the medic that comes to help me is gay, am I really going to give a shit? I would tend to think not so much.
If someone is comfortable enough with who they are to be open about it, good for them. If someone else is so terrified and insecure that having someone who is gay in their squad makes them uncomfortable..i think its time to grow up and welcome yourself to the 21st century.
This is no different than racial integration. Blacks...serving in combat units.....OH MY GOD!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (fast forward from 1950 to 2010) I dont care what color, sexual orientation, gender etc someone is. If they serve this country, everyone who has NOT served this country should be worshiping the ground that they walk on, whether you agree with their personal lifestyle or are too small minded to see that it has no impact on you.
For the record, I am happily straight, but I can hump my 76 y/o italian bosses leg and be comfortable with that.
I have never been in the military, so this is a guess, and probably a naive one.
If i am laying in a hole in the ground, filled up with shrapnel/bullets/etc and the medic that comes to help me is gay, am I really going to give a shit? I would tend to think not so much.
If someone is comfortable enough with who they are to be open about it, good for them. If someone else is so terrified and insecure that having someone who is gay in their squad makes them uncomfortable..i think its time to grow up and welcome yourself to the 21st century.
This is no different than racial integration. Blacks...serving in combat units.....OH MY GOD!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (fast forward from 1950 to 2010) I dont care what color, sexual orientation, gender etc someone is. If they serve this country, everyone who has NOT served this country should be worshiping the ground that they walk on, whether you agree with their personal lifestyle or are too small minded to see that it has no impact on you.
For the record, I am happily straight, but I can hump my 76 y/o italian bosses leg and be comfortable with that.
Yeah, for the record, I feel the same way. If they are able-bodied, everyone is allowed in.
Vihzel
Destroying Balls Everyday
No matter what... Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be taken down in flames. Time is on the side of the group fighting for simple rights. Remember how long it took African Americans to win simple rights and how it took women even longer for the same rights as men. If history is bound to repeat itself, then homosexuals will win their right to fight for their country proudly.
Side note: I love it when straight men tell gay men that they chose to be gay... as if the straight men had some personal experience.
Side note: I love it when straight men tell gay men that they chose to be gay... as if the straight men had some personal experience.
Crude
Android Expert
I love how gays fight for equal rights. When clearly all MEN aren't made the same.
Also, I wonder what gay in the military will do to enlistment quotas.
Vihzel
Destroying Balls Everyday
All men are created equal... at least under The Constitution. Then again... The Constitution isn't flawless.
infil
Well-Known Member
Im not sure i'm following you........
Society tries to fight for everyone to be equal. It doesn't allow the individual to be an individual. Everyone being equal is a good and a bad thing. People aren't mistreated, but also people that don't deserve things are given things in the name of equality. This isn't particularly about sexual orientation or gender or race.
An example would be in schools where the system favors students if something goes wrong. If a kid fails, it's the teacher's fault. We forget that the rest of the class managed to pass, some with As. Yet we feel the kid with an F deserves another shot. Extra credit.
We target special treatment in this country so much and so selectively, no one makes a deal out of good students being in Honors and AP classes, but we do make a deal about your stupid, lazy kid being put in remedial classes.
We make a big deal about equal pay for men and women, but we don't expect the same out of women. Hell, some women don't expect much out of themselves. How do we justify the equal pay then? You hear it all the time, "anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well." The military is a great example. You're telling me the weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman? You're telling me a woman can't pick up a gun and kill someone better than a man? Defend our country better than a man?
What about sports? No one watches the WNBA. They want the same respect though, right? I can count on one hand the number of women that have tried to transcend the segregation of gender in sports. Danica Patrick, Billie Jean King, and Michelle Wie. Why do women use a smaller basketball? Why don't women box men? Do you see the selectivity in which people that think they know all about "freedom" and "rights" are making their decisions?
Most of this has to do with being politically correct. You can't hit a woman. Why? Your child isn't stupid and lazy, he just needs a different approach.
And it's what has turned this society into a bunch of ****ing pussies that expect hand outs.
So gays and lesbians and trannies are no different. Anything a hetero can do, a homosexual can do just as well. Right?