DADT repealed

[Recovering LSO]

I don't believe homosexuality to be a choice.

This is where I think this entire debate starts and stops. You can argue all day the merits of various policies, but after thoughtful debate you'll end trying to answer that question. My opinion on this matter is part of what drives me mad when people try to compare this to integration or, even worse, emancipation.

 

[Seafort]

This is where I think this entire debate starts and stops. You can argue all day the merits of various policies, but after thoughtful debate you'll end trying to answer that question. My opinion on this matter is part of what drives me mad when people try to compare this to integration or, even worse, emancipation.

+1

We're on opposite sides here, clearly, but I absolutely concur. My opinion on this matter is part of what drives me mad when someone tries to argue against my comparison with integration.

Concur with you about emancipation, though. Homosexuals of the dominant hegemony (white, educated, upperclass) have always been treated way better than minority populations regardless of sexuality. Comparing progress in the gay rights movement to the end of slavery is completely inappropriate.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I just think we're, in general, more capable of restraint, and more capable of seeing people as people and not as possible sex objects, than perhaps you do.

I genuinely hope you're right. I guess that's just part of being a helo pilot, I'm always expecting bad shit to happen!

So then, what do you suggest we do about berthing?

Do we put the guys who have come out all in the same berthing? That would be difficult since they'd all be inclined to be attracted to each other.

Do we leave them as is and leave the very real possibility of having people have issues with being a sexual object now? That's not having a problem with someone being gay, but a problem with someone possibly living a rack over from someone who is inclined to be sexually attracted to them. The issue as I see it isn't that there will be overt sexual acts but the explicit knowledge that someone has the inclination of being sexually attracted to them. That's why we don't put men and women in the same berthing.

So, do we put gays in with chicks and lesbians in with dudes? That too just has too many issues.

It's a difficult logistics problem to solve. It would be feasible on shore installations and maybe on larger ships. Smaller ships/subs/front lines are where it's going to be difficult.

The answer will probably be that you and me go forward and deal with repercussions as they come. The politicians that passed this care less about the details and more about just getting it passed.

 

[ryan1234]

...You say you have gay friends, and yet you have no issue saying "homos" so flippantly? Part of the change is going to be watching that sort of language. Just as we have to watch what we say in regards to race and sex.

Again, maybe I'm missing the grand enlightenment, but saying "homo" is now bad? Seriously!? Watching that language?

Ok, just for the record what are acceptable terms for those who are sexually attracted to the same sex? Is it ok even to say that?

 

[Seafort]

I genuinely hope you're right. I guess that's just part of being a helo pilot, I'm always expecting bad shit to happen!

Probably a pretty safe outlook to have.

The answer will probably be that you and me go forward and deal with repercussions as they come. The politicians that passed this care less about the details and more about just getting it passed.

I was speaking with a four star on this issue a few months back (guess he saw the writing on the wall? Well, that's what flags do, I guess), and he told me two things that back you up on this. He said, first, there was no plan to separate berthing into gay and straight, and unless the studies were so completely wrong about unit cohesiveness, there never would be (and he doubted the studies were wrong), and second, to rely on my chief and the senior enlisted in my division to help take care of the repercussions that come up. Berthing is all sorts of uncomfortable all ready, and we rely on our LPOs and our CPOs to take care of business, and I think we're going to really, really need the help of the CPO Mess on this one...

Again, maybe I'm missing the grand enlightenment, but saying "homo" is now bad? Seriously!? Watching that language?

Seriously. I've considered homo inappropriate for at least twelve or thirteen years now. See the dictionary:

homo definition

n.
a homosexual. (Usually a male. Rude and derogatory.) : Bob got fired for calling Bill a homo.
adj.
homosexual. (Usually objectionable.) : Have you ever been to a homo bar?

Ok, just for the record what are acceptable terms for those who are sexually attracted to the same sex? Is it ok even to say that?

Gay, Lesbian, Bi (if also attracted to opposite sex), Homosexual. I believe that's it. Anything else... Fag, Faerie, Pixie, Homo, etc, etc. They're slurs. Completely inappropriate in civilised discourse.

 

[Pariel]

IMO this is a means to get DOMA repealed. If prohibiting gays from serving is wrong, then why can't they get married?
DADT was a federal law that prohibited gays from openly serving, the repercussions will now be challenges to DOMA.

I think this is exactly the point. This is a stepping stone to remove any legislation that puts homosexuals at a disadvantage to heterosexuals.

Personally, I'm all for it. I don't think having a church bless a gay marriage is what most homosexuals are looking for, and I don't believe it makes it any more or less holy. I do think that real injustice is happening to homosexuals when they are unable to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage provided by the government.

Also, I've spent the last three years changing in front of gay men, without feeling abused. I think there are a lot of intolerant people with big mouths who will either get over it or get out.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I think this is exactly the point. This is a stepping stone to remove any legislation that puts homosexuals at a disadvantage to heterosexuals.

Personally, I'm all for it. I don't think having a church bless a gay marriage is what most homosexuals are looking for, and I don't believe it makes it any more or less holy. I do think that real injustice is happening to homosexuals when they are unable to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage provided by the government.

Also, I've spent the last three years changing in front of gay men, without feeling abused. I think there are a lot of intolerant people with big mouths who will either get over it or get out.

See that's where you're WRONG.

There is no federal legislation that exists that puts homosexuals at a disadvantage.

Okay, they can't get married to each other but I can't marry a person of the same-sex either so I lack that right as well.

I don't believe homosexuality isn't a choice. Here's why. I knew a set of identical twins in college. One was gay and one was straight and eventually married(a female). They were both raised in the same household and yet the difference that I found was that they had different sets of friends and influences.

I don't care what you support, but don't go around saying that we have some federal legislation that explicitly puts them at a disadvantage. They made a choice to not marry the way everyone else does. They have that same right as I do.

Also on this little bit about intolerance. I hate when "open-minded" people go around telling people that it's wrong to be intolerant of others. That's their doggone right to be intolerant if they so choose. It's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. Get over it.

 

[ryan1234]

See the dictionary:

homo definition

n.
a homosexual. (Usually a male. Rude and derogatory.) : Bob got fired for calling Bill a homo.
adj.
homosexual. (Usually objectionable.) : Have you ever been to a homo bar?

Homo, n.

1. A kind of milk found in Canada

"This is homo-milk, it must be yours."

2. The word man in latin or also used to describe someone who is gay or homsexual



adj;

Literally meaning: the same

slang;

A term that has been reclaimed by some gay/queer communities that is used affectionately between community members to mean someone wonderfully, sublimely gay.

 

[ryan1234]

Also, I've spent the last three years changing in front of gay men.

What?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Flying Toaster,

Can we trade states? You can have Texas. I'll take your anti-discriminatory state, please. No legal marriages for anyone, that's a socio religious institution, and the state should stay out of it. Civil unions for everyone, because the government needs to know who I combine legal and financial rights with. I don't need a government to bless my marriage with my wife, that's between me, my Church, and my God. Likewise, I don't need a religious institution telling me who I can and cannot share my finances with, or who gets custody of my children, or who gets to pull the plug if I am on life support. Apples and oranges, and we're long past the time where we should stop confusing them...

Yes! I will warn you, if you think the government dictating your morals is bad, have fun with a government that dictates your money. Enjoy Deval Patrick, a state that seems to think they are obligated to all your money, some of the highest taxes and fees in the country, a terrible economy, the most hostile environment in the country for small business, roads so bumpy and broken up they resemble a cart path, bridges that have holes in them, the highest insurance rates in the country, in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, lawful firearms owners treated like criminals, judges who'll send an honest person who made a small mistake away for 10 years but will let illegal immigrants walk for manslaughter, 6,000+ state workers who make 100K+, and the second highest debt per capita in the country. I wonder why with the exception of illegal immigrants we've had negative population growth. Yeah, you're right, Texas sounds terrible, lets turn this country into Massachusetts!

It never stops with agendas. If you give a moose a muffin...

 

[CommodoreMid]

So how about Article 125 of the UCMJ? Wouldn't openly admitting to being gay or lesbian be a tacit admission of violation of said article?

No, just because you are inclined to be attracted to other men if you're a dude doesn't mean you have committed sodomy. Same goes for straight people too, it's a thing called virginity Besides, if they start prosecuting gay people for that, are they going to go after every man in the military who gives it to his wife in the butt?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I don't think many prosecutors would charge someone for 125 if that was the only offense. The only one I've seen is 125 for issues pertaining to oral sex because of the article 120 rewrite which makes it hard to get it in under that article.

 

[GreenLantern330]

Okay, I'm just curious. I believe there was a survey that went around to servicemembers about the issue before repeal, correct? Since I'm not in the military, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But enlighten me, did it address berthing issues? I'm just thinking if it did then a majority of people feel it won't be a problem. You all do bring up many great points on both sides of the issue though. I'm just curious if they surveyed everyone on berthing.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Okay, I'm just curious. I believe there was a survey that went around to servicemembers about the issue before repeal, correct? Since I'm not in the military, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But enlighten me, did it address berthing issues? I'm just thinking if it did then a majority of people feel it won't be a problem. You all do bring up many great points on both sides of the issue though. I'm just curious if they surveyed everyone on berthing.

I'm curious WHO they surveyed. I never heard of the survey before the results were published.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I'm just thinking if it did then a majority of people feel it won't be a problem.

Remember for every deployed person in Iraq, Afghanistan, or on a boat for that matter, there is some shoe clerk who doesn't deploy, works 9-5, and goes home every night. It's a lot more easy for them to be "comfortable" with it. I would advise you look at the in depth survey results, especially from those currently deployed and on the front line.