Don't ask, Don't Tell, Don't keep this policy...

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:40 am

They said that about black soldiers serving with white soldiers once upon a time because once upon a time, it was true. Placing black soldiers in with white soldiers as equals had the potential to cause problems and certainly did not make for a nice, cohesive unit.

However, times change, and because of a push for change yesterday, racial differences can be set aside in a military environment today.

So, while all those second-rate soldiers (I won't disagree with you there, a true professional should be just that, and race, gender, or sexual preference should not hinder that professionalism; sadly, that's just not the way it is) feel the way they feel today, keep pushing for change, and sexual preferences will be set aside tomorrow.

BlakOrkz · Post by **BlakOrkz** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:55 am

All I point out is that you would never put a male soldier in with female soldiers - why? Potential harrassment, discipline issues, as well as making the female soldiers uncomfortable. (note: I am not talking about the actual work-environment, limiting my scope to barracks/boot, mainly. Work environment can, and should be 100% integrated.)

The solution - DON'T MIX THEM. This has nothing to do with race. If it is constitutionally unlawful for me to segregate myself from people potentially attracted to me, then by all that is holy, I had better be able to sleep with the female soldiers.

However, one can not sit there and tell female soldiers: "We're putting this guy with you, you're S.O.L. if you feel uncomfortable and if something happens. By the way, if you complain, you'll all be branded bigots and close-minded. Have a chipper day." Ironically, everyone would be up in arms about how absurd it is to mix the two together.

If we're talking about 100% equal rights for ALL people (not just expanded rights for homosexuals, but equal rights for heterosexuals as well, if homosexuals can be happy, so can heteros. The minority can not infringe on the majority's rights, either.), homosexuals would actually be segregated from the rest of the military population to avoid making anyone uncomfortable. One barracks for hetero women, one for hetero men, and one for homosexuals

So, is it really worth getting rid of the policy? Is it worth segregating yourself out and making yourself an open target for the minority of idiots that will do stupid things? No. IMO, no. The best solution is to leave sexuality 100% out of the military. Don't ask, don't freaking tell - and we'll all be happy.

You don't have to define yourself by who you're attracted to or who you sleep with. You have many more facets than that.

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:25 am

Wrong, BlakOrkz.

You have to have a SEPARATE barracks for each individual homosexual, or at best, pair up a homosexual female with a homosexual male.

I don't get to shack up with MY preferred gender, why does someone else get to? That's TOTALLY unfair. If they get to do it, then I get to do it!

Rick7475 · Post by **Rick7475** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:19 am

BlakOrkz wrote:All I point out is that you would never put a male soldier in with female soldiers - why? Potential harrassment, discipline issues, as well as making the female soldiers uncomfortable.

Just FYI, female combat soldiers, front line infantry soldiers, are fighting along-side their male counterparts in several countries, including Canada and Israel, and they are dying beside their male counterparts. They also sleep together in the trenches and in the tents at base camps.

I commanded a training platoon at one time in 1989 that was mixed and we all slept together in the same tent and in the field, about 10 females and 20 males. That was the year Canada allowed females into combat roles. That summer a good majority abandoned their admin and sup tech courses to join with the infantry and artillery courses.

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:30 am

Yeah, but Canada isn't the US. If you removed our sex drive with cybernetic upgrades, we'd probably not have any issues with it either.

Nekulor · Post by **Nekulor** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:04 am

...but I like my sex drive.

You'll never take me alive for such a program!

AlmightyTDawg · Post by **AlmightyTDawg** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:15 am

I think the point that's being made, Jayde, is that the military's insistence on "some people can't change" is itself perhaps the greatest stumbling block. Change happens by fits and starts, but the military's position more or less is apologist for the homophobic subsection of the military.

Racial integration in the military happened partly on the basis of respect gained when segregated units fought alongside white counterparts - the camaraderie aspect. And the point of Mayhem's initial petition is, if you think about it, the same has occurred with homosexuals - the only difference being the hidden nature of it prevents that intermingling from occurring.

Are there bad seeds out there? Sure. But I think of it this way - the reason I never joined the military is because there's no chance in hell I would ever clean a latrine with a toothbrush or any similar sort of hazing/indoctrination. I thought it beneath me, but if forced, and contrasted with a stint in Leavenworth, well, I guess it ain't so bad.

And incidentally, I don't buy the homosexuality/female distinction in close combat either. If that was the case, you'd just designate them similarly non-combatant as women in the rear echelon, problem solved. Or, similarly, there are are plenty of factors that can disrupt unit cohesion, and they all can't be eliminated. And while I agree you'd remove ones you can control, the rhetoric on homosexuality is that it's somehow uniquely fatal to unit morale and I just don't get that. It's an assertion, untestable because the people making the assertion won't test it. The last evidence I read a few years back suggested it was bunk, but we won't know until someone takes the leap. Of course there's a cost-benefit - but I've never seen "unit cohesion" measured in a legitimate way with morale of free-to-express homosexual soldiers and possible recruitment benefits - so all I get to do is shoot from the hip and decry the lack of data.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:25 am

ç i p h é r wrote:What's wrong with the policy? Seems like perfectly reasonable guidelines for everyone to follow to keep sexuality a non-issue.

The quick answer is the military loses highly qualified people who could make our country safer because of it.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:33 am

JaydeMoon wrote:Having spent 18 years growing up and living on and around various military bases and then another 11 years serving in the military itself, rising to the rank of Staff Sergeant and leading soldiers

ZOMG JaydeMoon can kick my ass!

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:35 pm

Mulu wrote:
ç i p h é r wrote:What's wrong with the policy? Seems like perfectly reasonable guidelines for everyone to follow to keep sexuality a non-issue.
The quick answer is the military loses highly qualified people who could make our country safer because of it.

and then there are gay generals who did great service to this country because they decided that coming out of the closet in basic wouldn't be the best place for it. . .

We lose some, we keep some.

Oh, also it would bug me, if I didn't say it, "I imagine a lot of people could kick your ass Mulu."

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:31 pm

BlackOrkz: The barracks are already mixed - meaning, they are already home to both heterosexual and homosexual men - the homosexual men just cannot talk about their boyfriends, or their love interests, or get caught going out on a date, etc. In all these years that homosexuals have had to hide themselves, I've not read or heard about any cases where some poor hetersexual person was sexually assaulted by a homosexual soldier in his barracks.

As for your rant about seperate barracks - well, thats straight out of the past, with the debate about integrating whites and blacks. Yes, there may be some hostility. People may get hurt (probably homosexual people in fact, since there really is no pattern of "straight bashing") but no social advancement ever came without a price - a lot of people got hurt in the civil rights movement - but we needed to make those social advances.

Jayde said "tomorrow" - but Jayde, tomorrow never comes unless we make it come. Let me quote the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

--Martin Luther King Jr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

"Wait" was the cry in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected - that was the year I went into the army. Clinton had promised to change the army to allow gay and lesbian people to serve - but the cry of "wait" was too loud. So, instead of simply allowing gays and lesbians to serve, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was instituted. Now, it has been 15 years and still gays and lesbians cannot serve openly in the military. "wait" is becoming "never" - so, pardon me if I don't want to wait for my civil rights. I do not believe there is a great social wheel inevitably turning towards progress - I believe there is a great social wheel, but there are people on either side of it trying to push it in opposite directions. Some, like myself, are pushing for social progress, pushing to make America live up to its promise of Life, Liberty, Equality and Justice for All. On the opposite side are those fighting to maintain the status quo in which some people have more rights than others, and worse yet, potentially roll back the wheel so that the privileged gain even more while the oppressed are pushed down further. So, I will not "wait" - I, and folks like me, will push and go on pushing until America lives up to its great promise of equality.

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:03 pm

Mikayla wrote:BlackOrkz: The barracks are already mixed - meaning, they are already home to both heterosexual and homosexual men - the homosexual men just cannot talk about their boyfriends, or their love interests, or get caught going out on a date, etc. In all these years that homosexuals have had to hide themselves, I've not read or heard about any cases where some poor hetersexual person was sexually assaulted by a homosexual soldier in his barracks.

As for your rant about seperate barracks - well, thats straight out of the past, with the debate about integrating whites and blacks. Yes, there may be some hostility. People may get hurt (probably homosexual people in fact, since there really is no pattern of "straight bashing") but no social advancement ever came without a price - a lot of people got hurt in the civil rights movement - but we needed to make those social advances.

Jayde said "tomorrow" - but Jayde, tomorrow never comes unless we make it come. Let me quote the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

--Martin Luther King Jr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

"Wait" was the cry in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected - that was the year I went into the army. Clinton had promised to change the army to allow gay and lesbian people to serve - but the cry of "wait" was too loud. So, instead of simply allowing gays and lesbians to serve, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was instituted. Now, it has been 15 years and still gays and lesbians cannot serve openly in the military. "wait" is becoming "never" - so, pardon me if I don't want to wait for my civil rights. I do not believe there is a great social wheel inevitably turning towards progress - I believe there is a great social wheel, but there are people on either side of it trying to push it in opposite directions. Some, like myself, are pushing for social progress, pushing to make America live up to its promise of Life, Liberty, Equality and Justice for All. On the opposite side are those fighting to maintain the status quo in which some people have more rights than others, and worse yet, potentially roll back the wheel so that the privileged gain even more while the oppressed are pushed down further. So, I will not "wait" - I, and folks like me, will push and go on pushing until America lives up to its great promise of equality.

Well, okay. That's all good. Moving, even. Really. I can literally see this speach at a G.L.A.D. rally or whatever. I would think that people are not just beaten senseless and then thrown out of the army because of their sexuality. Because then any spiteful asswipe would go about calling people he hates, gay. I bet there are trials and such involved which makes each and every situation more difficult then to say "OMG HE'S A GAY! GET HIM!" It could be that your view of the military is antiquated.
I don't know if beatings are common in the military, chances are that your experience, may have been unique. I bet that violence in the miltary is greatly less than say violence in your average american city.

By civil rights do you mean that marriage tax stuff that you spoke of and this Don't ask dont tell policy thing? I don't know, I'm uninformed. Could you list all the rights that are being infringed upon?

Hey Mikayla, would you be horriified if no one was allowed to serve openly irregardless of sexuality?

Small edit.

Would it be okay if we had seperate but equal drinking fountains, bathrooms, stores, beds, lamposts for you people?

Us, hateful-god-fearing-white-republican-straight-people-who-are-always-trying-to-keep-you-down-because-we-like-that-status-quo, are not trying to do this on purpose. You see its because of our ideology where we just want to be left alone without government giving more rights to minorities than we ourselves have. Which doesn't actually change our minds about your position but rather forces us to comply with the new status quo. Kinda like how you have to comply with ours now. So you see, there can be no peace without fair justice. Sometimes being called a racial slur hurts when you know it cannot be returned in kind. We're very sorry, Sincerely Republicans.

P.S. Here is hoping that the first gay president is a Republican.

P.P.S. We don't really mean that. We're hateful.

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:11 pm

So, I will not "wait" - I, and folks like me, will push and go on pushing until America lives up to its great promise of equality.

Your going to be waiting a long ass time

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:22 pm

Danubus wrote:
So, I will not "wait" - I, and folks like me, will push and go on pushing until America lives up to its great promise of equality.
Your going to be waiting a long ass time

I foresee that Martin Luther Mikayla will be shot before she sees peace.
So hateful. . .

Yeah, see that Danubus was all like "Your going to have to be waiting a long ass time!" Wut? See, that's the mindset of a lot of americans. Convince Danubus, then you should be ready to march on washington, because the politicians (republican or democrat) are just as smart and competent.

edit: Oh, this hateful republican would also like to point out that he's never harrased his congressman because of gays. Never! I sware! I just don't care!! There is a huge shift in acceptance in the status quo that has happened with out government influence. It has happaned culturally. TV, internet, etc. Perhaps people had open discussion about race, religion, sexuality, there wouldn't be a need for government to do anything, instead it would happen on its own as the ideology of the people elected would change in time because of that shift. Like say, how the greatest darkhorse candidate of the republican party got elected, honest A to the L. wut? You should focus on Ron Paul(R). While he wont change people's mind with his arguements, but he'll do the right thing. Instead of Hillbillary who decided against the whole open serving in the miltary thing because he was pressured by phone calls. Bill Clinton = Raging pussy.
Hillary Clinton = Same exact thing only moar so cause she's a female. ;o

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:42 pm

Helios:

I foresee that Martin Luther Mikayla will be shot before she sees peace.
So hateful. . .

Nice personal attacks Helios. Its interesting how this subject is the one that sparks such emotion in you and gets you to post in the forums - you seem compelled to defend the right of homophobes to discriminate. I wonder why.

Anyway, on to your points:

Helios:

I would think that people are not just beaten senseless and then thrown out of the army because of their sexuality.

Well, yes, they are. When I was in, a certain Private's boyfriend showed up to the barracks 'outing' him. A week later, half a dozen guys wearing balaclava masks pushed their way into his room, beat him up, and hung him out a third floor window by his feet in the middle of winter (in Alaska). Those guys were never caught, but that Private was kicked out of the army for being gay. And that's just the guy I knew - there are lots of other stories too including infamous ones like Pvt. Barry Winchell getting beaten to death by his squad mates because he was dating a transgender woman.

Helios:

Hey Mikayla, would you be horriified if no one was allowed to serve openly irregardless of sexuality?

You mean if everyone was subject to a don't ask, don't tell policy? I think it would be a stupid waste of time and effort, but, it would be fair.

Helios:

You see its because of our ideology where we just want to be left alone without government giving more rights to minorities than we ourselves have. Which doesn't actually change our minds about your position but rather forces us to comply with the new status quo. Kinda like how you have to comply with ours now. So you see, there can be no peace without fair justice. Sometimes being called a racial slur hurts when you know it cannot be returned in kind. We're very sorry, Sincerely Republicans.

More rights? Heterosexual soldiers can serve "openly" in the Army; homosexual ones cannot. Heterosexual people can marry the ones they love and have the 1100 some odd benefits that exist under Federal law; homosexual people cannot. How are your rights being curtailed?

The only "right" of yours we are seeking to curtail is your "right" to keep us from being treated equally. No one is seeking to outlaw heterosexual marriage, or to keep heterosexual soldiers from serving 'openly' - this idea that we are infringing on your rights is bull-crap, pure and simple - the only "right" we are infringing on is your desire to discriminate against us because you think the bible tells you its ok to do treat us like we are less than human. Well, your religious beliefs should not define my secular rights - I (and every American, straight or queer) am entitled to the same life, liberty and justice as any "hateful-god-fearing-white-republican-straight-people-blah blah".