"Don't ask/Don't tell" is very stupid

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes. The best. Personal experience from serving in the military beats any imagionationary fantasy world of ultimate fairness that you are dreaming of.

Well, that's ok. We have draft over here, so the majority of the male population was in the army. Which happens to include me, but don't take that as more of a personal claim than getting drafted.

But at any rate, get off that high horse, you're by far not the only one with military experience.

Combat is stressful. Adding an additional level of stress because you have to make men more correct in their behavior is, in truth, inhumane. I think it is YOU who are advocating harsher treatment for homosexuals indirectly.

Hmm? Now I haven't been in combat, but I can't say that at any point when I was running with a backpack and an assault rifle up a hill in training, I had time for wondering if the guy next to me is gay. It takes a certain kind of unhealthy obsession -- the kind Parky was talking about earlier -- to still fit that in your head even when you have far more immediate and serious troubles.

Plus, the same objection could apply to any other discrimination that most other armies forbid. E.g., a die-hard white supremacist might feel stress because they have to have a black lay the suppression fire for him. E.g., a neo-nazi might be stressed to have a Jew doing the pinning while he flanks. A macho male-supremacist might feel stressed if he ever learns that it's a bunch of women operating the SAM's that keep him from being fuel-air bombed into a smear on the wall. Conversely, a feminist might feel a lot of stress knowing that there are a bunch of second generation Turks and Arabs in that army, that her life indirectly depends on. A reservist my age might be stressed that his life will depend on a bunch of kids these days with no sense of responsibility or respect for hierarchy.

Heck, the Pentagon still has twice the toilets it needs, because it was built in an age where separate toilets were mandatory for the blacks and whites. Don't you think that some white supremacists nowadays might still feel stressed if they have to sit on the same toilet seat that a black just used?

Should we start kicking everyone out of the army, that someone else might have a problem with?

And if the army managed to regulate just fine against such discrimination, what makes gays so special?

How would allowing officers to have sex with the enlisted threaten national security? It does. And it does for simular reasons.

Hmm? Now that's got to be the non-sequitur of the year. Please explain how that's even remotely similar or related to allowing gays in the army.

What civilians who only know combat throught their XBOX cannot imagine is that the miltiary is hellishly unfair for everyone in the military. You do not own yourself anymore. You are owned by the miltiary. They tell stright people who they can and cannot screw and when they can and cannot talk about it. So, no special treatment, for anyone.

Well, that's ok, but again: you can cut it out with that BS claim to glory, because a lot of us served in the army.

Plus, it seems to me like special pleading anyway. So you can tell them not to talk about this or that, and not worry about that stress... except when it's about homosexuality. Then you can't do it. Colour me unimpressed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can imagine Bill in a combat situation. He is under fire and digs a foxhole while under fire. Another soldier comes to help him dig and they both crawl in.

"Wait, hold on, you're not gay, are you?!"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I'm more like thinking of the kind of stories both my grandfathers had about WW2.

Think along the lines: You wake up one morning with yet another couple of your platoon mates dead with holes in their head, the work of snipers. Yesterday evening your fuel dump went up in flames, presumably the work of partisans. The sky lights up with rocket-artillery fire and, boy, those things scream. You turn your head to bark an order at the guy next to you, and you feel something warm in the mouth just as he suddenly folds. You realize with horror it's a piece of his brains.

I'm wondering what kind of person would have time to wonder "but, was he gay?"

'Cause, you know, that was the kind of thing that was _absent_ in their many stories.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

In the documentary Paragraph 175 there are a few interesting stories about homosexual Germans joining the army under the Third Reich.

 

[Bill Thompson]

USA not ready today
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167585

 

[Bill Thompson]

I can imagine Bill in a combat situation. He is under fire and digs a foxhole while under fire. Another soldier comes to help him dig and they both crawl in.

"Wait, hold on, you're not gay, are you?!"

What the hell are you talking about?

It is you who are thinking of mixing sexuality in combat, not me. It does not belong.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Complete BS. You can't actually define how removing DADT is in any way changing the stressors in combat. I seriously question whether you can even define the stressors of combat outside of your "I was in the military" assertion.

You are the one pushing for change so the proof is on you. You have to prove how it would be better. You have the burden of proof. That is how the real world works.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yes I thought that was interesting. Apparently anecdotal evidence is now the best type of scientific evidence.

People who have new ideas have the burden of proof.

 

[Sabrina]

From what I can tell, Bill, you're in the minority here. Most of the people on this forum who have served or are still serving in the military think it's an outdated rule that should by rights be abolished to make way for more progressive thinking. The UCMJ will still apply to them; rules and regulations will still apply to them, so allowing people to be openly gay in the military changes NOTHING. It was useful during its time, but that time is long since past. Time to get out of the late eighties, early nineties, and join us here in the 21st century. Just sayin'.

 

[Thunder]

You are the one pushing for change so the proof is on you. You have to prove how it would be better.

freedom is always better than discrimination and prejudice.

A true American would understand that.

btw Bill, did you know that many extreme/obsessive homophobes are really closeted homosexuals? with this in mind, I don't give a rat's ass about intolerant people in the military who can't handle having a gay man in their unit.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You are the one pushing for change so the proof is on you. You have to prove how it would be better. You have the burden of proof. That is how the real world works.

It seems to me like you forgot the positive/negative claim part of that burden of proof. If you're pushing the idea that there is a (hopefully measurable) difference in stress levels or anything else, it's up to you to present that data, and nobody owes you a disproof.

Honestly, the burden of proof was never intended as a blanket excuse to wave around BS with impunity.

 

[GreNME]

You are the one pushing for change so the proof is on you. You have to prove how it would be better. You have the burden of proof. That is how the real world works.

Which has already been done over and over.

1. Gays already serve in the military, so what would be better is soldiers who aren't going to lengths that might result in erratic behavior to avoid facing section 8.
2. There are a number of Arabic translators who are gay but cannot serve in the military, so what would be better would be to have more people allowed in who would provide a tactical advantage against a foreign-language-speaking force.
3. Gays are Americans as well, and removing DADT ensures that a part of the population who has as much right as other Americans to fight for the country are allowed to do so.

You can't refute any of those, Bill, without your constant assumptions that the UCMJ somehow doesn't apply. Your whole stupid list of reasons against removing DADT is predicated on the UCMJ not applying to gays. The burden of proof is now on you to show why these reasons based on tactical advantage and resource bolstering are somehow not applicable just because the source would be coming from homosexuals-- and you can't do it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm merely illustrating the absurdity of one of your arguments.

It is you who are thinking of mixing sexuality in combat, not me. It does not belong.

YOU asserted that a person's sexuality makes a difference in combat, not I.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You are the one pushing for change so the proof is on you. You have to prove how it would be better. You have the burden of proof. That is how the real world works.

Really? Is that how women and minorities became recognized as more than 2nd class citizen?
There is NO evidence that homosexuality has hurt any military in any significant way. Thus the burden is on you homophobes to prove that it can be harmful.
If it were established fact that homosexuality in the military would destroy it, then the burden would be on us civil rights activists.
You fail at logic. Try again.

 

[Thunder]

There is only ONE reason why gay men and women are being kicked out of the military: bigotry. its that simple.

some of our fellow Americans are just soo uncomfortable with themselves and their own sexuality, that they simply cannot deal with the idea of serving next to a patriotic, loyal, professional, gay or lesbian American.

its pathetic and disgusting. these folks need to grow the Hell up.