Yep. The only difference is instead of suspecting they would know who. I mean what do people think would happen under the new policy, that Gays would start raping everyone in sight?Originally Posted by perna
Tags:
-
-
Yes it seems a lot of people think this would happen. Originally Posted by HES
I really feel a lot of people either misunderstand or are intentionally ignoring this side of the argument.
Openly gay doesn't mean they are suddenly going to be trying to sneak into bed with you. It means that if he or she is on leave and they are seen with their SO then they won't be kicked out. This is what I, and many others have a problem with. -
Originally Posted by perna
I think you missed the part where those jobs you are not required to get undressed and take showers with gay people or people of the opposite sex. Their department would get sued into oblivion if they told people either get undressed and take showers with gays/opposite sex or get disciplined/fired. Any of those civilian jobs....if you don't want to take a shower with anyone else you simply go home, and do it. You always have an option. No employer can force you to do shit like that since it goes against any ethical and sexual harassment laws/rules on the book.
I never said anyone is going to get raped. Way to put words into other peoples mouths.Last edited by Belmont31R; 02-05-10 at 11:28.
-
Originally Posted by perna
Guess what? You can get kicked out for certain heterosexual acts, too. The military is not the civilian world. You can get disciplined for sharing your heterosexual habits with other people. If someone wanted to make a stink about it people could get nailed to wall for "bragging" about banging someone last night. I saw someone actually get kicked out for making a S&M tape in the barracks. You can get kicked out for adultery (article 134).
Like it or not sex and relationships are something the military has had clear authority over since its inception.
But I guess its just easier to call people homophobes, bigots, etc instead of debating the reality of the situation. -
Originally Posted by HES
So it shouldnt be a problem if women were forced to shower with men, get undressed for them, be UA observers (watching pee exit the body by the book), share the same barracks room, use the same latrines, etc?
The reason the sexes are seperated is because of the sexual attraction. Because people have a certain expectation of privacy, and decency that means they are not going to be forced into a situation where someone who might have a sexual attraction towards them sees them naked or other personal/private situations. Its not because dicks and pussies cannot be in the same room. No one should be forced to undress in front of people who are sexually attracted to what they are. But you all want to throw that level of decency and privacy out the window because you think its homophobic? I guess you all need to write DOD and tell them its sexist that men cannot be an UA observers for female, take shower with them, and live in the same barracks room together. -
I thought that I already made that quite clear, so I'll say it again. "They" already have equal rights and protections under the law. I do not appreciate "Them" trying to use Civil Rights for "Their" cause, not in the slightest. Not the ****in same. I do not appreciate, support, or condone homosexuality or the behavior that goes along with it. Especially when trying to force "Their" opinions down other peoples throats. Get it? Originally Posted by Sry0fcr
Homophobic? Nah, not in the slightest. A phobia denotes a fear. Homo disgusted or the lifestyle makes me want to projectile vomit, would be an accurate assessment. You bet.
No, I don't live in LA LA land like you. If there was some way to ID "Them" without the behavior, it would be a level playing field, but you can't.I thought it was pretty clear from your post that you have a problem with allowing gays to have the same rights and protections as everyone else and if you can't see the parallels between this and the segregationists then you've got your blinders on. The rest of your post doesn't really deserve a response unfortunately.
"They" do not belong in the military unless "They" are identified, given separate facilities, given a badge (A letter "G" added to "Their" name tape, a G tattoo on "Their" forehead, a bell on "their" combat boot or around the neck, GPS Tracker, or other signaling device to alert the "hetero" population about "Their" location), and other hetero military members are asked, if serving in close quarters with "Them" offends their beliefs AND restrict them to Combat Service Support units. Way too much if you ask me.
The simple solution is to serve and STFU about "Their" degenerate lifestyle.Last edited by RogerinTPA; 02-05-10 at 12:43.
For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling -
The simple solution is for them to stay the **** out of the military! Period! Originally Posted by RogerinTPA
PROUD TO BE A VETERAN
LAND OF THE FREE - BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE -
Can't argue with the fact that there lives are on the line with those professions. I still venture to say though that military life is still somewhat different than the ones you mentioned. Originally Posted by perna
Regardless, I can almost guarantee that having an "open" policy would be more trouble than its worth. -
Perhaps you missed the part where LE/FF/EMTs are not considered property of their employers. Everyone is bound by the laws of their respective jurisdictions. Military service members are bound under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Homosexuality is a crime under the UCMJ. Here (and pay particular attention to (2): Originally Posted by perna
Here's an explanation of why all inappropriate behavior (some of which is perfectly legal in the civilian world) is deemed unacceptable in the military and therefore criminalized under the UCMJ: http://www.slate.com/id/2161908/fr/rss/TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654Prev | Next § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
How Current is This? (a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
(c) Entry Standards and Documents.—
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in subsection (b).
(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth the provisions of subsection (b).
(d) Required Briefings.— The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
(f) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
(Bolded items indicate emphasis added)
So arguments that gays should have "equal rights" in the military are ignoring the basic need of military discipline. It's not about gay rapists pillaging the military barracks. It's about unit cohesion. You can't afford to fire malcontents in the military as easily as the civilian world. Service members are considered on duty from the day they swear in till the day they separate from the service. What they do before, during and after their assigned shift has a direct impact on unit readiness and morale.
If you still think gays should be allowed to serve, then you should figure out how to do that without compromising the mission. That should start with a successful legal challenge that the aforementioned law is unconstitutional. And no, telling everyone to get used to it doesn't cut it. If you think it does, you might as well go live in the libtard Utopian fantasy land where everyone sniffs daisies all day, doesn't have to work and all prejudices have been eliminated through daily mantras and group think.
Some of us still have to live here in the nasty old real world to protect your ignorant pansy asses.
Last edited by glocktogo; 02-05-10 at 17:48.
-
No one is debating the fact that sex does not belong in the workplace, and the codes of conduct are already in place to deal with it. Originally Posted by Belmont31R
The reality of the situation is that gays are already in the military. The reason you do not know any gays in the military is because they would be kicked out if you did know. You seem to think that because of this change that gays are all going to tell others that they are gay, not going to happen because they already know what will happen if they do.
