Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Revisited
Democratic Rep. Martin T. Meehan yesterday said he will introduce legislation repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces....
A 2005 Government Accountability Office report says more than 10,000 members of the armed services, including 750 service members with specialties "critical" to the war on terror, have been discharged since the policy was implemented....
The bill, "Military Readiness Enhancement Act," has 109 co-sponsors, including three Republicans. Nonetheless, it faces opposition from many lawmakers, including House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat.
"It's not going anywhere," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a group that opposes allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. "Even the Democrats I've talked to don't want to touch this bill. It's very straight-forward, people who are homosexual are not compatible with the military's standards of service."...
A December 2006 Zogby International poll found that 73 percent of military service members were "comfortable" serving with homosexuals.
VM|3.1.07 @ 2:23PM|#
"people who are homosexual are not compatible with the
military's standards of service."."
fuck you, Elaine. Go give yourself a lame nickname. Fuck you.
|3.1.07 @ 2:26PM|#
"It's very straight-forward, people who are homosexual are not
compatible with the military's standards of service."..."
Umm, every gay man/lesbian I know can pick up a gun. Just because
you're gay doesn't mean you can't fire straight.
|3.1.07 @ 2:26PM|#
"Democratic Rep. Martin T. Meehan yesterday said he will
introduce legislation repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" policy that allows homosexuals to serve in the armed
forces...."
NotGonnaFuckingHappen. Sorry.
"A December 2006 Zogby International poll found that 73 percent of
military service members were "comfortable" serving with
homosexuals."
If by "serving with" they mean "laughing when a 'homo' gets his
skull bashed in."
|3.1.07 @ 2:26PM|#
I think this is the opportunity for the liberals to use gay
rights as a wedge issue for a change. They're letting their
ideology interfere with national defense.
I picture an ad like the "Disappearing Equipment" ad that was run
against John Kerry, except instead of a B-2 vanishing, it's the
soldier running ammunition up to his buddy in a foxhole.
|3.1.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Hmmmm.....you can handle incoming artilery rounds but a gay man in your unit just makes you uncomfortable?
|3.1.07 @ 2:27PM|#
This is just another vast right wing conspiracy! to kill off homosexuals. Now they will be "Enticed" to sign up, ship off, and die in the desert.
|3.1.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Now they will be "Enticed" to sign up, ship off, and die in
the desert.
Not with those ugly new uniforms that have been foisted on the Army
they won't :)
|3.1.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Dan T.,
Imagine if you could lose your job if any of your coworkers learned
that you had a wife or girlfriend. In the meantime, they all talk
about their wives and girlfriends, and occasionally ask you about
yours.
JIMMYDAGEEK|3.1.07 @ 2:37PM|#
So, here we are, a nation that considers itself to be the most civilized in the world, and we're discriminating against homosexuals in the army. It's almost tantamount to the African-American Civil Rights movement - minus the lynchings and violence. Forget the fact that they might be among the toughest, most intelligent, most driven individuals this country has to offer...forget that they might be willing to place their life in danger to save our "great nation"...forget all that...they're gay. Obviously, they are the biggest threat to the military since blacks & women were allowed to join.
wingnutx|3.1.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I'll just parrot the SF guys over on Blackfive.net:
"If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don't care if the medic
coming to save me is gay. I just hope he is one of those buff gay
guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder
and get me out of there."
Dan T.|3.1.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Dan T.,
Imagine if you could lose your job if any of your coworkers learned
that you had a wife or girlfriend. In the meantime, they all talk
about their wives and girlfriends, and occasionally ask you about
yours.
I'm not saying it's the ideal, only that it's a reasonable
compromise.
|3.1.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I don't know how it is throughout the military, but in the small
slice of the Navy I experience in the mid-90's, there were q couple
of gay people assigned to our ship. Everyone knew they were gay
(including the CDR). Nobody seemed to care.
Which is as it should be.
|3.1.07 @ 2:51PM|#
I'm not saying it's the ideal, only that it's a reasonable
compromise.
For who, Dan? Politicians? Because the whole notion just
reeks of absurd discrimination.
If the Zogby Poll is correct, and 73 percent of service members are
comfortable serving with homosexuals, why bother keeping yet
another stupid law?
|3.1.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I can't, and won't speak for the military as a whole, or the people I serve with, but this active duty veteran and current reservist doesn't give a flying shit what gender his comrades prefer to get it on with.
|3.1.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Are you guys stupid?
How are we gonna dodge the draft if they let gays in the military?
I'm COUNTING on getting the gay boot when they come for me.
wingnutx|3.1.07 @ 3:00PM|#
I can think of a few really homophobic guys in my reserve unit,
and they get teased to no end.
We had a few guys (and way more than a few women) on active duty
that were obviously gay, and nobody gave a damn, aside from a few
idiots talking smack.
|3.1.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Not suitable for the millitary's standards of service...hmm, ok.
Well thats an easy fix, CHANGE THE STANDARDS.
You know, so they comply with that piece of paper.
|3.1.07 @ 3:04PM|#
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just
have to be able to shoot straight."
-Barry Goldwater
|3.1.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Wingnut,
I really think it is a generational issue. I know few people in the
military and under the age of 40 who really care if they lets gays
serve openly. Society has changed. Maybe 40 years ago the policy
made sense but it doesn't anymore. The whole thing has just become
a football in the culture wars.
Also, I have known a few people, mostly women, who seemed to play
on the other team and all but one of them were not just good but
great officers and no one cared that they were gay even though you
had to be an idiot not to notice.
|3.1.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Raot,
There's a difference between responding to someone who has a
different preference in shampoo than you and responding to someone
who wants to discriminate against large groups of people out of
ignorance and bigotry.
Dan T.|3.1.07 @ 3:12PM|#
For who, Dan? Politicians? Because the whole notion just
reeks of absurd discrimination.
If the Zogby Poll is correct, and 73 percent of service members are
comfortable serving with homosexuals, why bother keeping yet
another stupid law?
I guess I'm pretty comfortable with letting the military decide for
themselves who they want to admit. They know better than I do what
works as far as morale, etc.
|3.1.07 @ 3:13PM|#
I thought Goldwater was the best outspoken critic of DADT
"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military
since at least the time of Julius Caesar," said Goldwater, who died
in 1998. "They'll be serving long after we're all dead and
buried."
He called "don't ask, don't tell" tell a compromise policy that
hides the issue and undermines military readiness.
He also attacked Clinton directly. "He's the commander in chief.
He's suppose to say 'Left Face' and the military should all pivot.
Anyone still looking sideways needs to go"
PoliticalCritic|3.1.07 @ 3:16PM|#
It's about time they brought this issue back up. The miltary is stretched thin enough as it is. They need more people, not less.
|3.1.07 @ 3:21PM|#
My only concern is that we don't create another victim group complete with complaints and law suits. Frankly I don't care who you are having sex with and wouldn't care if they applied don't ask don't tell to straight people. How about no one talk about their sexual proclivities?
I. Self. Divine.|3.1.07 @ 3:23PM|#
So, Dan T,
If it's bad for morale to allow women, jews, and blacks into the
military, it would be okay to extend institutional bigotry to them
as well?
tros|3.1.07 @ 3:27PM|#
"Military Readiness Enhancement Act"
Was that the one that made sure everyone got their VIAGRA
prescription on the taxpayer dime? You know, because if that's what
we need to do I will have to say that the cannabis and psilocybin
works a lot better than the VIAGRA. Perhaps did you see Dr.
Grinspoon's oped in the Boston Globe? This magical herb can be used
for many things. Also, psilocybin enhances visual acuity
dramatically, and this could lead to more STRAIGHT SHOOTING
recruits once we bring them home and rewrite the rules of the
"basic training".
Personally, I am praying daily for the day or month or year or ten
years when the de-nazification process of the United States of
America is complete. This is a tribute to George Soros who is a
GOOD PERSON and an excellent role model for super-rich people
everywhere.
Now, back to the EM ESS EM choking on Pat Robertson's protein
shake.
Grotius|3.1.07 @ 3:29PM|#
When the 54th Mass. heroically charged Fort Wagner their efforts
- though not successful - ended up changing a lot of minds about
the utility of black soldiers. Maybe something heroic needs to
happen re: gay soldiers*.
*I'm sure that homosexual soldiers have done heroic deeds prior to
know, but they apparently haven't been heavily publicized.
|3.1.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Dan T., I have a feeling that you wouldn't give the same deference to a private employer. So why so with the military? Or are you planning a bait and switch?
|3.1.07 @ 3:37PM|#
John,
"How about no one talk about their sexual proclivities?"
Do you or any of your coworkers have pictures of wife or kids on
their desk?
|3.1.07 @ 3:37PM|#
I guess I'm pretty comfortable with letting the military
decide for themselves who they want to admit. They know better than
I do what works...
The sad part is that you wouldn't even think of adopting this same
philosophy in regards to people and their personal behavior -- like
smoking or eating "unhealthy". Those are some pretty interesting
lines you draw
Dan T.|3.1.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Dan T., I have a feeling that you wouldn't give the same
deference to a private employer. So why so with the military? Or
are you planning a bait and switch?
You're right, I wouldn't. I guess I see the military as being a
place where people by definition are not treated fairly or justly -
I mean, soldiers kill and risk being killed.
I just want the military to be effective, I'll leave my idealism to
less vital institutions.
Grotius|3.1.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Dan T.,
I guess I'm pretty comfortable with letting the military decide
for themselves who they want to admit.
No, that is the job of the Congress. See Art. I, sec. 8. Since it
is the job of the Congress and the Congress is made up of the
representatives of the people and the regulation of the military is
within the job description of the Congress it is ultimately up to
the people to decide the issue, and not the military. The military
works at the behest of the sovereign, who are the people.
|3.1.07 @ 3:45PM|#
I'm thinking that the military has at least two wars other than
the culture war to fight. It would certainly be interesting to see
Congress line up on the question of which of these wars was more
important.
Because if the military's #1 campaign is supposed to be holding the
line against gays in the culture war then, quick hint folks, you're
gonna needs some of those troops back from Iraq real quick, 'cause
you're losing this one.
|3.1.07 @ 3:49PM|#
"...in the small slice of the Navy I experience in the mid-90's,
there were q couple of gay people assigned to our ship. Everyone
knew they were gay (including the CDR). Nobody seemed to
care."
Pretty much the same in the Navy I knew in the '70s & 80s too.
It was "don't ask, don't tell" long before the Clinton's came
along.
I did have a guy that worked for me busted for being gay and given
the boot (he got an honorable discharge, though I assume a bad
re-enlistment code) when I was a young sailor and the leading petty
officer of a weapons repair shop. However, being gay is not the
real reason he was busted; just the only thing that NIS could nail
him with. What really happened was his boyfriend was a dental tech
& stole a bunch of dope from the dental pharmacy. They had the
dental tech cold for the theft and being a doper. The guy that
worked for me got booted real quickly, but that was because he was
a missile tech. Dope & the kind of weapons we worked on do not
go together. This pair also lived with a cook & a marine from
the ship's marine detachment. The cook eventually got the boot,
though it must have been a year or more before he actually left.
The dental tech got the screws for stealing the dope. The marine
was allowed to stay aboard until his enlistment was up about 18
months or so later. The jarheads wouldn't let him stand guard on
the weapons anymore, but he was the MARDET's compartment cleaner.
The grunts protected this guy from any harm and harassment from
everyone.
Anecdotal yes, but I have worked in or with the Navy for over
thirty years now and this incident is the only time I have ever
heard of gay guys getting hammered for being gay. And it was not
really about being gay, but stealing dope.
|3.1.07 @ 3:49PM|#
"John,
"How about no one talk about their sexual proclivities?"
Do you or any of your coworkers have pictures of wife or kids on
their desk?"
Well Mr. Sex Offender, I certainly dont' want to hear about
yours.
|3.1.07 @ 3:51PM|#
What about a guy who is into animals or dead bodies or kids? He
thinks and dreams about getting it on with them. Should he have to
keep quite about it? When others talk about sex with their wives
should he have to keep quite about the flock of sheep, the dead
person or the 8-year-old he dreams about? Should he be "punished"
for telling?
I'm trying to point out that his ability to shoot has nothing to do
with his ability to serve in the military without causing
problems.
|3.1.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Haze Grey,
I had a paralegal who worked in my office who put up a website
offering gay sex for money. He got some rich guy to send him
several 1000 dollars in return for a meeting. The guy got tot he
meeting and decided the old rich guy wasn't his type and wouldn't
go through with the sex. The rich guy filed an Article 139 fraud
claim with his commander wanting his money back since he didn't get
the sex he paid for. The paralegal got a nice homosexual discharge
when he should have been court-martialed.
Anonymous|3.1.07 @ 3:53PM|#
John,
My only concern is that we don't create another victim group
complete with complaints and law suits.
So not upsetting the status quo is more important than upholding
principles like equal protection and the rule of law?
Since you're writing from a us.army.mil email address, can we
assume that this is the official position of the US Army?
|3.1.07 @ 3:53PM|#
"What about a guy who is into animals or dead bodies or
kids?"
Those are all illegal. Further, if the guy just talked about having
sex with kids and didn't have any child porn or ever act on it, I
don't know of any legal basis to kick him out of the military.
Dan T.|3.1.07 @ 3:54PM|#
No, that is the job of the Congress. See Art. I, sec. 8.
Since it is the job of the Congress and the Congress is made up of
the representatives of the people and the regulation of the
military is within the job description of the Congress it is
ultimately up to the people to decide the issue, and not the
military. The military works at the behest of the sovereign, who
are the people.
You're correct, my point was not to imply that the military should
have free reign to do whatever the want, only that if we're
considering a policy and the top brass say that it will hurt the
military's effectiveness then I think that point of view should be
considered.
The military excludes people for all sorts of reasons that would be
considered unfair or a violation of civil rights if done by a
private company.
|3.1.07 @ 3:55PM|#
"So not upsetting the status quo is more important than
upholding principles like equal protection and the rule of
law?
Since you're writing from a us.army.mil email address, can we
assume that this is the official position of the US Army?"a
Of course it is not the official position. Of course the ban on
gays is dumb. That said, don't think for a moment that real
criminals who deserve punishment won't say "the military is picking
on me because I am gay" as a way to avoid punishment. See the two
examples above.
|3.1.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Sex Offenders Union,
Since you are using that goofy tag on this comment thread, I have
to ask:
Are you clamoring for pedophiles to be allowed into the military?
Don't you think those poor Iraqi children have enough strife to
deal with?
Do you have photos of Dakota Fanning on your desk?
|3.1.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"What about a guy who is into animals or dead bodies or
kids?"
Those are all illegal. Further, if the guy just talked about having
sex with kids and didn't have any child porn or ever act on it, I
don't know of any legal basis to kick him out of the
military.
I'm just saying that if he "telled" about being a "sexual deviant"
(illegal for now but who knows about later. I think being gay was
illegal at one time.) he should not be surprised when he gets
negative results.
Anonymous|3.1.07 @ 4:10PM|#
John,
So not upsetting the status quo is more important than
upholding principles like equal protection and the rule of
law?
So, no answer on this, eh?
|3.1.07 @ 4:14PM|#
*I'm sure that homosexual soldiers have done heroic deeds
prior to know, but they apparently haven't been heavily
publicized.
This is going back a far way, but how about the last stand of the
Theban Sacred Band versus King Phillip of Macedon?
wingnutx|3.1.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Anyone else remember all those Marines that got busted making
gay porn at Camp Pendleton back in the 90s?
I'm sure they weren't all pogues.
|3.1.07 @ 4:23PM|#
"Well Mr. Sex Offender, I certainly dont' want to hear about
yours."
That's BROTHER Sex Offender, buddy! I'm up for Treasurer this
year.
;-)
VM|3.1.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Ohnes!
Crassus, Grotius. we need gaius for all the ingredients of our
"Roman Sandwich"
:)
|3.1.07 @ 4:30PM|#
VM | March 1, 2007, 4:27pm | #
Ohnes!
Crassus, Grotius. we need gaius for all the ingredients of our "Roman Sandwich"
:)
Just make sure to use lots of olive oil. Extra Virgin
preferably.
|3.1.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Seriously, John, do you get why "no one should talk about their
sexual proclivities" isn't adequate here?
We're not talking about something people do for kicks, or what
techniques they use during nookie. We're talking about "What did
you do over the holidays?" and "Got any kids?" and "I'm seeing my
girlfriend during leave, how about you?" and "Who's this guy Steve
who keeps leaving messages for you?" - normal conversation fodder
for any workplace, completely unrelated to Penthouse Forum-style
narratives.
Anonymous|3.1.07 @ 4:37PM|#
I'm sure that homosexual soldiers have done heroic deeds
prior to know, but they apparently haven't been heavily
publicized.
Well there's Sgt. Leonard Matlovich who won the Bronze Star in
Vietnam, and several more recent cases. The MSM does publicize
these cases, but the public seems to forget.
Also, it is possible that there are many service members who have
made the supreme sacrifice for our country, but whose homosexuality
remained unknown.
|3.1.07 @ 4:44PM|#
I'm not saying it's the ideal, only that it's a reasonable
compromise.
Sure Dan, I mean, you can only catch teh ghay if you know the guys
a fag, right?
No, no Dan. Just kidding. I know you don't mean it and are just
being a contrarian douche bag. Carry on.
|3.1.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Uhm - joe - I hate to tell you this, but get a bunch of young, bored people standing watch in the middle of the night, and well.. everything gets discussed... everything...
|3.1.07 @ 4:44PM|#
I hope there comes a day when people don't immediately jump to animals, dead people and kids whenever gay right issues come up. You might as well say "Well, what about someone who wants to fuck strawmen? Huh?" I'm confident that the military can deal with these things should they arise.
Anon. A. Moose|3.1.07 @ 4:58PM|#
I don't care who people in uniform fuck, as long as the person they are fucking is not their superior, their subordinate, or a member of their unit. But if they choose to fuck anyone in those three groups, then throw the book at them (specifically, the UCMJ).
wingnutx|3.1.07 @ 5:03PM|#
"Well, what about someone who wants to fuck strawmen?
Huh?"
I am so going to steal that.
Grotius|3.1.07 @ 5:06PM|#
I'd just like to note that Grotius was a Dutchman, not a Roman.
:)
These days he is best known for his thoughts on jus ad
bellum. A lot of folks have viewed him as advocate of peace,
but it is probably more appropriate to view him as an advocate of
an aggressive foreign policy where punishment of unjust internal
policies by foreign states can be a justification for war.
|3.1.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I was not trying to compare being gay to being a necrophiliac. I was just saying that if you "tell" others about behaviors or desires that they many find deviant, especially sexual things, you should not be surprised when there are problems. A unit with a member that all other members think is a weirdo freak will not be as efficient as possible. Right or wrong makes no difference. Simply keep your weird wants to yourself and everyone will pretend that you are normal. That has been my experience anyway.
|3.1.07 @ 5:22PM|#
Either I hit the wrong button or my post disappeared, but a few
posts ago I tried to call for a revival of the Theban Sacred Band
in the U.S. military. Establish some all-gay units of elite
warriors, and let their deeds change public opinion. Soon, "gay"
and "tough, fearsomely effective warriors who get the job done"
will become linked in the public mind.
To be effective, these units would need to be both very gay and
"out there" and also very gung-ho ass-kicking fighters.
"Thank God for the 69th Flaming Airborne!"
"Here come the Pink Berets!"
That's what Americans need to hear.
I think I might be serious.
Rhywun|3.1.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Soon, "gay" and "tough, fearsomely effective warriors who
get the job done" will become linked in the public mind.
Except that unit doesn't actually get anything done because they're
too, uh, busy.
VM|3.1.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Thanks, Gro :)
BTW: the "Anon A Moose" wasn't this moose.
Rhywun - that unit doesn't get anything done because of the units
in the unit? Or the unit of the guy in the unit is in the guy in
the unit?
*head explodes
|3.1.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Most "out there" gay men that I know could not be described as ass-"kicking" by anyone, anywhere, at any time.
|3.1.07 @ 5:40PM|#
I was just saying that if you "tell" others about behaviors
or desires that they many find deviant, especially sexual things,
you should not be surprised when there are problems
Right...like anal sex, or having sex out of wedlock. That's deviant
behavior. But what I can't understand are those freaks who like to
suck toes. Now those people are wired wrong. Fucking toe sucking
freaks.
Those are some mighty vague and subjective standards you seem to be
espousing.
Rhywun|3.1.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Most "out there" gay men that I know could not be described
as ass-"kicking" by anyone, anywhere, at any time.
I was going to say that too, but I know someone will chime in and
say they know dozens of shit-kicking flamers... "I know this
torch-singing drag queen who can rip a telephone book in half."
kind of thing.
|3.1.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Chicago Tom:
Sorry about the vague and subjective standards that I am espousing.
They are not mine. I have just noticed that they seem to exist in
this thing we call reality.
Rhywun:
I expect the chime in about the drag queen who could kick my ass to
hit in 4..3..2..
|3.1.07 @ 5:54PM|#
I'm just trying to help! We'll never get anywhere if homophobic, stereotype-mongering archconservatives like Rhywun are just going to take potshots at all my constructive ideas!
Rhywun|3.1.07 @ 6:00PM|#
homophobic, stereotype-mongering archconservatives like
Rhywun
Ha ha ha! That just made my day.
|3.1.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Stevo Darkly:
To be effective, these units would need to be both very gay and
"out there" and also very gung-ho ass-kicking fighters.
I see your point and I agree that you are trying to help. Your idea
is constructive (it is really).
Go 69th Flaming Airborne! All two of you.
|3.1.07 @ 6:04PM|#
Sorry about the vague and subjective standards that I am
espousing. They are not mine. I have just noticed that they seem to
exist in this thing we call reality.
No, they are in fact yours. And not at all indicative of "reality".
You seem to be pretending that some of your perceptions/opinions
are self evident and thus using them as an excuse to justify
bigotry.
Deviance and "abnormal" can include a rather large universe of
behavior (sexual or other). And I would guarantee you that a unit
full of men would not agree on what behavior qualifies as "deviant"
or abnormal -- unless you believe that a lowest common denominator
type of standard should apply at which point you most likely be
disqualifying more than just gays.
|3.1.07 @ 6:16PM|#
Chicago Tom:
They are not mine. I am not pretending my perceptions/opinions are
self-evident. (are you?) At least I don't think I am. How would I
know?
I agree that deviant and "abnormal" behavior is open to
interpretation and that not everyone will agree on what is and what
isn't freaky.
That said, I bet you can come up with two or three things that, if
you professed to be into them, would cause people to
avoid/hate/throw things at you.
If you were into these things it would be in your own best interest
to keep quite about it and not "tell".
|3.1.07 @ 6:22PM|#
If you did decide to "tell" and then complain about people treating you differently because of it I would have to say "Duh".
|3.1.07 @ 6:26PM|#
That said, I bet you can come up with two or three things
that, if you professed to be into them, would cause people to
avoid/hate/throw things at you.
Sure...but those things would most likely be illegal and would most
likely violate the rights of others. ie Molesting children or
raping people. Gayness isn't one of them. SO I don't see what point
you are trying to make...unless of course you believe that being
gay is in the same ballpark as a child molester or a rapist. Do
you?
|3.1.07 @ 6:32PM|#
If you did decide to "tell" and then complain about people
treating you differently because of it I would have to say
"Duh".
Right...anyone who is "different" should hide the fact they are
different. When soldiers bond and make friendships, the "different"
ones should lie and pretend to be something they're not. It's their
own fault for not hiding it.
And chicks get raped because they dressed like sluts.
The responsibility does not lie with the "different" person
(whatever that means) to hide it, it is the peer groups
responsibility to live and let live not worry about who gets the
next person off.
And it isn't about "complaining" about being treated differently
it's about getting kicked out of the army.
|3.1.07 @ 6:41PM|#
unless of course you believe that being gay is in the same
ballpark as a child molester or a rapist. Do you?
Nope. Here is an example of what I am trying to convey.
I tell my coworkers that I am into screwing apple pies. {Not cherry
pies, do I look like a sicko?) I tell them about the anticipation I
feel while the pie cooks or the cheap thrill I get from buying a
cheap slutty pie at the store. I am totally open about my desires.
I know they will not judge me as that would be wrong.
I have not described anything illegal nor have I violated the
rights of others, and yet for some reason I am being treated
differently than before. My presence seems to affect the team and I
don't like it. I just want them to treat me as "normal".
If only I hadn't "telled" (is that a word?) on myself.
|3.1.07 @ 6:46PM|#
Don't take me wrong. I am not saying the people who think I am "different" are right or wrong. I'm trying to say that life is unfair and if you step in it on purpose you shouldn't complain about the smell on your shoe.
|3.1.07 @ 6:48PM|#
I was in the army when it was 10 % women and allegedly 10 % gay.
I didn't
get hit on a single time by anyone. That seriously destroyed my
self-esteem.
|3.1.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Bobster should be conscripted into the Flaming
69th.
Nope. I'm straight but my boyfriend could kick you ass!
|3.1.07 @ 7:14PM|#
Right...anyone who is "different" should hide the fact they
are different. When soldiers bond and make friendships, the
"different" ones should lie and pretend to be something they're
not. It's their own fault for not hiding it.
I agree with you even though you may have been being
sarcastic.
People should and do hide who they are from others. I do it and I
bet you do it as well. My friends and buddies do not need, nor
want, to know everything about me.
If one has no secrets one probably have no friends.
|3.1.07 @ 7:17PM|#
Bobster,
You compare homosexuality to pie fucking.
I have never heard of pie fucking save that a teen comedy once used
it as a gag.
Your argument seems to be the one that Homer Simpson used against
homosexuality: "You know! It's not... usual".
|3.1.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Your argument seems to be the one that Homer Simpson used
against homosexuality: "You know! It's not... usual".
I am not against homosexuality. I am indifferent towards it. I
think that is what causes problems. You have to be for it or
against it. The line is drawn and the teams are picked. Anyone who
points out what he has observed is labeled and put on a team.
You're right, screwing pies is indeed a gag. Even so I would not
hang out with someone who wore his "Pieism" as a badge. I would say
he is not You know...usual
Nice Simpson reference.
|3.1.07 @ 7:41PM|#
You compare homosexuality to pie fucking.
Not on purpose. I was just trying to come up with a "freaky"
sexuality that met the requirement of not being rape or child
molestation. There are many other options to explore if you wish. I
bet there are people out there that are into pie though. I wonder
if they have websites?
In any case I will try not to judge the pie people no matter what
my instincts tell me.
|3.1.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Bobster,
Favoring that an out homosexual not be allowed to serve in the
military is choosing a side. It is agin'it.
Let me review. You believe that an out gay man would be disruptive
in the service, because other soldiers would be uncomfortable.
According to the Zogby poll referenced above, you are incorrect
about 73% of the men and women serving.
Is your argument is that the other 27% have to be taken into
consideration?
I still say you are wrong. When the armed forces were integrated,
I'll bet that a lot of soldiers felt uncomfortable sharing the
barracks with persons of color. The military got over it.
|3.1.07 @ 8:08PM|#
highnumber:
I am neither for nor against gay people serving in the military. If
a gay man signs up to fight more power to him.
If he wants to stay in the military though he better keep his
sexual preferences to himself. Polls be damned, he knows being gay
will get him kicked out. Shut up about it. (Yes he has to hide his
real self. Sorry.) If he joins and then complains that the contract
he signed on purpose, knowing its full ramifications is screwing
him, why should I feel he has been wronged?
QuietReaderGirl
Not on purpose, Bobster? The words typed themselves?
I did not mean to compare. I meant to describe. Sorry if I messed
it up.
|3.1.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Bobster,
So you are unequivocally against an out gay man serving in the
military because he would be a disruption, despite the evidence
(Zogby poll, anecdotal comments posted by members of the military
here) contradicting you.
Open ass, insert head.
|3.1.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Let me review. You believe that an out gay man would be
disruptive in the service, because other soldiers would be
uncomfortable.
I want to point out that this in not what I believe. What I believe
is immaterial. Disruption is what the people in charge of the
military say will happen.
Mouthing politically correct statements is expected so it is
provided for the polls. Politically correct behavior when the
camera's are off, may not match the PC statements.
|3.1.07 @ 8:37PM|#
I wish all you pastry-fucking piesexuals would take your disgusting lifestyle back into the closet at Tippins where it belongs.
|3.1.07 @ 8:41PM|#
What if I hired you to work for me and tell you that if you smoke cigarettes you will be fired. I tell you that I would not test your blood or urine (Don't ask). I tel you not to smoke in front of me or the other workers (don't tell)
Rhywun|3.2.07 @ 12:22AM|#
I was just trying to come up with a "freaky" sexuality that met the requirement of not being rape or child molestation.
Your example would be more relevant if pie-fuckers made up ~5% of
the world's population, could only get it up for pies, could only
form romantic relationships with pies, and would drop everything to
come to the aid of their pies.
|3.2.07 @ 1:26AM|#
I have two primary problems with DADT. First off, our military
isn't exactly rolling in money, not to mention being involved in
conflicts in multiple places. Discharging soldiers discovered to be
gay makes no financial sense. Soldiers, especially in a modern
military are too damn expensive to train.
Second off, my partner of six years would really like to join the
Guard (and he is one hell of a shot). Unfortunately, I am disabled
and on his company's domestic partnership health plan. That counts
as "telling" as far as the military is concerned. Since we can't
afford to take me off of his health plan he couldn't join up even
if he could hide everything else about our relationship.
|3.2.07 @ 3:12AM|#
"..could only get it up for pies, could only form romantic
relationships with pies, and would drop everything to come to the
aid of their pies."
I thought I was alone. Knowing that there are other people who
would drop everything to come to the aid of their pie validates me.
I feel like I have a family.
You have touched me in a place I wanted to keep secret.
|3.2.07 @ 3:17AM|#
The funny thing is that there have been gays in the military since there has been a military. It is odd that it is a big deal to some people who someother people sleep with.
VM|3.2.07 @ 10:22AM|#
bobster is so incoherent and fucked up that could this be the
newest incarnation of Juanita/Jane?
Also, as others have noted, calling homosexuality merely a sexual
practice - not living and loving and sharing and growing - shows
that you have a strange view of relationships in general.
For you, the 14 seconds (aggregate) time you have sex during the
week should underscore that fact. All the other aspects of a loving
relationship take up a much larger portion of the relationship's
time.
So if you call individuals who are in a caring, supportive, loving,
caring, trusting, growing relationship, "freaky", I think you've
shot your last blank in this discussion.
Oh - check out the first comment on this thread. Take that to
heart. (and visit the site, clicky on my name. You'll like it)
|3.2.07 @ 1:50PM|#
VM:
I think I called having sex with apple pie "freaky" not
homosexuals. I'm sure I do things that some people would call
freaky. It is not necessarily a bad thing.
Incoherent and fucked up?
Really? Nobody else complained of that. I'll try harder to be
coherently non-fucked up.
|3.2.07 @ 2:17PM|#
I'm sorry, Bobster. I can't hear what you're saying. I'm washing
dishes and there's mad soap suds popping all over the place. Mad
suds, yo.
DADT is a total failure of a policy, for many of the same reasons
why prostitution is illegal; it forces gay soldiers into a
metaphorical black market and thus outside the protections afforded
to ordinary individuals. If you're a gay soldier and suffering
harassment because of same, there's no way to get the situation
corrected without outing yourself and thus being in violation of
DADT.
By its very nature, the DADT policy creates an unsafe environment.
Simply screening gay folks out at enlistment, while loathsome and
discriminatory, would be an improvement over the trap of a policy
that is DADT.
|3.2.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Bobster,
I may agree with the Moosemeister, but I'd rather say you are
confused and repressed.
|3.3.07 @ 8:16AM|#
I may agree with the Moosemeister, but I'd rather say you
are confused and repressed.
Okay. Thanks.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245