repeal DADT?

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Did you put on a show for him for old time's sake?

don't ask, don't tell.

 

[crandc]

How has it been bad?

Approximately 14,000 active duty military personnel have been kicked out at a cost to taxpayers of $363 millions (source, NY Times, 9/13/10). Many of them had critical skills, such as medical or translation.

In fact "dont ask" has not been enforced. Numerous personnel have been asked. Major Mike Arly was kicked out of the Air Force based solely on their search of his personal email. He testified before the Senate Armed Services committee, of which John McCain is a member. McCain was at the hearing. Yet last night when McCain & Lindsey Graham held a press conference to celebrate successfully filibustering the entire defense appropriation to stop repeal, McCain repeatedly said emails are not checked.

Incidentally, Major Arly was kicked out in 2005 during a tour of duty in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. The Air Force lost an officer with 13 years experience.

It violates medical confidentiality of military personnel. If someone goes to a doctor or a psychologist and says he/she is gay, the medical personnel must report and the person is kicked out. So it prevents personnel from getting necessary medical assistance.

Because of this policy, service members are forced to lie, over and over and over. When a man is asked if he has a girlfriend, or woman if she has a boyfriend. Their significant others cannot kiss them goodbye before they are shipped out. They can't say "love you" over the phone. If they are killed, their significant other not only gets no benefits, he/she is not even notified. Can't bring spouse to unit social events. Can't even put up a family photo. They have made up fake stories of hetero partners. Lied and lied.

Women report submitting to rape in consequence of being blackmailed. Submit to rape or I'll report you as a lesbian. Even if they are straight.

All it takes to kick someone out is one report he/she is gay. So DADT weakens unit cohesion.

Troops have lost their commanding officers whom they respect. And if an officer suspects a person working under him/her is gay or lesbian he/she must report it, even if he/she knows it means losing a qualified person.

Barring GLBT personnel demonizes GLBT people as lesser humans, unfit to serve their country. It reinforces prejudice.

That enough bad or do you want more?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

You think transexuals should be able to be active military personnel?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

don't army seargents in training kind of demean soldiers and call them ***gots or whatever? That's what I saw in the movies. won't someone get butt-hurt over it?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Just to add a bit of factuality to this, repealing DADT won't allow people to serve openly homosexual. All it will do is remove the protection from anyone asking, their right to refuse an answer and the protection from pursuit about their sexuality. Homosexual acts are still illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Should the Department of Defense decide to revamp those articles, fine. Until then, anyone who engages in sodomy can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the UCMJ.
To agoo, that's fine and dandy to have that view. Would you also suppose that someone who has slapped his wife or been arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence should be able to serve next to me, because patriotism trumps prejudice? Unfortunately, Congress and the Supreme Court disagree with you there, also.
It's disheartening when people from across the spectrum (yet not military members) say --and not just about DADT-- "if you can't handle (insert a stereotype here) going to war with you, you're not patriotic". Whether it's homosexuality, women in combat, reformed sex offenders, misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, etc...your philosophical assertions generally go through a significant transformation before they get to the deckplates in the fleet. A ballistic missile submarine or platoon entering a hot landing zone are not downtown San Francisco or First Baptist Church of Mobile. It's not Wall Street, Pennsylvania Avenue or Jackson Square. Blanket statements about those who serve and the conditions they face while doing it aren't what policy should be made from.

 

[BrianFromWA]

don't army seargents in training kind of demean soldiers and call them ***gots or whatever? That's what I saw in the movies. won't someone get butt-hurt over it?

I can't speak for pre-1995, but as of 1995 drill instructors cannot use swear words, epithets, talk about your religion or sexuality, etc.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

How has it been bad?

Approximately 14,000 active duty military personnel have been kicked out at a cost to taxpayers of $363 millions (source, NY Times, 9/13/10). Many of them had critical skills, such as medical or translation.

In fact "dont ask" has not been enforced. Numerous personnel have been asked. Major Mike Arly was kicked out of the Air Force based solely on their search of his personal email. He testified before the Senate Armed Services committee, of which John McCain is a member. McCain was at the hearing. Yet last night when McCain & Lindsey Graham held a press conference to celebrate successfully filibustering the entire defense appropriation to stop repeal, McCain repeatedly said emails are not checked.

Incidentally, Major Arly was kicked out in 2005 during a tour of duty in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. The Air Force lost an officer with 13 years experience.

It violates medical confidentiality of military personnel. If someone goes to a doctor or a psychologist and says he/she is gay, the medical personnel must report and the person is kicked out. So it prevents personnel from getting necessary medical assistance.

Because of this policy, service members are forced to lie, over and over and over. When a man is asked if he has a girlfriend, or woman if she has a boyfriend. Their significant others cannot kiss them goodbye before they are shipped out. They can't say "love you" over the phone. If they are killed, their significant other not only gets no benefits, he/she is not even notified. Can't bring spouse to unit social events. Can't even put up a family photo. They have made up fake stories of hetero partners. Lied and lied.

Women report submitting to rape in consequence of being blackmailed. Submit to rape or I'll report you as a lesbian. Even if they are straight.

All it takes to kick someone out is one report he/she is gay. So DADT weakens unit cohesion.

Troops have lost their commanding officers whom they respect. And if an officer suspects a person working under him/her is gay or lesbian he/she must report it, even if he/she knows it means losing a qualified person.

Barring GLBT personnel demonizes GLBT people as lesser humans, unfit to serve their country. It reinforces prejudice.

That enough bad or do you want more?

Has there been a measured effect though on military strength and morale?

You have a stat that says 14,000 people have been kicked out at a cost of $363 million. But the rest of your stories are merely anecdotal and hypothetical scenarios.

 

[BrianFromWA]

How has it been bad?

Approximately 14,000 active duty military personnel have been kicked out at a cost to taxpayers of $363 millions (source, NY Times, 9/13/10). Many of them had critical skills, such as medical or translation.
I'm not debating the truth of the report, just wondering how 25k per person was the cost to the taxpayers. I mean, I could say that the taxpayers actually SAVED the salaries of those who were let go before their contract was up, and the pensions going forward for the rest of their life.

In fact "dont ask" has not been enforced. Numerous personnel have been asked. Major Mike Arly was kicked out of the Air Force based solely on their search of his personal email. He testified before the Senate Armed Services committee, of which John McCain is a member. McCain was at the hearing. Yet last night when McCain & Lindsey Graham held a press conference to celebrate successfully filibustering the entire defense appropriation to stop repeal, McCain repeatedly said emails are not checked.

I don't know this story, and will look it up. But I CAN say that it's pretty damn hard to get kicked out of the military while two wars are being fought, and find it odd that no one in the chain of command, from the unit commander to the Secretary of Defense, thought to check with the Law of the Land before discharging someone illegally.

Incidentally, Major Arly was kicked out in 2005 during a tour of duty in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. The Air Force lost an officer with 13 years experience.

It violates medical confidentiality of military personnel. If someone goes to a doctor or a psychologist and says he/she is gay, the medical personnel must report and the person is kicked out. So it prevents personnel from getting necessary medical assistance.

There is no medical confidentiality in the military, so it doesn't violate anything. If I go to the doctor and say I get seasick or wet the bed or sleepwalk, that can be reported to the commander, who can initiate discharge proceedings for "other personal or medical disorders". Notice I said "initiate proceedings"--everyone has a right to defense.

Because of this policy, service members are forced to lie, over and over and over. When a man is asked if he has a girlfriend, or woman if she has a boyfriend. Their significant others cannot kiss them goodbye before they are shipped out. They can't say "love you" over the phone. If they are killed, their significant other not only gets no benefits, he/she is not even notified. Can't bring spouse to unit social events. Can't even put up a family photo. They have made up fake stories of hetero partners. Lied and lied.

That's the legal price for joining the military. It's written in black and white. Open homosexuality is not allowed in the military. No one drafted them. No one forced them to serve. No one lied to them to say that they could make calls to their civil union partner or bring their homosexual partner to unit social events. In fact, many of these are specifically called out in training. They don't have to lie. They are protected from having to answer. As far as benefits and notification:
The policy also explicitly states that activities like associating with "known homosexuals, presence at a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes will not, in and of themselves, constitute credible information that would provide a basis for initiating an investigation or serve as the basis for an administrative discharge." The same is true for listing someone of the same sex as an emergency contact or beneficiary of a will.

Women report submitting to rape in consequence of being blackmailed. Submit to rape or I'll report you as a lesbian. Even if they are straight.

Horrible judgment to submit to it, and as an officer I'm incensed that it's not reported. Rape is not allowed in the military, either...and keeping a rapist onboard b/c you think someone might CALL you a lesbian is the height of irresponsibility.

All it takes to kick someone out is one report he/she is gay. So DADT weakens unit cohesion.

This isn't true. All it takes is one ACT to convince a court-martial. Just like in "real life", things have to be proven in court. DADT does weaken unit cohesion, b/c you have people who are legally not allowed in the military to be in if they promise not to disclose or act on their sexuality.
Since open homosexuality is illegal, how about some effort to get that law changed? You'd have a lot of support.

Troops have lost their commanding officers whom they respect. And if an officer suspects a person working under him/her is gay or lesbian he/she must report it, even if he/she knows it means losing a qualified person.

If an officer suspects anything, they are not allowed (through DADT) to report anything. It becomes a hate crime offense to do so. As far as "losing commanding officers they respect", if they broke the rules then they broke the rules. CO's are fired all the time for fraternization, affairs, crew actions, etc.

Barring GLBT personnel demonizes GLBT people as lesser humans, unfit to serve their country. It reinforces prejudice.

That enough bad or do you want more?

The law of the land is that GLBT are unfit to serve--no further demonization or prejudice needs to occur for that. DADT doesn't do anything about this. Again, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. This was a bi-partisan block in 1993 or we wouldn't be talking about it. Get Congress to either say that "homosexuals are fully fit for uniformed service", and stop demonizing perceived bigots in the ranks.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I can't find anything on Major Arly's case. Do you have a link or something I can read up on?

 

[crandc]

Anyone actually interested in facts, look up Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. www.sldn.org. Follow link to military stories. Because, you know, people like Brian who really know nothing of the issue are looking pretty foolish here.

My bad typing, Mike Almy. Here he is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/39298782#39298782

 

[BrianFromWA]

Sorry, as an officer who had to process out a homosexual (edit: heterosexual, I mis-typed) for committing a homosexual act and ensuring all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed...you're right, I should defer to others' feelings on the matter, since I know nothing of the issue.

Do you actually want to discuss what I "know nothing" about? Or choose to live blindly? Either way's fine by me, but I didn't have you pegged as the latter.

Aside from the facts and quotes that I used, you want me to go to "military stories" for "facts"? On a website with Lady Gaga on the front page?

 

[Denny Crane]

I can't speak for pre-1995, but as of 1995 drill instructors cannot use swear words, epithets, talk about your religion or sexuality, etc.

You've got to be fucking kidding.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Sorry, as an officer who had to process out a homosexual (edit: heterosexual, I mis-typed) for committing a homosexual act and ensuring all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed...you're right, I should defer to others' feelings on the matter, since I know nothing of the issue.

Do you actually want to discuss what I "know nothing" about? Or choose to live blindly? Either way's fine by me, but I didn't have you pegged as the latter.

Aside from the facts and quotes that I used, you want me to go to "military stories" for "facts"? On a website with Lady Gaga on the front page?

sonned!!!!!

 

[Minstrel]

Homosexual acts are still illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Should the Department of Defense decide to revamp those articles, fine. Until then, anyone who engages in sodomy can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the UCMJ.

You can be homosexual without actively having sex. I know, from previous threads, that that blows your mind, but it's true.

And, of course, that policy is bigoted, if heterosexual sex acts are allowed (I have no idea if they are). If no sex is allowed, period, then there's no problem. Heterosexuals and homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly and anyone having sex should be punished.

But even if that policy is bigoted, it's no reason why a second bigoted policy should live on. It just means that other policy (if it is only targeting homosexuals) should also be changed when possible.

Would you also suppose that someone who has slapped his wife or been arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence should be able to serve next to me, because patriotism trumps prejudice?

Classic example of the homophobic side of the argument not having any rational arguments: comparing banning homosexuality to banning violent crime because both are "prejudice." This is right up there with saying that "tolerant" people should tolerate racists, because not tolerating racists is intolerant.

Here's a clue: spousal abuse actually bears on the person's temperament, judgment and control. Homosexuality doesn't. Therefore, it isn't prejudice to refuse to arm the person who's been convicted of having anger issues and lack of control. Comparing them both as "prejudice" is either stupid or dishonest. I know you're not stupid.

 

[BrianFromWA]

For the first part, the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the performance of the act in the defined manner. Anything you contend differently does blow my mind, and is a bigoted remark. Just b/c you march in a gay pride parade or think Brad Pitt is hot or read a certain book or like Glee doesn't make you homosexual. If I thought about having sex with a male co-worker (but didn't), it doesn't make me a homosexual any more than thinking about having sex with a female co-worker makes me an adulterer (in the non-biblical sense).

Classic example of the homophobic side of the argument not having any rational arguments: comparing banning homosexuality to banning violent crime because both are "prejudice." This is right up there with saying that "tolerant" people should tolerate racists, because not tolerating racists is intolerant.

Here's a clue: spousal abuse actually bears on the person's temperament, judgment and control. Homosexuality doesn't. Therefore, it isn't prejudice to refuse to arm the person who's been convicted of having anger issues and lack of control. Comparing them both as "prejudice" is either stupid or dishonest. I know you're not stupid.

The comment wasn't about Lautenberg, it was about saying "if you can't handle going to war with (X), you're not patriotic and shouldn't be there." The government decides who I can go to war with. They've decided I cannot go to war with child molesters or misdemeanor spousal abusers, no matter how reformed they are or how good they promise to behave. They also have decided that I cannot go to war with openly homosexual soldiers, which was the point of my response to agoo. How dishonest is that? You don't seem the type to drop the "homophobe", "racist" and "stupid" card...is today a bad day for everyone?

And, going back to part one, homosexuality in the military (the act, if it needs to be parsed out) is almost ENTIRELY about temperament, judgment and control. The exercise of which crandc spelled out pretty well when talking about what she called "lies".

 

[Minstrel]

For the first part, the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the performance of the act in the defined manner.

Incorrect. Due to DADT, simply openly admitting that you have a same sex significant other or that you're attracted to the other sex is against the rules, so clearly the military has a designation of homosexuality that doesn't involve a sexual act in uniform.

The comment wasn't about Lautenberg, it was about saying "if you can't handle going to war with (X), you're not patriotic and shouldn't be there." The government decides who I can go to war with. They've decided I cannot go to war with child molesters or misdemeanor spousal abusers, no matter how reformed they are or how good they promise to behave. They also have decided that I cannot go to war with openly homosexual soldiers, which was the point of my response to agoo. How dishonest is that?

If all you're saying is "Policy is policy and I follow policy," then it's not dishonest...you're simply not saying anything at all.

I assumed you were defending the policy by pointing out that the government "prejudices" against other groups of people (like convicted spousal abusers) in terms of military service. That would be highly dishonest.

You don't seem the type to drop the "homophobe", "racist" and "stupid" card...is today a bad day for everyone?

I never called you stupid, precisely the opposite. And obviously I didn't call you a racist. I thought "homophobe" was accurate and non-controversial. Don't Christians essentially believe that homophobia is the correct way to be, because the Bible condemns homosexuality? You consider it an insult for me to say that you are prejudiced toward people that your admitted "Lord" condemns (at least, condemns in your mind/interpretation of the Bible)?

And, going back to part one, homosexuality in the military (the act, if it needs to be parsed out) is almost ENTIRELY about temperament, judgment and control. The exercise of which crandc spelled out pretty well when talking about what she called "lies".

Since DADT proves you wrong, this is clearly a dismissible point. You can be openly gay without having sex, yet DADT makes that illegal.

 

[Denny Crane]

crandc made a few points that cannot be refuted. Like, look at military forces around the world where there is no such exclusion and the results.

The same kinds of arguments were made against integrating the military. Integration hasn't turned out to be a bad thing.

A man and a woman can engage in sodomy. The rules of the military do not preclude men and women from serving.

Seems like a huge logic fault to me.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Incorrect. Due to DADT, simply openly admitting that you have a same sex significant other or that you're attracted to the other sex is against the rules, so clearly the military has a designation of homosexuality that doesn't involve a sexual act in uniform.



If all you're saying is "Policy is policy and I follow policy," then it's not dishonest...you're simply not saying anything at all.

I assumed you were defending the policy by pointing out that the government "prejudices" against other groups of people (like convicted spousal abusers) in terms of military service. That would be highly dishonest.



I never called you stupid, precisely the opposite. And obviously I didn't call you a racist. I thought "homophobe" was accurate and non-controversial. Don't Christians essentially believe that homophobia is the correct way to be, because the Bible condemns homosexuality? You consider it an insult for me to say that you are prejudiced toward people that your admitted "Lord" condemns (at least, condemns in your mind/interpretation of the Bible)?



Since DADT proves you wrong, this is clearly a dismissible point. You can be openly gay without having sex, yet DADT makes that illegal.

I guess first of all, I need to elucidate that I'm trying to educate rather than convert. It's not my place as a serving member to state my like or dislike for a policy, whether it's women on submarines, homosexuals openly serving, homosexuals "closetly" serving, whether we have blue or red uniforms, whether we bomb another country or not, etc. I'm trying to provide a viewpoint and clear up blatent untruths about this policy, which is divisive enough without resorting to making things up.
I'll go back to the part of DADT quoted in my reply to crandc's post:

The policy also explicitly states that activities like associating with "known homosexuals, presence at a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes will not, in and of themselves, constitute credible information that would provide a basis for initiating an investigation or serve as the basis for an administrative discharge." The same is true for listing someone of the same sex as an emergency contact or beneficiary of a will.

You cannot even provide a basis for initiating an investigation for those things. Much less discharge based on it.

Again, for the Lautenberg part, my patriotism or ability in the eyes of agoo to fight his war for him is not based on who I think should be next to me. It's based on who Congress says can be next to me, promulgated through the DoD and DoN. Again, not making a stand but clarifying a point.

As for my Christian perspective, you're again misrepresenting it. I don't know what you're defining "homophobia" as, so we could be talking across each other, but I think it's been pretty explicit in my posts that, as a Christian, I couldn't care less what non-Christians do in their bedrooms. It's not my place to care, judge, condemn or mollify. If it was someone next to me in church, I would be concerned for them for their disobeyance of God's will, but no more or less than I'd talk to my friend about God's requirements for his adherents on any number of issues like divorce, abortion, honoring parents, "little white lying", etc. For people like you and crandc who are admittedly not Christians, not only do I expect you to not understand but also not to hold yourself to any rules the Flying Spaghetti Monster may put out for consumption. Attaching homophobic motives based on an erroneous interpretation of my faith is also not something I find endearing.

Can you (or anyone else) please give me an example of being openly gay without ever having homosexual sex?

 

[BrianFromWA]

crandc made a few points that cannot be refuted. Like, look at military forces around the world where there is no such exclusion and the results.

The same kinds of arguments were made against integrating the military. Integration hasn't turned out to be a bad thing.

A man and a woman can engage in sodomy. The rules of the military do not preclude men and women from serving.

Seems like a huge logic fault to me.

Technically, they can't engage in sodomy. Agreed, that you generally don't see anyone punished for sodomy, but it's not legal. And if someone WAS convicted of sodomy with a woman, they would not be allowed to continue to serve. Again, just clarifying a misconception.

 

[Minstrel]

As for my Christian perspective, you're again misrepresenting it. I don't know what you're defining "homophobia" as, so we could be talking across each other, but I think it's been pretty explicit in my posts that, as a Christian, I couldn't care less what non-Christians do in their bedrooms. It's not my place to care, judge, condemn or mollify. If it was someone next to me in church, I would be concerned for them for their disobeyance of God's will, but no more or less than I'd talk to my friend about God's requirements for his adherents on any number of issues like divorce, abortion, honoring parents, "little white lying", etc. For people like you and crandc who are admittedly not Christians, not only do I expect you to not understand but also not to hold yourself to any rules the Flying Spaghetti Monster may put out for consumption. Attaching homophobic motives based on an erroneous interpretation of my faith is also not something I find endearing.

I'm still not sure how I have an erroneous interpretation of your faith. Even from what you typed here, it seems clear to me that you view homosexuality as a sin. You're saying that that doesn't colour your views on homosexuality in the military at all?

Beyond the "policy is policy and I don't comment on policy"...every time something has come up about possibly ending DADT (which would be governmental action and therefore should be fine for you, since you'd have a new policy) you seem to be against it. So it seems clear to me that you do have a stand on this, even if you're saying that your posts in this thread are not about making stands.

Can you (or anyone else) please give me an example of being openly gay without ever having homosexual sex?

Having a same sex spouse or partner is one example.

Knowing that you're gay, because you are attracted to the opposite sex, and mentioning it to someone.

Neither requires sex in uniform (or even, technically, sex "ever" as you unreasonably made the standard), but still makes one "openly gay."

 

[Denny Crane]

I am quite sure there are heterosexual nerd types who don't have girlfriends, so they're not having sex. Why would it be different for a homosexual person?

 

[BrianFromWA]

How do you know a nerd is heterosexual and not homosexual? Seems that you can't, until he/she has sex?

 

[Minstrel]

How do you know a nerd is heterosexual and not homosexual? Seems that you can't, until he/she has sex?

He or she knows, based on what he/she is attracted to. Or do you mean, we can't know whether he/she is lying and pretending to be attracted to one sex or the other?

 

[crandc]

The story of Tracey Cooper-Harris, forced to submit to rape and STD to avoid being "outed". How this helps "national security" is beyond me.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm still not sure how I have an erroneous interpretation of your faith. Even from what you typed here, it seems clear to me that you view homosexuality as a sin. You're saying that that doesn't colour your views on homosexuality in the military at all?

That's exactly what I'm saying. If I held everyone in the military to the the same standard I hold those in my faith, I wouldn't work for a captain who had a divorce or another officer who frequented strip clubs when in foreign ports. But my faith is required by law to be separate from my actions, kind of like homosexuality through DADT. Someone can't just say "BrianFromWA accosted me in the corner and tried to make me stop banging skanks and be Christian" and get me kicked out of the Navy. However, if it was proven that I proselytized and/or gave favorable or unfavorable treatment based on someone's faith or lack thereof I'd be in a lot of trouble.

Beyond the "policy is policy and I don't comment on policy"...every time something has come up about possibly ending DADT (which would be governmental action and therefore should be fine for you, since you'd have a new policy) you seem to be against it.

I think you're misrepresenting it. I've said multiple times that the whole homosexual issue is the one that should be argued, not DADT. And in multiple issues I've said that policy needs to be upheld if for no other reason than discipline. You can't have people choosing which laws they abide by.

So it seems clear to me that you do have a stand on this, even if you're saying that your posts in this thread are not about making stands.

So you're not even getting my stand right, when I'm not supposed to be making stands? How did this become "Brian's a homophobe"? Because that's easier than saying, "crap, the things he brought up are right"?



Having a same sex spouse or partner is one example.
[/quote]Are you married if it's unconsummated? Not being snarky, just asking. I don't know the civil answer to this.

Knowing that you're gay, because you are attracted to the opposite sex, and mentioning it to someone.

Again, saying "Brad Pitt's attractive" means I'm homosexual now? (I'm assuming you meant /same/ sex)

Neither requires sex in uniform (or even, technically, sex "ever" as you unreasonably made the standard), but still makes one "openly gay."

I'm still kind of waiting.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The story of Tracey Cooper-Harris, forced to submit to rape and STD to avoid being "outed". How this helps "national security" is beyond me.

That's a horrible story. The fact that she didn't report soldiers who sexually harassed her and eventually raped her sickens me as well. You're right, it has nothing to do with national security, except that it allowed people who shouldn't be in the military to do so, while causing a heap of problems to a young woman who wanted to be a soldier.

As a taxpayer, you're cool with Sgt. Cooper-Harris lying for her friends, and allowing rapists, fraternizers and sexual harassers to continue doing this for who knows how long to who knows how many women? Hell, as a woman you're ok with this?

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Are you seriously blaming the victim? Really? You are fucking blaming the victim for not pointing out her attackers? Jesus Christ. Jesus fucking Christ.

Also it isn't for you to decide how and when people identify, Brian. If someone is gay they know they're gay before having sex. Did you have to have sex with your wife to know you're a heterosexual? If so, why did you marry her? In fact, how do you know you wouldn't enjoy homosexual sex even more? Have you tried it? Nice invasive questions and criteria to meet, isn't it?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yes, I'm blaming the victim for letting a group of fucking rapists to continue raping and sexually harassing women in her unit. JFC, indeed. The fact that you're sticking up for her right to a) put her career above the law and b) not tell on her male "friends" about the rape is fucking disgusting to me as well. How many other women were raped b/c these assholes were allowed to keep doing it? How many other women were traumatized like her?

I'm not saying it wasn't a shitty situation, and if what she's saying is true her command organization was reprehensible. But her fucking duty is to report these things, not to go along with them. And if you can't see that, my goodness...

 

[BrianFromWA]

Also it isn't for you to decide how and when people identify, Brian. If someone is gay they know they're gay before having sex. Did you have to have sex with your wife to know you're a heterosexual? If so, why did you marry her? In fact, how do you know you wouldn't enjoy homosexual sex even more? Have you tried it? Nice invasive questions and criteria to meet, isn't it?

I don't get where you're going with this. If they want to join the military, it's been decided "how and when people identify". "Never", if they want to stay in. Don't put me on a position. The people you voted for voted for it. I didn't have anything to do with it, but it's my duty to follow the policy however it turns out. And amazingly enough, I tend to perform my duties as they're supposed to be performed.

The first time I had sex was with my wife on my wedding night. Before that, no one could prove that I was homosexual or not. And I don't know if I would enjoy homosexual sex more. I just know that it's illegal (and in my religion, immoral) for me to try.

Here's another tack on this...I'm listening to a lot of you talk about pot, LSD, acid, mushrooms, etc. My wife was on amphetamines for a while for severe ADD symptoms. I'm pretty certain that I'd be almost unstoppable on amphetamines, and think some of the stuff jlprk was talking about today with multi-dimensional 2000-page thoughts would sound fun. Does that make me a drug user, and therefore fit to be discharged? Or am I not one until I actually perform the act?

 

[Minstrel]

That's exactly what I'm saying. If I held everyone in the military to the the same standard I hold those in my faith, I wouldn't work for a captain who had a divorce or another officer who frequented strip clubs when in foreign ports. But my faith is required by law to be separate from my actions, kind of like homosexuality through DADT.

You're a little confused. I'm not saying how you handle policy within the military is affected by your religion. I'm saying that I don't believe that your hostility to DADT being repealed (as I've perceived it over multiple threads) is unaffected by religion.

And in multiple issues I've said that policy needs to be upheld if for no other reason than discipline. You can't have people choosing which laws they abide by.

In discussions about whether the law should be repealed, this has nothing to do with anything.

How did this become "Brian's a homophobe"? Because that's easier than saying, "crap, the things he brought up are right"?

I would say you are definitionally a homophobe, as a practicing Christian who believes that God condemns homosexuality (and I'm also surprised that bothers you). As to the things you're saying being "right"...no offense, but I can't see that you've made a single pertinent point that you could be right or wrong on. So no, I'm not trying to escape some remarkable points you've made. You claim alternatively not to have a stand and that policy is policy so should be upheld because it's policy. Neither is "right" or "wrong"...both are non-statements.

Are you married if it's unconsummated? Not being snarky, just asking. I don't know the civil answer to this.

Doesn't matter in the slightest. A man having a boyfriend is being openly gay. A woman having a girlfriend is being openly gay.

Again, saying "Brad Pitt's attractive" means I'm homosexual now?

Are semantic games more of "the stuff you're saying that's right?" Romantic/sexual attraction, obviously. If you are romantically or sexually attracted to Brad Pitt, and generally men over women then, yes, you are homosexual. Even if you don't have sex with Pitt or those other men.

I'm still kind of waiting.

No, you aren't. You're just arguing to argue, considering the efficacy of those "refutations."