Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted

[Buzz Killington]

Transvestites are next on the menu!

 

[BrianFromWA]

There may be a higher standard, and certainly anyone who's straight or homosexual knows it ahead of time.

What your post demonstrates is that there's a double standard for those who are homosexual that isn't fair or good for anyone (including the military).

Long standing discrimination practices don't excuse continuing them.

Why is it "discrimination"? What's the double standard? I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. The US government sees sodomy as sexually deviant behavior and criminal for the military. Whether or not you or I agree with it, it's the law of the land. It doesn't discriminate against anyone except behaviorally. As a Naval Officer, I'm not at liberty to do many things that are "legal" in the civilian world. For instance, every sitcom that ever had an office romance blossom is illegal in the military. Is that another "Long standing discrimination practice" against people who are just trying to find their soul mate? Telling your boss to F*** off might get you fired in the civilian world, but it can get you thrown in the brig and dishonorably discharged in the military. Is that a "long-standing discriminatory practice" against hotheads? Perhaps I don't get what we're talking about. I don't see a double-standard, unless it's from the homosexual lobby trying to turn a behavior into a demographic.

I'd happily like someone to take the time to explain to me if I'm not seeing your side on this.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

I just like the argument of "since the Declaration of Independence". I guess we shouldn't have changed anything at all since then - definitely going to become a slavemaster.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why is it "discrimination"? What's the double standard? I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. The US government sees sodomy as sexually deviant behavior and criminal for the military. Whether or not you or I agree with it, it's the law of the land. It doesn't discriminate against anyone except behaviorally. As a Naval Officer, I'm not at liberty to do many things that are "legal" in the civilian world. For instance, every sitcom that ever had an office romance blossom is illegal in the military. Is that another "Long standing discrimination practice" against people who are just trying to find their soul mate? Telling your boss to F*** off might get you fired in the civilian world, but it can get you thrown in the brig and dishonorably discharged in the military. Is that a "long-standing discriminatory practice" against hotheads? Perhaps I don't get what we're talking about. I don't see a double-standard, unless it's from the homosexual lobby trying to turn a behavior into a demographic.

I'd happily like someone to take the time to explain to me if I'm not seeing your side on this.

"You (Mr. Homosexual) can join the army, but you can't marry another fellow."

vs.

"You (Mr. Heterosexual) can join the army, and we'll give you married quarters."

The point being that it's very separate treatment and rules for the two Mr.'s

And the real point being that when it comes to military service, the idea is to have folks who are good at kicking asses and breaking things. Being homosexual doesn't preclude these things.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Why is it "discrimination"? What's the double standard? I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. The US government sees sodomy as sexually deviant behavior and criminal for the military. Whether or not you or I agree with it, it's the law of the land. It doesn't discriminate against anyone except behaviorally. As a Naval Officer, I'm not at liberty to do many things that are "legal" in the civilian world. For instance, every sitcom that ever had an office romance blossom is illegal in the military. Is that another "Long standing discrimination practice" against people who are just trying to find their soul mate? Telling your boss to F*** off might get you fired in the civilian world, but it can get you thrown in the brig and dishonorably discharged in the military. Is that a "long-standing discriminatory practice" against hotheads? Perhaps I don't get what we're talking about. I don't see a double-standard, unless it's from the homosexual lobby trying to turn a behavior into a demographic.

I'd happily like someone to take the time to explain to me if I'm not seeing your side on this.

Both the examples you provide impact the ability for the people involved to carry out their military duties as assigned. Engaging in a romantic relationship with someone in your unit could impact functionality and cohesion. Swearing at a superior is insubordination. Homosexual behavior in and of itself has no impact on a soldier's ability to fulfill the requirements of his position.

I'm not advocating for or against either position, but I felt the difference needed to be noted. Being ignorant myself, I'm curious if you can provide examples of other military laws that relate specifically to private, off-duty conduct.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

"You (Mr. Homosexual) can join the army, but you can't marry another fellow."

vs.

"You (Mr. Heterosexual) can join the army, and we'll give you married quarters."

The point being that it's very separate treatment and rules for the two Mr.'s

And the real point being that when it comes to military service, the idea is to have folks who are good at kicking asses and breaking things. Being homosexual doesn't preclude these things.

Well, Mr. Homosexual has the same right to marry a woman that Mr. Heterosexual has. Similarly, Mr. Heterosexual is identically prohibited from marrying another man. Sounds like they're actually under the exact same rules.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

they should start a gay army. that would be fab-u-lous!!!!

OK, I could support that idea.

 

[Minstrel]

Wrong. Sodomy is criminal (Article 125). Rape and carnal knowledge is criminal (Article 120). Conduct Unbecoming and Officer and Gentleman (Article 133) is criminal. You're "in uniform" and subject to the UCMJ 24/7 in the military. So, going into the nearest city on shore liberty and hooking up with someone at a bar is not criminal...unless you're committing one of the criminal acts above. Having sex on the ship of any type is illegal, but that falls under "disobeying an order from the Commanding Officer" rather than a UCMJ specific article.

Eh, okay. When you're separating "criminal" from "illegal," it seems very much semantics, at least as regards my point. It may be important in terms of procedure or penalty (and, of course, I think if "sodomy" carries a greater penalty than straight sex, that's bigoted policy), but it's not a meaningful distinction in relation to what I was saying.

My anecdote was a specific example utilized to refute the "they won't do anything to you" crowd. It's very specialized, and maybe that was the one situation out of a billion where that would've happened. But it did. this isn't just an academic exercise.

This is just an academic exercise, when it comes to making broad policy. Anecdotes are bad ways to debate policy.

It's like saying, "We'd be better of segregating society by race. Quick anecdote: We had a black guy working with us in an otherwise all-white office and one day, he murdered a co-worker. We lost two productive people...the murderer due to going to jail, and the murdered employee due to being dead. Now, I realize that this isn't a good logical argument due to sample size and one event not characterizing an entire dynamic, but it just goes to show what can happen in the real world."

Maybe it's tough for civilians to understand, and I sympathize with that.

Maybe. Or maybe you have a prejudice toward homosexuality due to your religious views. And I actually do sympathize with that, since religion seems to be hard to see past, but I don't think your views should hold sway in limiting what a non-malicious demographic of people can do.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Your last point is the least relevant, IMO. My religious views don't have any bearing on how someone else lives their life. I'd be happy to explain that seeming dichotomy in another thread (since it seems that whack-jobs with no Biblical foundation get to carry the mantle of "How Christians Think"). What does "sway my view" is being in one uniform or another since I was 17. Being in the field, being in a barracks situation, being at the Academy, being on sub, being an officer, being enlisted, serving with women, serving on male-only crews...that semi-lifetime of experience is such that I have a pretty decent experience base to draw my conclusions on what is "prejudicial to good order and discipline" or not. Notice, I've never said that homosexual patriots shouldn't serve in the military. Honestly, I'd probably rather have homosexual men in combat and on ships than women, b/c of the manpower and readiness issues I've discussed earlier. But that's not what the laws say, and the women-in-combat-and-on-deployed-ships debate is for another time. But isn't it hypocritical to segregate women, yet not segregate based on sexual behavior?

I don't personally think that behavior defines a demographic, non-malicious or otherwise. Your race example is not a behavior. I don't care about limiting what anyone does: I care about having them do what they want in a way that is best for the military, not best for them--and that goes for any "demographic". Any "limit" is imposed by the laws of the country.

 

[Nikolokolus]

they should start a gay army. that would be fab-u-lous!!!!

It worked for the Spartans pretty well.

 

[Minstrel]

But isn't it hypocritical to segregate women, yet not segregate based on sexual behavior?

That is an interesting question, and a hard one to answer. I see no real reason why men and women should be segregated, but it's something that has been imprinted on almost every society. That, of course, is not a good reason to do something but as things stand, men and women don't feel unhappy about the situation, so I don't feel an urgency about society addressing it.

I don't personally think that behavior defines a demographic, non-malicious or otherwise. Your race example is not a behavior.

I think this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about homosexuality. Being homosexual (or heterosexual) isn't defined by behaviour any more than race is. Sexuality is defined by which sex you are attracted to, which seems (from twins studies and even observance of homosexuality in other animals) to be an innate trait, by and large. You might use behaviour to identify homosexuals and heterosexuals, but that isn't what defines the state of being. A gay man or woman (as defined by who they're attracted to) who didn't share sex or romance with another person of their sex would still be gay...they would just be repressing it for whatever reason. Just as straight man or woman who didn't share sex or romance with an opposite sex partner would still be straight.

 

[Eastoff]

Why is it "discrimination"? What's the double standard? I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. The US government sees sodomy as sexually deviant behavior and criminal for the military. Whether or not you or I agree with it, it's the law of the land. It doesn't discriminate against anyone except behaviorally. As a Naval Officer, I'm not at liberty to do many things that are "legal" in the civilian world. For instance, every sitcom that ever had an office romance blossom is illegal in the military. Is that another "Long standing discrimination practice" against people who are just trying to find their soul mate? Telling your boss to F*** off might get you fired in the civilian world, but it can get you thrown in the brig and dishonorably discharged in the military. Is that a "long-standing discriminatory practice" against hotheads? Perhaps I don't get what we're talking about. I don't see a double-standard, unless it's from the homosexual lobby trying to turn a behavior into a demographic.

I'd happily like someone to take the time to explain to me if I'm not seeing your side on this.

FYI fellatio isn't illegal and you are also completely ignoring females.

 

[MARIS61]

McCain is facing strong opposition in his own party for re-election so he is going as far to the right as possible unfortunately.

"Crash" McCain was born 300 years ago, when hate and ignorance were worn like badges of honor.

He is a very bad person, there's just no getting around it.

 

[MARIS61]

I'd like the military to ban all homophobes, so we would stop getting our ass kicked by smaller, weaker, poorer countries all the time.

If you are such a pansy that the mere presence of gays scares you, there's no conceivable way you are brave enough to defend your countrymen.

 

[Eastoff]

I'd like the military to ban all homophobes, so we would stop getting our ass kicked by smaller, weaker, poorer countries all the time.

If you are such a pansy that the mere presence of gays scares you, there's no conceivable way you are brave enough to defend your countrymen.

HAHAHA Well said! "OMG HE LOOKED AT MY BUTT! I think I liked it and it is bringing up the fear that I like it!"

 

[MARIS61]

do you think they should be allowed to have teh ghey butt secks while serving on duty??

You mean like Kobe, only not rape of course?

 

[MARIS61]

The only question I would have is how they would accommodate privacy. There are co-ed units in the military already, but they don't share showers. There isn't much privacy in the military as is, so I'm wondering how they would adjust to that. Put gay men in with the girls? I don't think it's fair to force straight men to shower with gay men. If you're going to do that, might as well make the showers co-ed. Then it would be an even playing field.... dudes checking out ladies.... ladies checking out dudes.... dudes checking out dudes.... ladies checkin out ladies.... it's all love.

Let's get realistic for a sec. The military is LARGELY homosexual. Sure, there's a few confused heterosexuals in there, but mostly it's closet gays. The only real attraction for recruitment is the chance to HANG OUT WITH MEN ALL THE TIME, SHOWER TOGETHER, EAT TOGETHER, SLEEP TOGETHER, DRESS ALIKE, BE SUBMISSIVE AND HAVE MEN ORDER YOU AROUND.

It's gay Utopia.

Q-What do you call a bunch of straight guys who like to shower together?

A-Closet homosexuals.

 

[MARIS61]

yeah, dude wasn't on my floor but friends told me about this dude that had some kind of cloth diaper on when he showered.

Probably got tired of you looking at his junk.

 

[Eastoff]

Let's get realistic for a sec. The military is LARGELY homosexual. Sure, there's a few confused heterosexuals in there, but mostly it's closet gays. The only real attraction for recruitment is the chance to HANG OUT WITH MEN ALL THE TIME, SHOWER TOGETHER, EAT TOGETHER, SLEEP TOGETHER, DRESS ALIKE, BE SUBMISSIVE AND HAVE MEN ORDER YOU AROUND.

It's gay Utopia.

Q-What do you call a bunch of straight guys who like to shower together?

A-Closet homosexuals.

That was borderline bigoted against homosexuals.

 

[MARIS61]

Practicing homosexuality in the military is criminal behavior. From the UCMJ Article 125 (Sodomy):
Same as DUI, bouncing checks, rape/sexual assault and a host of other (sometimes antiquated, like duelling) things. For my anecdote, it wouldn't have changed had it been consensual. Both would've been kicked off the ship for their criminal, homosexual behavior. To be fair, had someone brought a woman on board for heterosexual intercourse, they would've been heavily disciplined as well.

The social engineering aspect comes when politicians/activists/etc state that there should be changes to the military law to allow unsegregated open homosexual acceptance into the military for whatever reason, but not limited to (in the words of Mullen)

First, DADT doesn't make anyone lie, and it's a lie by the CNO to say that it is. No one is permitted to ask, and the homosexual isn't forced to tell. Secondly, open homosexuality is forbidden in our military and has been since the Declaration of Independence. So while a homosexual patriot may want to, say, fly a fighter plane or drive tanks or shoot sniper rifles or cook for soldiers...when the dotted line is signed he/she knows exactly what he/she's getting into.
If their sexuality isn't a workplace issue (as many in here seem to be saying), then why is it even a problem? Answer: It's not, unless the criminal makes it so. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is their method of having sex. Yet there is an element in our society (who I termed the Ivory Tower Philosophers) who think that unsegregated open homosexuality is progressive (in the good way, not the political way) and is a civil right. In the military it isn't and never has been. It's a criminal act. And changing that just b/c there is a minority segment of society that wishes their wishes to be respected at the cost of others is what I'm terming "social engineering". Maybe my definition is off.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that my personal opinion is that having women in close-quarter live-aboard situations (or in the field) is a bad idea that was "prejudicial to good order and discipline" (military term). Notice, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to serve. But a) there's segregation in place based solely on sex; b) even with this segregation there are numerous reliefs-of-command, fraternization cases, sexual harassment/assault cases, pregnancies detrimental to readiness and manpower, etc.
My personal opinion is such that close-quarter situations exacerbate problems that a little "personal space" would remedy.
Personally, I don't care if people are having sex however they have sex as long as it's legal. Our government has decided that it's fine to do so, except in the military. In our volunteer military, there's a different (higher?) standard of living that you must live up to to serve honorably. You're more than welcome to not join if you feel you can't do so. And if you'd like to do both, then serve another way: as a firefighter, or policeman, or Department of Corrections Officer, or nurse, or whatever.

EDIT: There's a lot of rambling there...it's what I get for trying to cover all the perceived bases in the argument all at once.

1. You apparently don't know the definition of the word "lie".

2. If the military says gay sex is "military illegal", then clearly the military needs to be completely restructured, re-educated, and revamped with brighter minds who represent our country's 21st century thinking and not the tired hatred of the dark ages.

Maybe it's time for a true Volunteer Military, as in a military that works for free.

Everyone in the military is paid by me, the taxpayer, to work for me, the taxpayer, and to defend my rights and my liberty. If you can't do that, then don't take my money on false premises. If you want to attempt to subvert and limit my rights as an American, be a traitor to our country, don't ask me to pay your salary. Man up and be a bigot on your own dime.

 

[BrianFromWA]

1. You apparently don't know the definition of the word "lie".

Oh, but I do. I'm using the "willingly utter a falsehood" definition. To prove his point about DADT, he said that it made sailors lie. It doesn't. No one is required to answer. Much like the 5th Amendment, I would imagine--though legal matters are outside the realm of my knowledge. Just b/c you don't answer doesn't mean you're guilty, or should lie to cover it up. If anyone asks about it, you report it to your chain of command. And to willing utter something contrary to that is a "lie" by the CNO.

2. If the military says gay sex is "military illegal", then clearly the military needs to be completely restructured, re-educated, and revamped with brighter minds who represent our country's 21st century thinking and not the tired hatred of the dark ages.

Right, because the only thing that's important to the military is the sexual well-being of all types. Forget fighting wars and stuff. BTW, the "Military" doesn't say anything that the taxpayers (like me!) and their representatives say not to. The Big, Bad, Homophobic Military (TM) didn't authorize the UCMJ...Congress did. They approve every officer's promotion. They are paid from the Congressionally approved budget. The Commander-in-Chief is the highest appeal of those rules.

Everyone in the military is paid by me, the taxpayer, to work for me, the taxpayer, and to defend my rights and my liberty. If you can't do that, then don't take my money on false premises.

So you ARE against homosexuals enlisting in the military under false pretenses? Another point we agree on. And, amazingly enough, one the UCMJ covers (Article 83)

If you want to attempt to subvert and limit my rights as an American, be a traitor to our country, don't ask me to pay your salary. Man up and be a bigot on your own dime.

How am I a bigot if I'm enforcing YOUR law, Mr. Taxpayer? Or do you want me to pick and choose the laws I follow, and how I choose to interpret them?
You throw the "traitor" term around a lot for someone so misinformed. Come up to Seattle and I'll take you on a tour of a submarine...let you meet some of the traitors stealing your tax money to fund their barely-above-poverty-line salaries, driving around billions of dollars worth of hardware that protects your country by working long hours in dangerous situations months away from land, air and their families. You can ask those bigots why they follow the orders they're given instead of scheming ways to make up new ones. And they'll probably start off their sentences with "Well, Mr. Maris, sir...it's like this...".

 

[ucatchtrout]

I've mentioned this before, but we had a gay dude living on our floor in the dorms freshman year and he would just try and sneak peeks at our junk while we were showering. Pretty fucking obvious. really didn't give a fuck, still not as weird as the indian dude who showered with a fucking diaper on.

I'll bet you were carefull not to drop your soap.

 

[Buzz Killington]

I'll bet you were carefull not to drop your soap.

we actually had fun playing along with the shit sometimes. (no homo)

 

[MARIS61]

Oh, but I do. I'm using the "willingly utter a falsehood" definition. To prove his point about DADT, he said that it made sailors lie. It doesn't. No one is required to answer.

As you say, you are selecting a single narrow definition of one vehicle (oral) of lying, and ignoring the actual definition and meaning.

You're not stupid so why try to pretend you are?

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

All gays in the military are effectively ORDERED TO LIE by remaining silent and PRETENDING they are heterosexual.

It's called "living a lie".

This is why, like law enforcement, the military will never have any credibility with it's citizens. It is built on the practice of deception and deliberate untruths.

 

[MARIS61]

So you ARE against homosexuals enlisting in the military under false pretenses? Another point we agree on.

Yes, I am against forcing people to lie for any reason and I am against lying for any reason.

There is never justification for lying. End of story.

 

[MARIS61]

Your last point is the least relevant, IMO. My religious views don't have any bearing on how someone else lives their life.

No, but they obviously have bearing on what you think someone else should be allowed to do and what they should not be allowed to do.

I've never met a non-religious person who had a problem with gays.

In fact, I've never met a non-religious person who had a problem with other people's lifestyles in general.

Religion is the #1 evil in the world.

 

[Denny Crane]

Brian,

I rarely agree with Maris on anything, but on this one he's right.

Forcing people to live a lie is just not right, nor does it have anything to do with making the military good/better/stronger.

 

[Shapecity]

Wow Maris went off. Great points.

 

[BlazerWookee]

"Crash" McCain was born 300 years ago, when hate and ignorance were worn like badges of honor.

You certainly wear yours proudly.