Don't ask, don't tell, don't pass go, don't collect $200

[Serilliant]

I just finished reading an outstanding thesis written by a West Point graduate outlining the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the US military (article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_go_ot/military_gays_1). For those unaware, this is a law which mandates that all branches of US military be prohibited from asking about a soldier's sexual life, but also that any openly gay soldiers must be discharged.

Essentially, the piece argues that the policy hurts the military in several fundamental ways. It tackles some important issues surrounding not only the inherent discrimination of the rule, but also how it negatively impacts the strength of our military. It further delves into some of the disadvantages of repealing the law, such as putting openly gay soldiers at risk of violence and ostracism.

The curious thing about the two sides of the debate is that you see advocates of gay rights both for and against repealing Don't Ask, Don't tell alongside opponents of gay rights who also stand on both sides of the fence. On one hand, it is unfair to homosexual servicemen. On the other, perhaps it protects them from their own squad and commanding officers' bigotry.

It is a complex issue but an interesting one. I, therefore, open it to Althanas. How do you all feel about Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Should we keep gays from serving? Should we not? Is this a fundamental breech of human rights, or a solid protective measure? Thoughts?

[Storm Veritas]

It's ridiculous to limit who can serve the country based on sexual orientation. As long as they shoot straight, I'll gladly give up my seat (on a bus, Cory) for any soldier, be they heterosexual, gay, transgendered, or whatever.

[Falcon Darkflight]

I second that. But what is this clause all about? So, they can't ask you questions about your private life, and if you openly admit to being homosexual, game over?

I think people need to start opening their eyes and realise for themselves we live in a modern world with changing ideals. I wonder what the reaction would be if the President came out of the closet?

[Abbie]

It's not about serving, or they wouldn't be in the military now at all. The problem is deployment. Throughout the years, women have been kept off of ships for any length of time due to the high risk of rape. That being said, what if one of those women turned out to be gay? Defeats the purpose of keeping the men away, huh? Same is for men. It's possible that the straight men might stop caring that the one gay crew member is male, or that the gay man could take advantage of one of the other men.

In all reality, most people have enough self-control to make it through the months and years needed, but the what if is a very realistic fear, and frankly, I can't see putting people at risk over something so trivial as equality.

[AsukaStrikes]

I agree with all three above.

Self control is what most everyone have - no matter what you're oriented towards. We're humans, after all. If the military thinks by banning gay people from the ranks it would make their servicemen and women safer, they might need to reconsider their policy.

Like what Storm said earlier - if those people can shoot their guns where they're supposed to, that's fine by me. Soldiers are not robots. But they do have their own self-control.

[Abbie]

The specific issue of being alone with nothing but each other on a ship, deployed for 6 months to a year, is the situation that drives this policy. Other than that, deployments are generally in or near cities with more than enough eye candy.

[Osato]

Heh. I think I'm only going to say one thing in this discussion, mainly because I'll probably get bitched out for my opinion to begin with anyway...

I agree firmly with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And I'm in the Army. We had someone in basic that was gay, we could all tell. Though he never told anyone, and nobody asked him, he would always get in the showers before everyone and be the last to leave them. I never wanted to take a shower because I knew that this guy was going to be in the corner holding himself and watching everyone else.

Excuse my blunt nature, but that was fuckin' nasty. I'm not a homophobe or anything, but I also don't like having a gay guy watching me shower. Everyone in my platoon at basic told the Drill Sergeant about the guy and he was watched from then on. The DS's would walk through the bay randomly, and everytime they did, even if they went through twice or three times in the hour of personal time, he was in the showers.

Then one day he basically just disappeared. He was probably kicked out, or moved to a different company because of everyone complaining about him. -shrug- I honestly don't know. But it's people like that I don't want in the Army.

If you are going to serve your country with the rest of us, cool. Go for it. If you are going to stare at the others while showering, get the fuck out. If a group of soldiers can't feel comfortable performing day to day tasks, and can't create unity because of that uncomfortability (-shrug-) than the entire make-up of the squad is in danger. And I won't put eight people at risk because one guy wants to be openly gay...

[Falcon Darkflight]

Heh. I think I'm only going to say one thing in this discussion, mainly because I'll probably get bitched out for my opinion to begin with anyway...

I agree firmly with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And I'm in the Army. We had someone in basic that was gay, we could all tell. Though he never told anyone, and nobody asked him, he would always get in the showers before everyone and be the last to leave them. I never wanted to take a shower because I knew that this guy was going to be in the corner holding himself and watching everyone else.

Excuse my blunt nature, but that was fuckin' nasty. I'm not a homophobe or anything, but I also don't like having a gay guy watching me shower. Everyone in my platoon at basic told the Drill Sergeant about the guy and he was watched from then on. The DS's would walk through the bay randomly, and everytime they did, even if they went through twice or three times in the hour of personal time, he was in the showers.

Then one day he basically just disappeared. He was probably kicked out, or moved to a different company because of everyone complaining about him. -shrug- I honestly don't know. But it's people like that I don't want in the Army.

If you are going to serve your country with the rest of us, cool. Go for it. If you are going to stare at the others while showering, get the fuck out. If a group of soldiers can't feel comfortable performing day to day tasks, and can't create unity because of that uncomfortability (-shrug-) than the entire make-up of the squad is in danger. And I won't put eight people at risk because one guy wants to be openly gay...

Allow me to make two points on this:

a) Ok, I can understand your point about feeling uncomfortable about having a homosexual in the showers with you. Fair enough. But not all homosexuals, just because they're gay, will sit there watching the blokes in the showers all day. I know a couple of gays who tell me they hate being stereotyped in this way.

b) If a group of soldiers can't feel comfortable performing day to day tasks, and can't create unity because of that uncomfortability, they shouldn't even be in the military. If they act this way around gays, what the hell are they going to be like when they have Fuel Air Bombs exploding over their heads?

Funny: you don't want to put eight people at risk for the sake of one gay guy, but you're all (and by this I mean the military) content with sending those same eight into the fucking triangle of death in Iraq now, aren't you? If the guy has OPENLY ADMITTED to being gay, that gives him a set of balls in my opinion, especially if he has said it in the military.

The US really needs to get over this shit. When we bleed, we all bleed the same.

[Abbie]

Any distraction on the battlefield is deadly. Knowing that the guy next to you is probably checking out your ass and not the enemy doesn't make you feel safe, now, does it?

And no, not every gay is like that, or there wouldn't be a policy allowing them at all.

[Falcon Darkflight]

Any distraction on the battlefield is deadly. Knowing that the guy next to you is probably checking out your ass and not the enemy doesn't make you feel safe, now, does it?

I see where you are coming from, but if you are too busy worrying about having your ass checked out by a collegue instead of working on the task at hand, you're either too paranoid to be in the military or your basic instincts are all screwed up.

You're dropped into a hot LZ, with crossfire cutting up your platoon left, right and centre. People are screaming in pain, the smell of grenade cook wafts through the air.

What are you thinking about most?

a) "Is the gay guy who has just taken out a gun emplacement / enemy soldier checking out my ass"

or

b) "How am I going to survive?"

[Storm Veritas]

Abbie, you're essentially legislating intolerance. By the same "all your left with is other guys" policy, should all gay prisoners in jail get their own cell? Do you suppose that every rapist in jail is a homosexual?

Don't be that naive, I know how smart you can be; heterosexual guys can easily be every bit the sexual predator that you fear their homosexual counterparts are.

And Osato, I commend your service, and understand your rationale for disliking your situation, but the "don't ask, don't tell" system also promotes the completely bizarre phenomenon. If that guy was an outed homosexual, don't you think he'd be much more paranoid about looking anywhere below eye level on another guy, even incidentally?

If anything, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" seems to protect the homosexuals from the intolerant straight people than the other way around, but it also denies some of America's finest their own civil rights.

[grim137]

Personally I like the "don't ask" part of the "don't ask don't tell" system because it helps gay people or people who are suspected of being gay from being harrassed by their fellow soldiers and squadmates. However I do not think that a person who has the courage to admit that he's gay should be disscharged.

[Daggertail]

I find that the Don't ask Don't tell system should be renamed the Don't get caught system. Really it's not much a protection other than it might save a homosexual from lying to an officer. And Asking if one is Gay should fall under basic sexual harasment. It's there but there has to be a better way to let gays get in the military.

[Falcon Darkflight]

Storm, Grim and Dagger have all just hit it on the head.

If you have courage to admit you're gay, and then have the courage to lay down your life for your country, there should be no legitimate reason for a discharge.

If the majority of we Althanians can piece that together, why do the people commanding our armies fail to see that?

[LordLeopold]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a policy designed to make homophobes feel more comfortable about the fact they spend all their time with other men. Osato and Abbie's comments are a perfect example of the caveated biogtry that underlies the policy.

Personally, I'm more worried about US soldiers murdering Iraqis in cold blood in Haditha than a gay guy checking out other guys in the shower.

[Osato]

Any distraction on the battlefield is deadly. Knowing that the guy next to you is probably checking out your ass and not the enemy doesn't make you feel safe, now, does it?

And no, not every gay is like that, or there wouldn't be a policy allowing them at all.

Exactly. It's the openly, flaming gay guy's that I don't want serving with me. If you are gay or bi, I have no problems with that. I have friends that are gay and bi that I wouldn't mind serving with because they don't hit on guy's constantly, nor do they do anything that's openly offensive...

Another question: Who, out of everyone responding, is ACTUALLY in the American Military?

I don't think anyone would actually understand the nature of the clause unless you are actually in the military.

[LordLeopold]

The army policy is not "You can't be in the military if you're a flaming queen." It's "you can't be in the military if you admit to anyone but yourself that you are gay." Your straight-laced homosexual friends who don't do things that offend you would still be tossed out of the military for openly admitting to be gay. Although they've done their level best not to offend you by reminding you that they are gay too much, it doesn't matter, because they admit they're gay, and therefore are not fit for service because THEY MIGHT LOOK AT YOUR ASS!

The policy is mandated and can be changed by Congress, which last I checked was not a branch of the armed services, so why should only people involved in the military have a say in whether the policy is in place or not? Last I checked, the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces was a civilian. Harry Truman, a civilian, de-segregated the armed forces in the 1940's. Was he unnecessarily meddling in the affairs of the military elite when he did that?

[Ranger]

Honestly I just think it's rediculous that you are all going to argue with me about the policy... I'm in the army, I've had the problem, and I've seen the clause in action. I agree with it. End of story.

I did not say only people in the military should have a say, since most of the people (me included) don't have a say.

And I'm done with this bullshit. I'm not going to argue with fuckin' pricks about something that none of you can change anyway.

[LordLeopold]

For too long, the military has justified failed policies, fiscal boondoggles, and outright mistakes that have cost American lives by saying that no one who isn't in the military can contradict their judgment.

[Falcon Darkflight]

I don't think anyone would actually understand the nature of the clause unless you are actually in the military.

I have a close schoolfriend based as an Electronics Engineer in HRH Armed Forces in the south-east of England, very, very close to Deepcut. I took the liberty of sharing this with him, and you know what? He and his barracks think the American Army is the ONLY army in the free world, whose citizens are allowed to practice homosexuality in their own country at will, with that kind of paranoid mentaility.

That's coming from a soldier and his collegues in the British Army. It just so happens it agrees with my own personal opinion. But that is ALL it is. My opinion.


Honestly I just think it's rediculous that you are all going to argue with me about the policy... I'm in the army, I've had the problem, and I've seen the clause in action. I agree with it. End of story.

I did not say only people in the military should have a say, since most of the people (me included) don't have a say.

And I'm done with this bullshit. I'm not going to argue with fuckin' pricks about something that none of you can change anyway.

Hey man, chill. This is a debate and we are sharing our own views. Doesn't make them right or wrong, and not every person can argue the same toss of the coin, right? You are damn entitled to have your own opinion, as are we.

Calling us "fucking pricks" might only incite some people to share more aggressive views, and no one wants that.

[Chidori Draconid]

It really depends on the effects of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. I know this guy is highlighting the effects of its presence, but what about the effects of its absence? Would soldiers feel more comfortable knowing about their colleagues whom they otherwise wouldnt have detected with their senses, or would they feel more comfortable being completely oblivious? If the former, get rid of the policy. If the later, keep the policy. Quite frankly this policy isn't going to stop discrimination. Harsh and immediate discipline is going to stop it, but if those responsible for doing that can't keep women in the military from being raped they're not going to be able to keep homosexuals from being abused.

It seems to me that your situation may have been unique, Osato. I'm in screenwriting and theatre in college and have to work with many homosexuals. All in all (even in theatre) they don't behave in a perverted manor like that. I've also had to work with homosexuals in Martial Arts training, and when we go to the showers of course I'm uncomfortable because I'm sort of a homophobe. They don't do anything out of the norm. They just shower and talk like the rest of the guys so I don't have the right to tell them to leave. I don't think I'm any more a homophobe than your regular guy, but you had a right to be bothered by your particular situation. That's not normal behavior for anyone, but if a regular gay guy was in your squad and gave you no reason to be uncomfortable I'd expect you to be mature enough to function with optimum efficiency and teamwork with him.

If a group of soldiers can't feel comfortable performing day to day tasks, and can't create unity because of that uncomfortability, they shouldn't even be in the military.
Falcon, what would you rather have defending you. One well trained soldier, or eight well trained soldiers? To compare that to facing a Fuel Air Bomb is unreasonable.

but you're all (and by this I mean the military) content with sending those same eight into the fucking triangle of death in Iraq now, aren't you? That's the very statement that makes me hate being a Democrat because everyone in Republican North Carolina thinks I'm you. It's not the millitary's decision to go into war. That's in the hands of Congess and the Commander in Chief, so in Osato's and the military's defense, don't go bitching at them for following orders.
I see where you are coming from, but if you are too busy worrying about having your ass checked out by a collegue instead of working on the task at hand, you're either too paranoid to be in the military or your basic instincts are all screwed up. It's the fear of rape that's getting to the female soldier. You and I don't know how that feels because we're males. Quite frankly I believe we need to get rid of all the perverts and freaks in the army, heterosexual and otherwise. That dude that raped that Iraqi woman then killed her family needs to die a slow and painful death after having his dick cut off because he makes me ashamed to be a North Carolinian... Correction: An American... Correction: A Human.
In all reality, most people have enough self-control to make it through the months and years needed, but the what if is a very realistic fear, and frankly, I can't see putting people at risk over something so trivial as equality. In this situation alone I'd condone segregating the military by gender. If we're not going to allow women on the front line then we'd might as well put them in all women squads and make sure they're never outnumbered by our perverted men. Yea all the women in the military would probably only make up a couple of dozen platoons, but how much do you want to bet those platoons will kick some serious ass like the Tukassege Air Men (sp)?

[Falcon Darkflight]

That's the very statement that makes me hate being a Democrat because everyone in Republican North Carolina thinks I'm you. It's not the millitary's decision to go into war. That's in the hands of Congess and the Commander in Chief, so in Osato's and the military's defense, don't go bitching at them for following orders.

You are right, I should have elaborated better. Sorry.


It's the fear of rape that's getting to the female soldier. You and I don't know how that feels because we're males. Quite frankly I believe we need to get rid of all the perverts and freaks in the army, heterosexual and otherwise. That dude that raped that Iraqi woman then killed her family needs to die a slow and painful death after having his dick cut off because he makes me ashamed to be a North Carolinian... Correction: An American... Correction: A Human.

I was referring to having a gay collegue with you on the battlefield, not one of a different gender. Although I suppose it makes no difference.

[Storm Veritas]

Honestly I just think it's rediculous that you are all going to argue with me about the policy... I'm in the army, I've had the problem, and I've seen the clause in action. I agree with it. End of story.


:confused:

I want to pretend I didn't read this. One person in the army speaking on behalf of the entire policy regarding civil rights and service rights of the largest economic and military powerhouse in the free world.

Holy fucking shit.

Thankfully, since I work for the US Government engineering systems that protect soldiers, I get a lot of time spent with soldiers to talk to them about their needs and requirements. I also chat with them quite frequently. Thankfully, not everyone shares this ridiculous dictatorial viewpoint of "my own personal comfort, and screw the rights of anyone else who wears the uniform".

Osato / Ranger, the thing that makes the soldier great isn't wisdom; our frontline warfighters aren't called "grunts" for no reason. It is rather their level of courage in the face of danger. If a homosexual is brave enough to fight for the country, he or she should be allowed to, and our intolerant military shouldn't be rewarded for being so goddamned ignorant about the realities of humankind.

[Ectonis]

I think Osato nailed it. I know, as a heterosexual male, I would NOT like a queer in the shower with me. Why not just have Co-ed showers, so the guys can look at the girls. Girls, how would you feel about that? The gays may not be OPEN about that, but they couldn't deny their emotions, and they WOULD look. Oh, and Osato, I'd like to thank you for being in the army.

[Storm Veritas]

I think Osato nailed it. I know, as a heterosexual male, I would NOT like a queer in the shower with me. Why not just have Co-ed showers, so the guys can look at the girls. Girls, how would you feel about that? The gays may not be OPEN about that, but they couldn't deny their emotions, and they WOULD look. Oh, and Osato, I'd like to thank you for being in the army.

You DO realize that many of Althanas' best and brightest are gay, right?

Also, why would you be concerned about getting looked at by gay guys? Are you gay yourself, and are shy about your manhood, or do you fear getting "queer-raped"?

[Ectonis]

There is a difference between gay people WRITING, and gay people SHOWERING. And what the hell kind of question is that. If I were gay, I wouldn't mind. I just am not very open about another guy staring at my [insert slang word here]....

[grim137]

I think Osato nailed it. I know, as a heterosexual male, I would NOT like a queer in the shower with me. Why not just have Co-ed showers, so the guys can look at the girls. Girls, how would you feel about that? The gays may not be OPEN about that, but they couldn't deny their emotions, and they WOULD look. Oh, and Osato, I'd like to thank you for being in the army.

I'm sorry this is just stupid. Your going to deny hundreds (about 726 according to the article) of potential skilled soldiers who could protect our country just as well as any straight man the right to serve in the military just because its a little bit uncomfortable for some of the regular soldiers, what a load of crap. Even if the gay guys do look fine, it makes you uncomfortable get the hell over it. Just looking does no harm.

[Ectonis]

Exactly, if it offends one person, we can't do it. We can't complain because we might offend the gays. We can't do something because it will offend this group of people. What about offending straights? I know there are racist people out there, and I know people are bigots and sometimes people beat/kill/rape others JUST because of issues such as this one. Thats where hate crimes spawned from. If I were to rob an African-American, it would be a hatecrime JUST because he is a minority. We have to bend over backwards to people because someone's feelings might get hurt? BULLSHIT

[grim137]

This has nothing to do with offending anybody. Over 700 soldiers does make a difference. We are denying a lot of potential soldiers the right to serve their country over something as trivial as their sexual preferences. If it makes you uncomfortable because they might look at you in the shower then wash up and get out of the shower. So because people like you are so insecure with you sexuality that you can't stand the fact that somebody might look at your junk we have 700+ potential soldiers who have been discharged and denied the right to serve.

[Abbie]

It's to prevent RAPE! Christ, people. This isn't about something so simple as a flirt. This is to protect people from serious harm! Not only is there the worry of Jimmy getting woken up by Raoul, but also about gang-bangs on the quiet gay boy in the corner! It's to PROTECT them, not ostracise or prevent them from serving!

[Chiroptera]

I know, as a heterosexual male, I would NOT like a nigger in the shower with me.

Yeah, that was an intentional misquote. Not to pick on you Ectonis, but to demonstrate the fact that segregation is obviously still in existence. I know that these days blacks are no longer as officially reviled as they were in years past, but this whole conversation is showing that that kind of bigotism still exists.

Okay, it wasn't a very good analogy because the color of one's skin does not exactly correlate to one's sexual preferences, but we have to remember this: Even if you don't like another person, be they black or gay, they are still people, and are therefore protected and enabled by the constitution to serve their country, to offer their lives to protect those of their family.

The point that was made earlier about being paranoid of other soldiers watching your rear is not exactly something that is limited to homosexuals. There are women in the army, and there are men who miss their girlfriends and wives. Do not try to tell me that women are not hassled or at least cat-called and watched by their fellow soldiers. My aunt is in the Coast Guard and has countless examples of times when men's attraction to her hindered her ability to do her job. So yeah, maybe the tables are turning, maybe it's the men who are now being distracted, but women can still make darn good soldiers.

[Vorin]

Marry me Chiroptera. Marry me because that made me think ever so highly of you. Also, your user account name's hard to spell.

[Ectonis]

Yeah, that was an intentional misquote, and I'm dumb, so I'm going to misquote someone to get my point across.

thats not very effective (I don't think you're dumb, I just stuck that in there)

[Storm Veritas]

I know people are bigots

No shit.

I can't believe the legs this thread has grown. The bigotry on this board absolutely profoundly abhors me. For whatever reason I clung to the hope that the generation of terrible discrimination that preceeded mine wouldn't hadn't bred such hate-mongering creatures. Or that at least the people whose intelligence I respected would not be so closed-minded and ugly.

[Chiroptera]

thats not very effective (I don't think you're dumb, I just stuck that in there)

All is understood and forgiven. ;)

[Chidori Draconid]

Wow lol. It's like my huge response on the very top of page three has completely been ignored, just like the one in the Religion thread. I'm gonna stop writing long responses like that. Back to the matter at hand.

You see, Ectonis? That policy is there for people like you, but here's the reality of the situation. If there's a homosexual showering next to you, and he did absolutely nothing to make you feel uncomfortable, would you still be uncomfortable?


Honestly I just think it's rediculous that you are all going to argue with me about the policy... I'm in the army, I've had the problem, and I've seen the clause in action. I agree with it. End of story. I read the rest of that message, and despite it you're pretty much saying we don't have the right to speak against this policy. Too bad. Welcome to the American Democracy, the very democracy you put your life on the line for. We're going to argue with you about things we haven't experienced, just like you will (and should) argue with us about things you haven't experienced and some of us have. Of course it is our obligation to acknowledge the words of those who have experienced such things. I acknowledged your experience, but you ignored it. If the members of Congress didn't argue about things they didn't experience there would be no such thing as Democracy. Nothing will get done. No the military is not an exception to this. So if you stand whole hartedly behind that statement you made then get out of the military because you're risking your life over something you don't condone, free speech.


For whatever reason I clung to the hope that the generation of terrible discrimination that preceeded mine wouldn't hadn't bred such hate-mongering creatures. Hate and discrimination aren't really a generational thing. They're more of a Human thing. It's in our genes to hate because it's in our genes to fear, so even for those who get past it there will always be those who can't help it.

[Serilliant]

Welcome to the American Democracy, the very democracy you put your life on the line for.
Thanks for hitting the nail squarely on the head.


If I were to rob an African-American, it would be a hatecrime JUST because he is a minority. We have to bend over backwards to people because someone's feelings might get hurt? BULLSHIT
Hi, nice to meet you. My name is logic. I think we need to get acquainted.

Committing a crime against a minority doesn't automatically constitute a hate crime. Robbing a minority while shouting, "your nigger money is mine, jungle bunny!" does. Do you see the subtle difference there?

Your backward logic is the basis of all bigoted polices that afflict the nation. No one is asking you to "bend over backwards" to prevent hurt feelings. We're asking you to act like a decent human being and extend equal rights to all. If you consider it such a massive undertaking to treat your fellow man with respect, then you truly have my pity.

As a footnote, I find that those typically most paranoid about having gays check them out are the ones that, under no circumstances, would ever be checked out. If your intelligence is equatable to your looks, I'm sure you'd be quite safe in this department. Have a wonderful day.

[Falcon Darkflight]

Serilliant just laid the smackdown!

[Vorin]

Oh, I'm bumping this up because I'm cool like that.

Now, I think most people were arguing this shower thing. Let me make one thing very clear about that.

Heterosexual males act like huge queers in the shower, in general. I'm sure there are case when they do not, but in every shower I've ever been in the males there have acted like a bad gay prison rape porno. And this isn't just my exp. I remember Storm talking with me once over how his football team acted, in great detail as I wrote every bit of it down for later ;).

Now the Hypocracy. Once Straight guys find out a gay guy's in the shower, that play gay is over. It's all "He's looking at my penis. Lets move over here." No, sorry. Throwing soap at my feet and telling me to pick it up before I come out isn't just a coincidence. I freak out in shower rooms as it is. My weird little self doesn't need all that pressure.

[Heroine]

Since when did you kids decide to turn the FST into a massive clusterfuck?

I don't really remember when being gay precluded me from depending on someone. I had a had a guy belay for me while I was rock climbing. He was gay. Guess what? Did that keep me from trusting him while I was free-hanging 50 feet above rocky ground? Nope. I trust his ability to do his job.

Seriously. It's not really all that intelligent. When bullets are flying overhead, and YOU ARE the one worrying whether the guy next to you is checking you out, ask yourself who's got the actual problem. Shouldn't you be actually paying attention to the fact that death is whizzing by your head? If the concept that a gay man may find you attractive makes you blush, distracts you, or even disturbs you, and you're more worried about some guy who likes the look of your rear end than being beheaded in the next Al'qaeda video, you need to chose a different line of work.

You're not going to last too long, now are you? The women you drool over every night don't give a damn, neither should you.

I'm disgusted.

[Alberdyne_Cormyr]

If anybody wants to serve regardless of whatever background they have, they are certainly much braver than I and power to them. It is their constitutional right as a citizen to serve in the armed forces that was created TO PROTECT US. To me bigotry is almost so pointless, its a non-issue. If gays want to fight, let them.

[Serilliant]

Something just occurred to me that I had overlooked and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned yet. A common lesbian complaint is that the perception of homosexuality is very male-focused. Apparently we've proven that fact here.

So we've established that there are several men who are against showering with known gays. On the whole, the female perception of lesbians is much more positive than the male perception of fags. Does this mean, that, the females in the military are less in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell than men in the military? To those of you who have stated your support of the policy as a result of discomfort in the thought of gays checking you out, do you have the same feeling about lesbians in the military? Does a double standard exist in this respect? Your thoughts.

[Sighter Tnailog]

I'd love to comment on that, Serilliant, but I got nothin'. Nothin', I tell you!

Anyway, I'm just thinking...I've never been concerned that a woman might find me attractive. I've found it amusing at times, and maybe a bit obnoxious...but threatening? Scary? Worrisome? No way. Get the fuck over yourselves.

On another point, rape is a crime of power, not sex. It is perpetrated by the powerful against the powerless. The solution is not, therefore, to "protect" the powerless by keeping them away from the sources of power. The solution is to engage them in the power structure and permit them to share in the available wealth of society. You don't protect a woman from rape by making her stay inside all day. You give her mace and tell her to kick where it hurts.

And I think we missed something here. The military? Please. Let's dissolve the damn thing.

[Mark Twain]

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came-next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams-visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender!-then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation -- "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever--merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory -

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal,"Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said

"I come from the Throne-bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import-that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of-except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this-keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer-the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it-that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory-must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause)

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

[Jonathan Swift]

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great land or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and military bases, crowded with lithe males of almost the female sex, followed by three, four, or six strapping young lads, all in uniform and importuning every passenger for rights to serve their nation. These surly youths...who as they grow up either turn prostitutes for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Canada, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of homosexuals in arms, or on the backs...of their nation's army, and frequently of their fellow soldiers, is in the present deplorable state of the country a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these sultry lads sound, useful members of the armed forces, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the gays of the military; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of homosexuals at a certain age who...demand our attention in the streets.

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy homosexual well bred is at eighteen years old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

[Chidori Draconid]

Somethings gotta be done about people registering just to post OOCly here. In my opinion it's no better than spam.

[Cyrus the virus]

Yeah, you'd think someone who's been here so long would know better than to simply irritate us all. Because that's not a new member up there.

It's ridiculous really. Almost trolling.

[Roscar Palidyne]

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy homosexual well bred is at eighteen years old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

I don't know who this jackass is, but using literature that was originally for the curing of close-mindedness for his own anti-homosexual sentiment is a disgrace to great literature. Those of you who haven't read "A Modest Proposal" by the REAL Johnathan Swift, it's really a hilarious satire on the Anti-Irish Catholic sentiments that the ruling class of England and Protestantism had. It proposed that to help a failing economy and starvation of the lower-class Irish, they should just eat their own infants. That quote above, replace "homosexual" with "babies" and "years" with "months".

[LordLeopold]

I'd like to point out that this is plagiarism.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Funny thing is, Roscar, you've made the same error as those who originally condemned A Modest Proposal. That is to say, you took it seriously.

Furthermore, if you're irritated by hearing some of the greatest literature ever in a timely and articulate fashion, then I'd suggest that it is someone else who is ridiculous.

For the record, I'm not Jonathan Swift. I'll let whoever's responsible for that bit of brilliance own up to it themselves.

Also, plagiarism generally gives no credit to the original authors. I'm glad to see that Leopold, at least, has a funnybone.

[Mark Twain]

It is not true that owing to my lack of humor I was once discharged from a humorous publication. It's an event that could very likely happen were I on the staff of a humorous paper--but then I'd never get into a fix like that. I'd never undertake to be humorous by contract. If I wanted my worst enemy to be racked I'd make him the editor of a comic paper. For me there must be contrast; for humorous effect I must have solemn background; I'd let my contribution into an undertaker's paper or the London Times. Set a diamond upon a pall of black if you'd have it glisten.

The funniest things are the forbidden.

[Roscar Palidyne]

Eh, I hope this is a joke. It'd be really sad to see someone manipulate good literature for an honest close-minded agenda. If you meant I took A Modest Proposal seriously, you'd be wrong, I actually laughed the entire way through, but I enjoyed also the idea that it advocated. Anyway......who cares?

[Sighter Tnailog]

Let me put it simply...

A Modest Proposal advocates eating Irish children to solve the overpopulation and hunger problem in one fell swoop. It is ONE BIG JOKE. But people at the time thought it was seriously advocating narrow-minded parochialism and the eating of babies. BECAUSE THEY MISSED THE JOKE.

"Jonathan Swift" is not here actually advocating the eating of homosexual 18 year olds. It's fairly obvious that he's actually working AGAINST the "close-minded" agenda. Just as the original Swift did not intend his work to be taken seriously, I can't seriously believe that this Swift actually wants you to eat homosexuals. He's trying to show the absurdity of a position by taken it to absolute extremes.

This is what we call sarcasm.

[Serilliant]

News update:

Atlanta has become the seventh city council to call to Congress to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell in favor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, joining the ranks of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, West Hollywood, St. Louis, and Cathedral City. What's interesting is that Atlanta is the first southern city to toss their hat into the anti-discrimination ring. The city council supported the resolution 11-2.

Oh the times they are a-changin'.

What will be interesting for me to see is if the Military Readiness Enhancement Act passes, how many current soldiers will out themselves. I'm willing to wager a steady number of conservative 'purists' will get their head in a knot as stacks upon stacks of the "manly men" sworn to protect them start saluting with limp wrists.

My fear is this. What if, upon the passing of the act, Congress also initiates what is seen as a compromise and constructs all-gay platoons? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? On one hand, it would be a compromise that would probably please most homophobic servicemen and would still allow gays to serve, but would it harken to policies of 'separate but equal'? Would it call for the same discrimination that all-black regiments evoked?

[Vorin]

Hmmm, putting minorities into their own, seperate squad in this day and age. Now where have I heard that before? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKSOjAySG4g)

I suppose it's one step at a time. If people can be open in the military, then waiting a few years in special squads seems tolerable. Although that is just my non-army opinion. God knows what I'd think if this affected me

[AdventWings]

I still don't see why it bothers people so much that there's a homosexual in the ranks. I'd be more afraid of turncoats in the ranks than someone gay checking me out.

In my opinion, the all-gay platoons will only help alleviate the problem temporarily as there will also be "misplaced individuals" in the different platoons. And then there's the possibility of an even more opened attack on the all-gay platoons from outside views in contrast to the relative anonimity of mixed platoons.

Either that or I'm being a pessimist. =/

[Marshika]

I noticed you posted this at GUA too, Serilliant. I would have responded there, but the admins are really tightass about things and I didn't want to get warned for flaming. The community here seems a lot more intelligent and academic, though, so I think you'll be more open to my thoughts.

I don't know if you're gay or not, and I'm just assuming you are. If you're not, then I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. I don't mean to accuse you of anything or anything, it's just the feeling I got. So if I'm wrong, again sorry. But anyway.

If you were at work and there was a woman who was hitting on you, you would probably not like it, right? So let's say you told her "sorry I'm gay" and she goes okay, but doesn't stop hitting on you. She keeps telling you about how hot you are and how much of a cute butt you have and all that, even though you told her that you weren't interested. When you tell her to stop, she says "what does it matter? You're gay, so it's not like we'll ever be in a relationship. I'm just complimenting you." But it still makes you feel uncomfortable, right?

Now imagine that that's what it's like for us. I'm sure everyone has known a gay guy that will say things like that to his straight male friends, and then when called on it, make the same claim. They're just saying "nice things". But it still makes guys feel uncomfortable. So when we're at work (military), we don't want to have to worry about the gay guys checking us out even if they don't try to hump us or anything just because knowing that a guy is checking you out is weird.

I have nothing against gays at all, but I just think it shouldn't matter whether your gay or straight so why does anyone care and why should you tell anyone? Just keep it to yourself and act like a normal person, and then you can be in the military anyway.

[AdventWings]

Touche', Marshika. :) Good argument.

[Serilliant]

Your examples are not comparable. In the first instance, the woman is sexually harassing someone. In the latter, the only 'harassment' taking place is, "I think that queer might be looking at me". Further, even if the thought of being checked out by a gay guy bothers you, there is no justification from that fact alone to ban them from military service. It would be like me saying that I don't want any women to be hired at the company I work for because I'm uncomfortable with them checking me out. See how ridiculous that sounds?

As a side note, I've yet to see a single breeder boy concerned about being checked out that was actually worth checking out. If it concerns you, you likely have nothing to worry about.

[hamnat]

ok, no offense to the admins... BUT WHY HASN"T THIS BEEN DEALT WITH YET??!

I have read over much of the thread and after 4 pages, i just skipped the rest. This is so annoyingly hateful and controvercial, that it would be to graphic for a Tarantino film.

Stop the swearing, stop the "intentional misquotes" and stop all of it. I am shocked to know that one of our admins has, instead of dealing with this thread, componded the problem. I agree with the idea of partial segregation in the military, not with the kick open-gays out policy. End of story. No one need provide feedback, say Im an idiot, or bow down and worship me.

As of now, I am requesting that this topic be closed for good and NOT be reopened under any circumstances. You took a good topic for discussion and damn near made a war out of it. I must say that of all the days that I am proud to be among the select few who are members of this forum, this is not one of them.

@Serilliant: Please close this thread before someone gets offended, begins ranting, and gets banned. I doubt anyone wants to see one of the elite be removed due to this topic.

[Rajani Aishwara]

Time is the solution. Racial integration and other government policies that have been enforced over the generations have proven that the longer you put two different people in the same room, the more likely they'll get along. Now I know there are plenty of things wrong with that statement and it can be easily argued against since there are acceptions, but my point is made.

What I'm observing here is the growing pains of the social evolution of a more tolerant American culture. The complaints of people like Ranger/Osato and Marshika derive from examples of extreme and inappropriate behavior, whether it's commited by heterosexuals or homosexuals, males or females. Anyone who acts in that manor, especially when charged to protect this nation, is wrong for doing so. But that is not sufficient argument against a homosexual soldier with perfect conduct, and it's likely that the majority of them act in perfect conduct just as the majority of every demographic does.

I believe that if a soldier wants to come out, he should be allowed to do so. The hard reality is his partners will have to bite the bullet and work along side him whether they like it or not, just like your grandfathers had to work along side my grandfathers. I ask any soldier here (that is if you're here) if a soldier told you he was gay would you still shower next to him? If he gave you no reason to fear him would you still fear him? Let me answer the question for you. Yes you would. Most of you, even my roomate Chidori Draconid, have admitted that you would be a little wierded out by sleeping, showering and fighting beside someone different from you. I would too. It's natural because it originates from our animalistic function to defend against anything that is different.

But natural isn't always right. In this case it's downright wrong because our fathers have shown us what is right. Supress your discomfort when your working along side a homosexual just as your father did when he worked along side an African American. Whether you do or don't I can guarantee this much... Your children and/or grandchildren will be much more tolerant of homosexuals, and I don't think you want to be remembered as the bigot grandparents.

Quite frankly I think we should be more concerned with some other flaws in out military seeing as they're running around like Romans.

[Serilliant]

@hamnat: I'm not really sure from where all your panic is coming. If the profanity bothers you, you have a filter that you may turn on. If the controversial nature of the debate bothers you, you have the ability to opt out of the thread. However, there have been no rules broken and no lines that have been crossed. This thread has been open for more than four months and thus far no one has ranted or been banned.

@Rajani: You make an excellent point. The times we live in are unique when it comes to gay acceptance. We went from a period in the 60s and 70s of mostly ignoring homosexuality, condemning it and thanking God for AIDS in the 80s and early 90s, a sudden flux of partial acceptance and greater tolerance in the late 90s and early 2000s, to now a huge polarized debate. We're seeing hatred that had not manifested since the AIDS epidemic and acceptance that has never before been seen. I could not really put my finger on an explanation, but yours of "growing pains" I think hits it.

I'm fully convinced that one day, we will look back on these times and be as embarrassed as we are about other times of discrimination. It has been said that this is the last great civil rights battle. The unknown is, of course, how long this battle will take. The key is putting aside our difference and agreeing to stomach what we want to hate if only for the purpose of not passing this hate on to our children. Generations later, no one will remember what it was like to be the bigot.

[Marshika]

@Serilliant: Please close this thread before someone gets offended, begins ranting, and gets banned. I doubt anyone wants to see one of the elite be removed due to this topic.
I agree with Serilliant, Hamnat, this topic isn't really that hateful and afterall, we're all just trying to learn from each other. I'm certainly not offended, and I don't think Serilliant or Rajani Aishwara were either. I'm sorry if I offended you because that was not my intention, but like I said, we're all just trying to learn from each other.


Your examples are not comparable. In the first instance, the woman is sexually harassing someone. In the latter, the only 'harassment' taking place is, "I think that queer might be looking at me". Further, even if the thought of being checked out by a gay guy bothers you, there is no justification from that fact alone to ban them from military service. It would be like me saying that I don't want any women to be hired at the company I work for because I'm uncomfortable with them checking me out. See how ridiculous that sounds?
That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it that way. You're right, just because a few people might be uncomfortable doesn't mean that gay people should have their rights taken away. I guess it's easy to just get caught up in doing what you want to do instead of thinking about what is right to the other person


What I'm observing here is the growing pains of the social evolution of a more tolerant American culture. The complaints of people like Ranger/Osato and Marshika derive from examples of extreme and inappropriate behavior, whether it's commited by heterosexuals or homosexuals, males or females.
You're absolutely right. Straight people do do this too and I didn't mean to imply that I thought that all gay people acted the same way (inappropiately).


Anyone who acts in that manor, especially when charged to protect this nation, is wrong for doing so.
I totally agree.


Your children and/or grandchildren will be much more tolerant of homosexuals, and I don't think you want to be remembered as the bigot grandparents.
Haha. It's funny to think about it that way because I bet we all have some family members who say things that embarass us because they're bigoted. We never really think about the fact that one day we could be bigoted like them too. Food for thought for anyone who discriminates against people even if it's still considered "okay" to do it today, it might not be tomorrow.


The times we live in are unique when it comes to gay acceptance. We went from a period in the 60s and 70s of mostly ignoring homosexuality, condemning it and thanking God for AIDS in the 80s and early 90s, a sudden flux of partial acceptance and greater tolerance in the late 90s and early 2000s, to now a huge polarized debate.
I don't think I or any other straight people know what it's like to be the subject of such a constantly changing discrimination. I wasn't alive during the AIDS epidemic, and it's easy to pretend that it wasn't that big of a deal, but I think even worse than seeing all of your friends die off was having to deal with the fact that a lot of society thought that it was god punishing the homosexual people. When people get cancer, they get a lot of sympathy. But when people were dying from AIDS, people just assumed they were evil and deserved it. We should always try to remember how hurtful what we think and say can be.


I'm fully convinced that one day, we will look back on these times and be as embarrassed as we are about other times of discrimination. It has been said that this is the last great civil rights battle.
I hope so. I don't want my first post to come across as homophobic or anything, because I'm not. I admit fully that being gay is a little weird to me simply because I'm not and I can't fully understand it. I do know that all humans are people and should be treated equally and with kindness, though, which is why I want to try to understand things.

In fact, I have another question. This is for Serilliant and anyone else no matter if your gay or straight or which side of this debate you were on. For the gay and gay friendly people: if it suddenly came out that homosexuality was in fact a mental illness (not saying that it is or that I think that it is, only saying what if) or that it was a biological disease or something like that, would you no longer be in favor of gay rights? Or if you are gay, would you try to cure yourself? I'm only saying if, just because I'm curious.

And if you're anti-gay, if it suddenly came out that there was proof that gay people were completely normal and that it was just a gene that makes them want to be gay, would you be more accepting? What if the pope or someone else (maybe even Jesus!) said that homosexuality was not a sin, would you be more accepting then, too?

Basically my question to everyone is what would it take to change your mind regardless of what side of the issue you're on?

[AdventWings]

In response to Marshika's Questions and Scenarios:

Call me ignorant or anything you like, but I stand on the grounds of acceptance and reconciliation. I could care less if Homosexuality is a disease or a mental illness. We're only humans, after all, and will never be perfect. Anything is fine as long as the person does not do anything regrettable or intentionally idiotic. I've seen straight people do many things worth of eternal damnation and can say that I've about lost hope in humanity. Still, why have I not turned psychotic and run around chopping other people's necks off with a metal ruler? Because I know that we're only humans. Fear is always there and it is the reason why many of us cannot and will not accept things that are different. Therefore, I keep an opened mind and hopeful eyes, waiting for the day that we can all accept each other for the flaws inherent in us and work with it.

[side-tracked]

Well... as a student of ecology and science... the "evolution" of said fictional illness does present a branch worthy of investigation...

[/side-tracked]

[Lou]

In response to Marshika: I have no gay friends and am not gay myself, and would consider myself partly homophobic (as I can’t really comprehend homosexuality from a heterosexual viewpoint), but I’m certainly not anti-gay rights. Now, if it was discovered that homosexuality was some sort of biological or mental disease, I would remain in support of gay rights. What would change my mind on such an issue? Nothing, I suppose. Gay people are human beings, just as is a mentally deranged person, and both groups of people deserve some fundamental rights. Of course, it is clear that homosexuals in general are just as rational, responsible, and capable as any healthy human being, so even if some sort of “disease” was found, it would not change my feelings on gay rights. After all, as AdventWings seems to allude to, medicine’s “diseases” are subjective and indicative of social values and norms of the time, not necessarily of “scientific truths.” For that reason, I would be skeptical of any group of scientists claiming that homosexuality was a disease.

I think something that has not been focused on enough in this thread is Abbie’s point: that this policy is meant to protect homosexuals, male or female, in the military. There is a lot of talk about uncomfortable straight soldiers and a breach of gay rights, but I don’t think that covers the whole picture. Really, I think it should be entirely up to the homosexual soldiers. If they want to tell their brothers and sisters that they are gay, then they should be free to do so, just like they should be free to keep it to themselves.

Come to think of it, the “protective” excuse for the policy seems faulty. Correct me if there is something wrong with my logic here. A homosexual soldier can serve, as long as he or she does not tell anyone about his or her sexual preference, right? Well, if that is the case, then the soldier has the choice of “protecting” themselves by remaining quiet. They can make another choice, though, of putting themselves at risk by openly admitting to their sexual leanings. Given that, then hasn’t the soldier already made a choice between protecting themselves and putting themselves at risk? If the soldier made the choice of admitting to their sexuality, then that soldier also made the choice of putting him or herself at risk of abuse by fellow soldiers. What the military effectively does is reject that choice by throwing homosexuals out of the military... correct? If this is the case, then this seems less a protective measure for homosexuals than it is a discriminatory policy against a homosexual’s freedom of speech. I have a feeling I am missing something here, since this whole topic is rather new to me.

[Godhand]

I can't see putting people at risk over something so trivial as equality.

Get back to the kitchen.

[The Writing Writer]

Who else but Godhand?



Anyway, I personally think that it should all be situational. Just like what happened with Osato and the showers. The young homosexual man was acting inappropriate for the situation, the other soldiers reported those violations, and he was dealt with accordingly. I think that whether you're gay or not is a non-issue until you sexually harrass someone. If someone in your squad is gay, big deal. Get over it. If someone in your squad is gay and runs around, cock in hand, screaming " WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME!? " then I think you have a problem.

I have alot fo gay friends and I get along great with every one of them. But they have enough respect for me to keep from making me feel uncomfortable, just in the same way that I grant my female friends the same courtesy. Whether your gay or not in the military shouldn't determine whether or not you get to serve. When you do things that are inappropriate and offensive, whether you be gay, straight, man or woman, that's when action should be taken, and not any other time.

[Hashi]

Something just occurred to me that I had overlooked and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned yet. A common lesbian complaint is that the perception of homosexuality is very male-focused. Apparently we've proven that fact here.

So we've established that there are several men who are against showering with known gays. On the whole, the female perception of lesbians is much more positive than the male perception of fags. Does this mean, that, the females in the military are less in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell than men in the military? To those of you who have stated your support of the policy as a result of discomfort in the thought of gays checking you out, do you have the same feeling about lesbians in the military? Does a double standard exist in this respect? Your thoughts.

So I'm a little late on this but this is a subject very personal to me and I feel I have to weigh in.

I almost joined the Army several times over the past few years. What holds me back is two things. One, I'm queer as a three dollar bill. Walking out the door sets off every gaydar in three counties. People I meet on the street figure out I'm gay in five minutes flat. I'm just not good at hiding it. And two, I've got a girlfriend. I would very much like to jump in, serve my country for a tour of duty, in the process learning vital skills to protect me and mine from the shitstorms that threaten to break loose daily in this day and age.

But I can't pretend I'm not gay for 3-5 years and my girl is just my "Best friend". I can barely do it for 8 hours at work.

Why pretend I'm not gay at work, you ask? Because, it's not a good idea to openly admit to being gay. Maybe other job types are better. But be a female, walk into your average factory, plop down in the breakroom with "the guys" and start swapping opinions on the skinny office girl and her assets. Within two days the entire corporation knows your a dyke.

Keep count of just how many men who'd never noticed your exsistance previously will take the time out of the day to point out that women aren't gay, they just haven't slept with them yet. You'll need more than both hands to count on.

Personally, I never ran into much trouble beyond crude comments. I've never been much of a girlie girl. I wear steel toe boots and I keep my hair short and I wear clothes that don't draw unwanted attention. I don't back down when guys start posturing so they don't get the idea in their head they can push me around.

None of that means shit. I stayed safe because I find the biggest, strongest, nicest teddy bear of a guy there and become his friend. I take my time to pick, usually a guy with a wife and kids. Someone who likes the same kind of music and movies and I can sit and talk and bullshit with. I find and adopt a big brother to look out for me. I make sure to hang out with him on breaks and don't linger in the parking lot.

I've worked with other lesbians. One girl in particular flaunted it. Wore tight shirts and jeans. Dated another girl there and the boss kept having to yell at them to keep their PDAs to a minimum. They only hung out with each other and repeatedly told the guys things like that "men were useless" and crap like that. And in return they got treated like objects by the males. Since I was accepted as "one of the guys" I heard what they said and saw how they reacted. None of them believed either girl was gay and all admitted at one point or another that they could "straighten that girl out with one good night". One guy, specifically, who was outside of my group of friends, oftened talked very crudely to her. Once even going on about how he wanted to "thrust up inside her" and the like. After a while the both started to take on the look of hunted animals. It made me sick to see them like that.

I didn't join the Army for fear of being outed by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If it came to behaving, I am quite capable of keeping my eyes and hands to myself. Anything that involves a woman and a lesbian will really be no worse than any other random female politics. Most women are total bitches to each other in the workforce anyway. That's not the issue.

The problem is getting accosted by Bubba and his fellow neanderthals who insist women aren't really gay. There are men out there who take lesbianism as a personal affront to their manhood and feel the need to prove themselves somehow by "converting" or "straightening out" gay women. It's bad enough with drunken factory workers. Imagine what the military macho machine does to that mindset. In that regard, it is better for lesbians to remain anonymous. I know women in the military who do it, and they have my respect. They're stronger than I am.

[Godhand]

Keep count of just how many men who'd never noticed your exsistance previously will take the time out of the day to point out that women aren't gay, they just haven't slept with them yet.

Yo.

[Hashi]

If you are a guy, and there's a dude behind you acting kind of shifty and you think he might be gay, this disgusts you. You don't want his advances but having received the same training the chances are you have an even shot at holding him off.

If you're a lesbian, and there's a man behind you acting suspicious, there's a very real chance he might rape you and he is biologically designed to be a superior fighter than you, so even if you've had the same training there is a very good chance you will not be able to protect yourself.

So tell me now why the biggest issue is straight males not wanting to deal with gay males?

[Karuka]

That's actually a really good point, Hashi. My RA from last year said that she only chose the school I attend now over the Army or Airforce schools was because 97% of the women who attend are raped. It isn't just a problem for lesbians, in the armed forces.

[Godhand]

That's actually a really good point, Hashi. My RA from last year said that she only chose the school I attend now over the Army or Airforce schools was because 97% of the women who attend are raped. It isn't just a problem for lesbians, in the armed forces.

Hahaha what the fuck? That's incredible! Is that a real number?

Edit: Ninety seven percent? I just can't believe that. That seems like one of those figures that seems real but could never really exist. I mean that's basically every girl that attends getting raped.

[Hashi]

It's a problem for all women, I agree. It's just that lesbians tend to make first/easy targets because men feel they have a reason or justification for what they're doing, or they feel challenged. I used to know a guy who felt that every lesbian was a "loss to mankind". He was nice enough about it and blamed it on men who mistreated women, but he honestly believed that no woman would willingly turn away from men.

And I don't care how off the number seems. Rape is never a laughing matter.

[Karuka]

Hahaha what the fuck? That's incredible! Is that a real number?

Edit: Ninety seven percent? I just can't believe that. That seems like one of those figures that seems real but could never really exist. I mean that's basically every girl that attends getting raped.

Schools are required to make that information available up front, and truth be told, one in four to one in five women will be sexually assaulted while she attends college. Yes, it's a real statistic.

EDIT: The 20-25% statistic is overall. At male-dominated (read: military) institutions, it's a hell of a lot worse.

[Godhand]

That's not...Am I missing something? That's not ninety seven percent.

[Karuka]

I clarified for you.

[Lavinian Ambition]

That's not...Am I missing something? That's not ninety seven percent.

She talking take every college overall. Military institutions raise it up considerably.

[Godhand]

I believe you now but it's still...Unbelievable? Does that make sense? I mean I'm just picturing like this big military base with a revolving door with "rape" painted on it in big red letters and normal chicks just walk in and they walk out dressed as soldiers. I mean I know that's weird but that is like total rape. I mean ninety seven percent is basically everybody.

I'm still reeling from the fact that this apparently is so normal. Is there a website or something with this number on it?

[Slayer of the Rot]

And I don't care how off the number seems. Rape is never a laughing matter.

I'm rolling some dice to see if you get your save check against a rape joke.

Save failed.

Rape is always funny as long as it's a clown or someone's mother.

[Hashi]

Removed.

Obviously no one cares enough to share such a personal story here.

[Bloodrose]

The "20% - 25%" statistic is from 1987. It is also based off of a vague study by University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss.


Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

I direct you here (http://city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html) for some enlightening reading.

One of my favorite points:

"If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic."

[Godhand]

I thought that figure sounded like bullshit. Thanks for clearing it up, Bloodrose.

[Hashi]

Nice to see how much the people of Althanas care.

[Godhand]

Rape is serious business, but please don't fuck around with figures like that.

[Hashi]

... so now rape is serious, huh?

[Godhand]

Are you thinking of Slayer? I never said it wasn't.

[Hashi]

Well you certainly acted like it. Besides, no one here "fucked" around with any numbers. Karuka Tida posted a number that was presented to her as factual and considering the personal experience of many women, is believable.

[Godhand]

Well you certainly acted like it.

Bullshit and fuck you.


Besides, no one here "fucked" around with any numbers. Karuka Tida posted a number that was presented to her as factual and considering the personal experience of many women, is believable.

Well sure. If it happens to you or the people you know it might as well be one hundred percent. But if you're not a damn idiot then you understand that number is impossible.

Italics.

[Bloodrose]

Well that makes it sound like by calling into question the 1-in-4 statistic I'm some sort of rapist sympathizer. I just thought that since long refuted numbers were being tossed around, someone should at least step into the conversation and dispell the air of feminist rape/victim culture that was starting to cloud up the place.

Don't get me wrong, I find rape to be as disgusting and as heinous a crime as imaginable, but I'm not going to resort to sensationalist numbers to try and make people feel the same way.

If 1-in-4 women are victims of rape, shouldn't we also then infer that 1-in-4 men are rapists? Are 25% of the men walking down the streets each day just waiting to get together with their friends and wolfpack the next unlucky lady to wander to close?

EDIT: Mega-ninja'd

The fact that the numbers are presented to anyone as factual isn't surprising. Rape centers across the country still refer to the figure as the de facto measure of how prevalent rape is on college campuses is. Primarily because not many have ventured into the realm of conducting a proper study on the subject.

Allow me to apologize for merely introducing the other side of the picture to the whole.

[Slayer of the Rot]

This conversation went well. (http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w179/kingpoopa84/1176387326941.jpg)

[Hashi]

I am curious as to why an article in "the City Journal" is irrefutable evidence that women don't get raped at college. That entire article is very negatively slanted and filled with obviously biased personal opinion.

"Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants."

This shows how very little this person understands about sexual assault. If you do even the most basic amount of research you would find that 20% of all rapes are committed by a steady partner. And a staggering 98% are done by someone they know.

Seriously. Take two seconds to look it up on Wikipedia. (Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)

So, no. That does not mean that 1 in 4 men are rapists. You are assuming that every rape on a different woman is done by a different man. One man can assault many women. You also failed to notice that the word "Rape" only referred to the specific military college in question. The actual stat is that 1 in 4 women will be "Sexually assaulted" while attending college. This doesn't mean chained in the back of a van and raped repeatedly. Many, many women are sexually assauled and fail to report it because they do not realize that it is a crime.

[Serilliant]

Okay, let's all pause and take a breath.

No one is advocating rape. No one is defending rapists. And no one is claiming that it's not a big deal. I believe that the point that is being asserted is that grossly fraudulent claims like "97% of women in X Group are raped" or simply misinformed ones like "20% of college women are raped" are harmful to the cause. By using incorrect statistics, people become focused on the inaccuracies and mistrust the message as a whole.

Caring about rape and caring about statistical accuracy are not mutually exclusive positions.

[Ashiakin]

I think the problem is that an article that is very polemic (frankly, I found it to be a reactionary sea of misogynist bullshit worthy of Rush Limbaugh) was used. It's one of the problems with internet debates. Any counter statistics I'd provide would likely be from a feminist website and they'd be rejected because of the perspective offered. A lot of times I wish I could link to academic journals on college databases.

[Hashi]

So why has one post by someone different completely invalidated any other point made here?

Edit: To those who forgot, the point I raised was that much as it sucks to hide who you are, lesbians in a military environment are safer anonymous because their lifestyle choices make them targets of those with a predisposition to assault women because they often feel justified because the woman is a lesbian.

[Ashiakin]

Well, it hasn't. I'll start to disbelieve the common statistics when I see a respectable article written by someone who doesn't hate women and understands what rape is. Really, any article that won't give me an aneurysm when I try to read it.

[Rayse Valentino]

So why has one post by someone different completely invalidated any other point made here?

Edit: To those who forgot, the point I raised was that much as it sucks to hide who you are, lesbians in a military environment are safer anonymous because their lifestyle choices make them targets of those with a predisposition to assault women because they often feel justified because the woman is a lesbian.

I agree, lesbians are safer from assault by lesbian-assaulters if they don't declare that they're lesbians.

Also, I'm safer from straight-assaulters if I don't announce that I'm straight.

Furthermore, I'm safe from KKK members as long as I don't tell anyone I'm really black.

edit2: As long as I don't tell the taco-haters that I eat tacos, I should be a-ok.

edit: Your comment is meaningless because it's circulatory. Nobody is refuting your point because there is no point to be made.

[Serilliant]

the point I raised was that much as it sucks to hide who you are, lesbians in a military environment are safer anonymous because their lifestyle choices make them targets of those with a predisposition to assault women because they often feel justified because the woman is a lesbian.

That may be the case, Hashi, but I don't see how this is a justification for Don't Ask, Don't Tell (if you are proposing that it is).

Rather than fight in favor of a piece of legislation that forces gay and lesbian soldiers to hide their identities under the banner of "safety first", why not work to change the environment that necessities sexual anonymity? I assert that the very existence of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is what fuels the danger. A small handful of LGBT-identified soldiers may be endangered by coming out, but certainly if all were allowed to openly serve, the shear volume combined with greater awareness and visibility would help to counteract the danger.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell may be a terrific solution in the short-term (though with that point I would disagree), but such a solution is inherently short-sighted. We must turn to a long-term goal: increased LGBT acceptance in the military. Only then will we have equality and safety, instead of having to settle for only a meager version of the latter.

[Hashi]

@ Rayse Valentino : /sigh Did you even read my original post? These men are not "lesbian assulters" and it is nothing like being attacked because one is black. Men do not put on hoods and drive around neighborhoods attacking random lesbians. In fact, I don't even consider these acts to be hate crimes. It is a unique situation where men with a certain set of mental issues feel compelled to assault a specific woman because of a threat they feel to their masculinity. This is a gut level, almost animal reaction that only certain males have.

@Serilliant : Having to hide who you are sucks. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is part of why I refuse to join the armed forces. I do not want to hide who I am. There does need to be a better solution. I agree. There needs to be a much better, well thought out way to handle sexual orientation in the military. It's idealistic, but I've always advocated education as a countermeasure to this kind of discrimination. There is a staggering amount of ignorance about sex and sexuality in general, and homosexuality even more so. People need to understand that yes, women are gay and no, they aren't doing it to insult men. (Well, some lesbians do but they're just being bitches)

[Rayse Valentino]

edit: man, forget it. i'm outta dis thread B.

[Godhand]

There is no source more reliable than an encyclopedia anyone can edit.

[Hashi]

Godhand, may I quote you and say "a bloo bloo bloo bloo"?

[Arsène]

Well, it hasn't. I'll start to disbelieve the common statistics when I see a respectable article written by someone who doesn't hate women and understands what rape is. Really, any article that won't give me an aneurysm when I try to read it.

Yeah, you're not shitting me. I just need to post to say this article really is a piece of work. I wouldn't call it misogynism, I'd call it an overblown reaction to supposed "misandry" that "pervades" our culture.

I guess misandry is the new liberal.

[Godhand]

Godhand, may I quote you and say "a bloo bloo bloo bloo"?

I'm going to thrust up inside of you.

[Hashi]

...

Godhand. I am going to nicely ask that you delete that comment.

[Godhand]

I am sorry for insulting you Seth Rawl Hashi. Also I am sorry Shyam for posting that conversation without your permission.

[Serilliant]

Okay, we're done. This thread is closed for half an hour to give everyone time to settle down and remember that Althanas is not a chat room.

Edit: Moods settled? Ready to go back to discussing the topic rationally and civilly? Let's try again.