Don't Ask Don't Tell

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
AEON said:

I wonder - are people here really concerned about what is best for the Army regarding this issue, or are they more concerned with their own sense of political correctness?

Wouldn't you say that what's best for the Army is those willing to serve and defend the lives of those fighting next to them, period?

I have a hard time believing soldiers in combat really suffer with this 'dilemma'.
 
No wonder gay men in professional sports are still not coming out. It would probably be the end of their career with the ridiculous homophobia in society.
 
I've never seen someone dig themselves into a hole so quickly, Aeon.

Comparing gays and women in the military to toddlers in tackle football? Do you actually expect anyone to take that seriously?

Every argument you've put forth in this thread, no matter the rationalization, has been either homophobic or sexist, or both. Notice how no one has come to your defense on this?
 
AEON, I think you should ask for a refund on your "Jump to Conclusions Mat." It seems to be broken.

It sounds to me like you are taking the stance that gays should not be allowed in the military at all. I feel like you haven't responded to all the posts, including mine, that point out that gays already serve in the military. There is a posibility that there may even be a homosexual soldier in your unit right now.

Again, I stress, the issue here is NOT whether gays should be allowed in the military. It is whether they should be allowed to be vocal about their culture. You haven't responded to any of the posts which said this. You just go on and on and on about how gays should not be in the military, but THEY ARE!

Again, I ask you. Since they are already in the military, what is so wrong about letting them say that they are gay? They are already there serving, just as anybody else. Even though I don't agree with you saying there will be sexual tension, what I'm pointing out is that the potential "sexual tension" which you think will be added is already there because THERE ARE CURRENTLY GAYS IN THE MILITARY.

Now, that being said, that certainly makes your "added sexual tension" claim to be false, since THEY ARE ALREADY THERE.

ALL this issue is about is whether or not they can be vocal. I'm being redundant, but you haven't responded to those posts. Again, I see you taking the stance that gays should not be in the military at all, which is more of your opinion than it is of the military itself, since they ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE MILITARY.

:sigh:
 
Diemen said:
I've never seen someone dig themselves into a hole so quickly, Aeon.

Comparing gays and women in the military to toddlers in tackle football? Do you actually expect anyone to take that seriously?

Every argument you've put forth in this thread, no matter the rationalization, has been either homophobic or sexist, or both. Notice how no one has come to your defense on this?
The gays may be irrelevent but having women in frontline combat positions does seem more problematic. In general women are physically weaker than men and may present problems.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The gays may be irrelevent but having women in frontline combat positions does seem more problematic. In general women are physically weaker than men and may present problems.

I do know some women who are stronger and more physically able then some men I know. I say, regardless of one's sex, as long as they can meet certain standards (having a penis is not included among them) and pass the PT test, then why not?
 
Diemen said:
I've never seen someone dig themselves into a hole so quickly, Aeon.

Comparing gays and women in the military to toddlers in tackle football? Do you actually expect anyone to take that seriously?

Every argument you've put forth in this thread, no matter the rationalization, has been either homophobic or sexist, or both. Notice how no one has come to your defense on this?

Here's a new post of the thread, bvs :wink:

Methinks AEON is either an idiot or out for a shitstir. I really can't pick which it is, though.
 
redhotswami said:


I do know some women who are stronger and more physically able then some men I know. I say, regardless of one's sex, as long as they can meet certain standards (having a penis is not included among them) and pass the PT test, then why not?

Bit off topic but just a wonder, are there any physical activities, sports or otherwise where women record better times, endurance levels, skill, strength etc than men?

I know for instance women are meant to be able to withstand sudden changes in temperature better, also that they would possibly make better aircraft pilots?
 
AEON said:
I wonder - are people here really concerned about what is best for the Army regarding this issue, or are they more concerned with their own sense of political correctness?

Well, this is the same military responsible for Abu Ghraib, the Tailhook scandal, and problems with religious tolerance in the military academies, amongst other periodic abuses. Is prisoner abuse, sexual harrassment, and intolerance "team bonding" exercises?

Otherwise, I'd say that the military has a huge, unaddressed discipline problem; and it's no wonder that the popular belief is that the military is full of uneducated hicks, because the military appears to do very little to make anyone else feel welcome.

(Now, obviously, we've had some past discussions here regarding whether that "popular belief" is true, and just from Interference, I've encountered some quite bright (ex-)military members. So, before we go on a flame war saying that I think that everyone in the military is dumb, I'm just pointing out the popular stereotype [and your disparaging comments about women and gays in the military certainly help further the stereotype in the minds of some]. However, I still question whether there's a real discipline problem in the military.)
 
Last edited:
can someone please tell me why it's more important to protect AEON from showering with a homo than it is to have linguists fluent in Arabic? because that is the situation.

for someone who sees the GWOT as a prelude to WW3, you don't seem to want to go out onto the field with your A-team, do you?
 
also, i'm going to a birthday party at a country/western gay bar on saturday.

i can't wait to tell all the closeted military guys there about this thread!
 
Irvine511 said:
can someone please tell me why it's more important to protect AEON from showering with a homo than it is to have linguists fluent in Arabic?

Because it's a regular societal pattern. If straight white Christian males are inconvenienced in any way, no matter how real or imagined it is, we have to move heaven and earth to accommodate them.

Anyone else?

"Deal with it."
"Move to another country if you don't like it here."
 
AEON said:

I wonder - are people here really concerned about what is best for the Army regarding this issue, or are they more concerned with their own sense of political correctness?

People here are concerned with what's best for our nation, not concerned with their own sense of what is comfortable and what is "icky".

Segregation or discrimination of this kind is basically unconstitutional. So fuck what the army thinks. When have we got things right because of what the majority thought? Certainly not black civil rights, women's rights, Japanese internment camps....
 
Yeah all those wonderful female soldiers who have died in Iraq had no business being there, and they were nothing but T and A to their fellow male soldiers. They should have just stayed home and baked cookies.

It has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about equality and human rights. What's best for the Army and all branches is to get with the times and stop living in the dark ages.
 
AEON said:


I wouldn't allow my toddler son to play tackle football with my brother's football team- it doesn't mean I hate him or that I am a toddler-phobe. It simply means it isn't the best situation for either my son or my brother's football team.

I wonder - are people here really concerned about what is best for the Army regarding this issue, or are they more concerned with their own sense of political correctness?

Bad analogy. Your todler isn't of consenting age or even close to their age.

Try again, and quit hiding behind the old PC card. Try and argue the issue on your own mertit. Quit flip-flopping about what really is the issue.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The gays may be irrelevent but having women in frontline combat positions does seem more problematic. In general women are physically weaker than men and may present problems.

So because some women are not as strong all women are problematic? I know some women who could kick your ass from here to Austrailia and back. I know some women who could outshoot, out maneuver, and definately outthink AEON with their arms tied behind their back any day of the week.

Just another small view post.:|
 
You all make valid points, but the truth of the matter is that we're talking about the US military here! In a perfect world, all of your suggestions would have weight, but this ain't a perfect would. The military is not going to change their stance about "don't ask, don't tell", and that's fine with them. (Remember, they haven't a had good war victory since WW2. I don't really count the first Gulf War, because we should've taken out Saddam back then, but didn't.)
Anyway, the big question is: Why would gay people want to join the military when clearly they're not wanted there?
Another thing to remember is that these soldiers are all trained to be mindless killers and to only listen to their superiors. Well, their superiors are pretty much saying "stay in the closet or get the fuck out of here!". Who, in their right mind would want to be a part of this?
 
I'm just completely bemused by this thread. Are you telling me that gays aren't allowed to continue serving in the US army if they are open about their sexuality? As far as I know most European countries including the UK don't discriminate against gays openly serving in the forces (it's illegal to do so) and that's been the position for some years.
I'm sure there's still cases of homophobia in European forces but I'm not aware of any instances at all where it's compromised any military operations. If it's not a problem elsewhere why should it be a problem for heterosexual males in the US forces or is their make up different??
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


So because some women are not as strong all women are problematic? I know some women who could kick your ass from here to Austrailia and back. I know some women who could outshoot, out maneuver, and definately outthink AEON with their arms tied behind their back any day of the week.

Just another small view post.:|
You just flipped it; it isn't some women who are physically weaker than men it is most women, a point that I made in the post (I did not state that all women are weaker than men, I am talking relatively and one would think that this sexual dimorphism can get raised without being labelled small minded). Now if they can acheive the same standards and function equally well then it isn't as much as an issue, but it is downright stupid to compare the resistance to have women put in those combat roles to the opposition to gays (straight or gay a man is a man).
 
Greenlight said:
If it's not a problem elsewhere why should it be a problem for heterosexual males in the US forces or is their make up different??



becuase there's a big, loud group of people in America, and they're called evangelical* Christians.






* - yes, there are liberal evagelicals, i know, but when we speak of "evangelical Christians" in the political sense, we mean those who's social platform is based around abortion and homosexuality
 
MrPryck2U said:
You all make valid points, but the truth of the matter is that we're talking about the US military here! In a perfect world, all of your suggestions would have weight, but this ain't a perfect would. The military is not going to change their stance about "don't ask, don't tell", and that's fine with them. (Remember, they haven't a had good war victory since WW2. I don't really count the first Gulf War, because we should've taken out Saddam back then, but didn't.)


the same argument was presented before the army was racially desegregated.


[q]Anyway, the big question is: Why would gay people want to join the military when clearly they're not wanted there?[/q]

well, some gay people are as intensely patriotic as some straight people and feel as if serving in the military is a great way to honor one's country, and there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of military jobs that aren't in the infantry. i keep bringing up intelligence work because that's probably more important to success in the GWOT than the infantry.
 
A_Wanderer said:
You just flipped it; it isn't some women who are physically weaker than men it is most women, a point that I made in the post (I did not state that all women are weaker than men, I am talking relatively and one would think that this sexual dimorphism can get raised without being labelled small minded). Now if they can acheive the same standards and function equally well then it isn't as much as an issue, but it is downright stupid to compare the resistance to have women put in those combat roles to the opposition to gays (straight or gay a man is a man).

But if there are women capable of the front line why hold them back because you say most women are weaker.

Sorry but that's small minded.

And yes it is downright stupid to compare the 2, AEON is responsible for that.
 
MrPryck2U said:

Anyway, the big question is: Why would gay people want to join the military when clearly they're not wanted there?
Another thing to remember is that these soldiers are all trained to be mindless killers and to only listen to their superiors. Well, their superiors are pretty much saying "stay in the closet or get the fuck out of here!". Who, in their right mind would want to be a part of this?

What the fuck?!?!?

When I wanted to enlist, it had nothing to do with wanting to be a mindless killer. I wanted to study meteorology and work for the airforce. If you work for them, you can do the SAME jobs as meteorologist working for NASA, NWS, or any local news station but they help pay for college (or all of it).

"The Military" is not synonymous with the relatively small numbers of marines stationed along front lines during war time. You can be a nurse, an engineer, a mechanic, a meteorologist, a pilot, etc, etc - all pretty normal jobs that don't have to involve combat.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


But if there are women capable of the front line why hold them back because you say most women are weaker.

Sorry but that's small minded.

And yes it is downright stupid to compare the 2, AEON is responsible for that.
By Me

The gays may be irrelevent but having women in frontline combat positions does seem more problematic. In general women are physically weaker than men and may present problems.
The gay thing is a non-issue; but having women in those front-line combat roles does actually raise some points worth consideration (hence more problematic than a non-problem) - I think that if they meet the standards then it is alright but thats not to say that there aren't legitimate arguments against putting women in those combat roles.
 
redhotswami said:


I do know some women who are stronger and more physically able then some men I know. I say, regardless of one's sex, as long as they can meet certain standards (having a penis is not included among them) and pass the PT test, then why not?
The PT test in the Army is different for men and women. I say, give everyone the exact same PT test and set the same standard - regardless of gender or age.

In the Infantry, at times we are required to carry over 100 lbs on our back for up to 20 to 25 miles. We are asked to lift buddies up cliffs or drag a 200 lbs wounded soldier to safety. How many women do you know who could seriously do this? Seriously? Moreover, the Infantry isn't a game - if someone fails to perform physically, people die.

Honestly, only a very small percentage of men can physical handle the Infantry. That's just a mathematical fact. I imagine that somewhere out there, you can find that one isolated GI Jane story, but that is exceptionally rare. The Army is too big and fast to accommodate such isolated cases.

I went through OCS with several women. The truth is, the Army treats them differently and they were literally carried (often by me) through the more difficult parts of the course. While I don't mind the occasional "help out your buddy" - it certainly wears on you a bit when you see a woman graduate with "special honors" after you carried her crap for 10 miles (on top of your own crap) because she was literally weeping hysterically that she couldn’t continue. My action at this time kept her from being kicked out of the course. And other soldiers carried her load at other points in the course. Yet, despite all of this, she was one of two honor graduates.

Also, I wanted to acknowledge that I do understand that there already gays serving in the military. My posts are more about the issue of what the standard should be and what is optimal.

There are times "in the field" where it is so cold that you have to huddle with your battle buddy in order to stay warm. Forcing a heterosexual to huddle closely to a homosexual is a form of sexual harassment.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
The gay thing is a non-issue; but having women in those front-line combat roles does actually raise some points worth consideration (hence more problematic than a non-problem) - I think that if they meet the standards then it is alright but thats not to say that there aren't legitimate arguments against putting women in those combat roles.

Well maybe you should just have stopped at saying putting weaker people in the front line is problematic.

You keep saying "having women in those front-line combat roles...", but then later on say "if they meet the standards..."

Well which one is it?

Are women the problem or just weaker individuals?:huh:
 
AEON said:


Honestly, only a very small percentage of men can physical handle the Infantry. That's just a mathematical fact. I imagine that somewhere out there, you can find that one isolated GI Jane story, but that is exceptionally rare. The Army is too big and fast to accommodate such isolated cases.

So only a small % of men can do it, and the Army is TOO BIG and fast to add another to that small %, because she may have breasts? This makes about 0 sense.


AEON said:

There are times "in the field" where it is so cold that you have to huddle with your battle buddy in order to stay warm. Forcing a heterosexual to huddle closely to a homosexual is a form of sexual harassment.

Because you may accidently touch his penis? But if you accidently touch a straight man's penis you're still straight, right?

Give me a fucking break!!!

Do you use this logic in real life or in the ministry? How do people take you seriously?
 
Last edited:
The question is not if women should be allowed to serve in the military, I don't think anybody is arguing against that. It is a question of what roles they should be integrated into and most militaries do not have fully integrated forces with women being allowed to serve in any position.

The positions that they aren't allowed to serve in I generalised as front-line combat roles; I personally think that equally applied standards are reasonable but that doesn't stop there being potential problems, ones that are much more important than what difference where a guy wants to stick his dick makes.
 
Last edited:
No one is arguing if women should be allowed in the military. You said something specific, I responded and asked you a question, because frankly you contradicted yourself. Now you are saying that even if there are equal standards there are still potential problems. Yet you don't state what they are, sounds like you're backtracking.
 
AEON said:

Forcing a heterosexual to huddle closely to a homosexual is a form of sexual harassment.

You've got to be kidding. If you want to know what REAL sexual harassment is in the military, ask a woman who serves in it. Do you know what real sexual harassment is?

And poor you who had to help those hysterical crying women, and I guess it's just a blow to your male ego that they still graduated with honors. You clearly are still seeming to harbor resentment about it. You know what, that's the way life goes sometimes. Women deserve the opportunity and if the military won't cooperate sometimes they have to be forced. Same thing with rights for racial minorities, or maybe we should just go back to whites only drinking fountains and all that. That's the way the world works sometimes. I bet for every "hysterical" woman you helped there was at least one other (I bet several) who refused to let anyone see she was feeling anything. That's called mental toughness, and so many women have it in spades. And so many men in your wonderful Army have had the emotions mentally beaten out of them, if not physically. Just because they're not "hysterical" doesn't mean they're not crying and dying inside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom