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.
All I am going to say is. Even if Aeon does not agree non of you have a right to call him a bigot, because I am sure everyone has skeletons in their closet that they don't want anyone to know.
 
EEOC definition/description of sexual harassment. If you seriously believe that a gay man huddling with a straight man in the military automatically falls under this definition, then I respectfully suggest that you need a seminar in sexual harassment. That would be of course unless and until the gay OR the straight man involved engages in any of these behaviors when under the threat of possible death at any moment. Seems extremely unlikely to me.

Or is it merely that you have some notion/belief that gay men and women are sex crazed maniacs who just can't control their sexual desires even under such circumstances? The fact of the matter is that that IS the way you are coming across. And it's not just in this thread, it always comes across that you believe that.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
* The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

It is helpful for the victim to directly inform the harasser that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.

When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.

Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. They should clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They can do so by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains.
 
AEON said:

How is it that forcing a heterosexual male to cuddle and shower with a homosexual male is not considered sexual harassment, when it would be considered sexual harassment if we forced a woman to do these things with a heterosexual man? That is the basis of my female/homosexual male comparison.

We already went through all that in the Tim Hardaway thread. Gender is completely separate and apart from sexual orientation and one has nothing to do with the other. So your comparison is illogical and your analogy is false. Gender issues regarding sexual harassment have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

And one more thing I wanted to say-that "hysterical" woman, the one whose packs you carried or whatever..the very same woman, or one woman, just might save your butt one day if you went to war, or even your life. Funny how life works that way, we carry each other and all that. I guess we all eventually become equal when our lives are at stake. And believe me, any woman has that ability and capacity to save your butt or your life. Don't underestimate us, that'd be your first mistake :)
 
Last edited:
I agree that some of the responses have been needlessly uncivil. However, it also seems like the impasse here might be too big to make it worth many people's time to attempt to persist constructively.

I'm willing to try leaving it open for a little while longer because I can see there are at least a few who really want to make a case, but if it's going to continue to lean towards "That's just the way it is," versus "That's not even worth responding to," I don't see it lasting very long.
 
AEON said:
I find it sad that you must refer to my opinions as insane homophobia simply because I do not feel it is necessary to force heterosexual men to huddle and shower with homosexual males.

1. It's walkin', talkin' and smellin' like a duck, so I called it a duck.

2. Dude, if you're that concerned with how the gay guy huddling and showering with you is looking at you, you may have a deeper issue here.
 
redhotswami said:


You certainly have not!!! :banghead:
I keep asking you OVER and OVER and OVER again this same question. You have not been answering this question.

I have answered it:

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.
 
redhotswami said:


That's not exactly answering. You're saying you acknowledge there are gays currently in the military but that is not answering my question. Please, just answer it.

You may not agree with my answer, but it an answer.
 
how can i not agree with your "answer?" all you said was you acknowledge there are currently gays in the military and you are stating what you think the military should be. how in does that answer my question of

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.

How many times must I post this?

All you've talked about is how you think gays should not be allowed in the military. That is not the topic of this thread. It is about lifting the "don't ask don't tell" policy, hence the subject line. You've neglected that issue entirely and seriously derailed this thread to ruffle feathers. I'm trying to bring this back to the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
Justin24 said:
All I am going to say is. Even if Aeon does not agree non of you have a right to call him a bigot, because I am sure everyone has skeletons in their closet that they don't want anyone to know.

There IS a definition of a bigot. If someone fits into that definition someone should be allowed to state that.

It has nothing to do with skeletons or closets.
 
Bigot like all words are created by man to disagree with some one or label them.
 
You know if I was defending this country I would be happy to have anyone who was willing and able to do the job next to me in the trenches, regardless of color, sex, orientation, religion, etc...

That's life.

The one thing I've noticed in life is that when facing incredibly intense, strenguous, difficult times together these things don't matter. No one has a religion, no one has an orientation, no one is attractive or ugly, they often don't even have a face; they are just my fellow human.

It's too bad that doesn't remain true for everyone, especially those who call themselves compassionate or loving.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
You know if I was defending this country I would be happy to have anyone who was willing and able to do the job next to me in the trenches, regardless of color, sex, orientation, religion, etc...

That's life.

The one thing I've noticed in life is that when facing incredibly intense, strenguous, difficult times together these things don't matter. No one has a religion, no one has an orientation, no one is attractive or ugly, they often don't even have a face; they are just my fellow human.

It's too bad that doesn't remain true for everyone, especially those who call themselves compassionate or loving.
:up:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


What? That doesn't even make sense.

Does it not have a defintion?

Does Bigot have a definition? yes it does.

noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
www.dictionary.com

[French, from Old French.]


Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
 
redhotswami said:


All you've talked about is how you think gays should not be allowed in the military. That is not the topic of this thread. It is about lifting the "don't ask don't tell" policy, hence the subject line. You've neglected that issue entirely and seriously derailed this thread to ruffle feathers. I'm trying to bring this back to the topic at hand.

I was against the "don't ask, don't tell policy" then, and I am still against it. I don't want it "lifted" so that gays can serve openly - I don't want it in place at all because of the points I have already made.
 
Why should we label someone with a word. I mean we are against labeling black people as N____, white people as honkey or white devils, so why use a word to label people, even bigot? Why not just ignore them or forgive them and just continue with your lives?
 
AEON said:


You may not agree with my answer, but it an answer.



than can you answer why it's more important that we remove the possibility of you ever being in a foxhole with a fag than it is to have several dozen highly competent fluent-in-Arabic translators and intelligence analysts?

because that's what's going on here. your inability to get beyond "gay" is costing us valuable intelligence analysts.
 
Aeon. Sorry to say but I wouldn't care if the dude next to me in the foxhole was gay. As long as he convered me while in combat and could translate arabic it's fine by me.
 
Justin24 said:
Why should we label someone with a word. I mean we are against labeling black people as N____, white people as honkey or white devils, so why use a word to label people, even bigot? Why not just ignore them or forgive them and just continue with your lives?

We use labels all the time, conservative, liberal, etc. If someone fits into that definition then why not use that label?

No one fits into the label ******.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


No one fits into the label ******.

Tell that to the KKK.

"He who has not sinned cast the first stone"---- So if your completly innocent of anything cast there words up Aeon if you have done nothing wrong or said anything wrong.
 
Justin24 said:


Tell that to the KKK.

There opinion is not legitimate to me.

Justin24 said:


"He who has not sinned cast the first stone"---- So if your completly innocent of anything cast there words up Aeon if you have done nothing wrong or said anything wrong.

I'm not judging. Just like I wouldn't be judging if I called someone a liberal or conservative.
 
Yes, it's still judging. Why because what I hear people call conservatives are, warmongers, homophobes, anti-choice etc... It's called personal opinion and choice people.

For Liberals I hear: Hippie, pro-choice baby killers, pro-homosexuality, anti-american, pro-communist or socialist.

do you get what I am saying?
 
Do you believe Aeon has every right to his opinion and belief? Do you not like him now because of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom