Originally Posted by Keyori

I don't understand why the "don't flirt with me" argument even applies. I don't want anyone to flirt with me--I'm in a dedicated relationship that I'm happy with. Should no one be in the military with me?

Alternatively, I could just use the same reasoning to suggest that ugly people not be allowed in the military.

lmao so true about hte ugly people thing. Sorry , I don't know if you were being serious about that part but it made me laugh.

But my answer is Yes, why not?

Originally Posted by demoscout

And I think you're, again, taking what I say out of context. Never did I say they shouldn't be allowed or aren't allowed. All I was saying is that, most likely, you won't catch the more flamboyant (by nature) gay man enlisting in the military. They would most likely prefer to be in the fasion business or a more mellower career like an Artist, journalist, etc. I NEVER said that the chance wasn't there that, said, gay man wouldn't enlist....it's just most likely that the less flamboyant ones would join.

I am sure that the straight males who enlist are, essentially, afraid of being with flamboyant gays, but because of this fear of gay men in general (which is instilled in almost every guy), they don't want gays in there, period. I don't need to get into this because we all practically know why most guys (usually christians, but who knows..maybe it's not a religious thing) are uncomfortable around gay men. Now if you're a guy and get offended because you think I sound like I know everything about guys, just zip it because I know I don't.

Gays are just as capable of protecting the mother country as anyone else, but fair or not fair, these rules are set in place for reasons we can all disagree with.

I'm gay, and I agree with you. Being in the army is one way to fight for you country and justb eing a hardworking citizen is another way. I just wouldn't wanna get my hands dirty. But I know of gay men who are more idk... masculine ? The masculine gay men? kindof an oxy-moron but i think you get the point.

Um. How is "masculine gay man" an oxymoron, Silonus? Unless who you have sex with is included in the description of "masculine" in a given culture.

its true. Just felt like aa oxy-moron to me. I am more so feministic.

Originally Posted by demoscout

And I think you're, again, taking what I say out of context. Never did I say they shouldn't be allowed or aren't allowed. All I was saying is that, most likely, you won't catch the more flamboyant (by nature) gay man enlisting in the military. They would most likely prefer to be in the fasion business or a more mellower career like an Artist, journalist, etc. I NEVER said that the chance wasn't there that, said, gay man wouldn't enlist....it's just most likely that the less flamboyant ones would join.

I am sure that the straight males who enlist are, essentially, afraid of being with flamboyant gays, but because of this fear of gay men in general (which is instilled in almost every guy), they don't want gays in there, period. I don't need to get into this because we all practically know why most guys (usually christians, but who knows..maybe it's not a religious thing) are uncomfortable around gay men. Now if you're a guy and get offended because you think I sound like I know everything about guys, just zip it because I know I don't.

Gays are just as capable of protecting the mother country as anyone else, but fair or not fair, these rules are set in place for reasons we can all disagree with.

If you're not against them being in the military, what's the point of bringing them up at all? This isn't a discussion of who wants to go into the military, but who should be allowed to be in the military.

We cannot cater to people who are prejudice; that doesn't work. A man may not be comfortable with being in the army with Jewish men, but that doesn't mean that we make everyone but Christians hide their religion. It is the same with sexuality. I don't care if a few straight men (because I know MANY straight men that don't mind gay men :roll: ) are scared of gay men - that is their problem, and they can get over it.

Originally Posted by Kris

If you're not against them being in the military, what's the point of bringing them up at all? This isn't a discussion of who wants to go into the military, but who should be allowed to be in the military.

We cannot cater to people who are prejudice; that doesn't work. A man may not be comfortable with being in the army with Jewish men, but that doesn't mean that we make everyone but Christians hide their religion. It is the same with sexuality. I don't care if a few straight men (because I know MANY straight men that don't mind gay men :roll: ) are scared of gay men - that is their problem, and they can get over it.

I was merely carrying on a conversation AGES ago, and then backing up why I had stated what I stated. You just insist on constantly arguing with me.

The rules are there. Perhaps things will change in time, but there will always be prejudice in the world. I disagree with many things in the world, but that won't change anything.

Originally Posted by Silonus

its true. Just felt like aa oxy-moron to me. I am more so feministic.

...Then that's not an oxymoron. That's just something that isn't true about you, specifically. You ought to remember that you do not speak for all gay men, just because you happen to be one.

Originally Posted by demoscout

I was merely carrying on a conversation AGES ago, and then backing up why I had stated what I stated. You just insist on constantly arguing with me.

The rules are there. Perhaps things will change in time, but there will always be prejudice in the world. I disagree with many things in the world, but that won't change anything.

Rules can be changed, and those which are discriminatory with no basis NEED to be changed. this is one of those rules. There is no reason to accept something which is harmful and unnecessary just because it is a rule.

Originally Posted by Kris

Rules can be changed, and those which are discriminatory with no basis NEED to be changed. this is one of those rules. There is no reason to accept something which is harmful and unnecessary just because it is a rule.

As true as that may be, going on about it in a menewsha forum won't make it happen. We all acknowledge what you basically said, but the sad truth of the world is that nothing will change unless we, the people, act on it.

Originally Posted by demoscout

As true as that may be, going on about it in a menewsha forum won't make it happen. We all acknowledge what you basically said, but the sad truth of the world is that nothing will change unless we, the people, act on it.

Simply because I am talking about it on a forum online does not mean that I am doing nothing to solve the problem. I feel that you are very subtly running from debate. When I post something in response to you, you will say something along the lines of "Yes, but...", and then I will counter that and the cycle continues.

We are on an online debate forum. We are not talking about our work in activism, but debating ideals and topics. This topic is about who should be allowed to be in the similar while living as their peers do: openly, without fear that they will be hated and hurt by their fellows.

Your criticisms have been largely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Kris

When I post something in response to you, you will say something along the lines of "Yes, but...", and then I will counter that and the cycle continues.
...
openly, without fear that they will be hated and hurt by their fellows.

On the contrary, it's the other way around. Debate is supposed to be about giving opinions and arguing them with others. You, however, continue to take what I say and make statements which make no sense or has nothing to do with whatever it was you quoted from me. You are the one who has been irrelevant, my friend.

You could always Just ignore me and go on with your opinion on the subject matter. Don't get upset that I have, even up to this point, have had something to counter with whenever you choose to quote me. You're right, no one should be afraid to post something, but all I've done is call you out while still arguing points relative to the subject. Just because I call you out, doesn't mean I'm the big bad bully of the thread either, so don't make yourself look like a victim.

This is probably the only post I've made which does not contribute anything to the debate subject which is why it will be my last one in this thread irregardless of what you have to say afterward.

~over and out~

can you NOT join the military if you're gay?! O.O aaawww!!! WHAT A LET-DOWN!
in all technicallity, im only 13, but i think about the future too much. So, naturally, i've been researching the military and what it's like.....Guess i can cross that off the list..... T.T

of course gays should be aloud to join the military! it shouldnt make a difference. just like being a woman shouldnt be a difference. since i would be both of those things, i guess theres not much of a point there.... *disappointment*

i dont give a care if some straights are uncomfortable! thats like not letting jews in just because ONE military dude is racist.

You can join the military if you're gay, you just can't tell anyone, because if a superior officer finds out, you can be dishonorably discharged.

really, why does it matter?! what if you wanted to be open about your sexuality? Too bad, guess you have to be in the closet anyway. messed up.
you shouldn't have to hide it! i dont understand what would make the other people so freakin' uncomfortable anyway. i think homophobia is so conceited! like, seriously?! you really think you're so irrestistable that all the gay dudes are gonna hit on you? because that's what seems to be the general idea of what is going through their heads, unless they have some other reason, but i cant think of any. as a lesbian, i would never hit on a straight person. just....no. it would be totally awkward on both ends of the conversation.

I think that they should be able to join. I mean look at the spartans! their entire army was gay! they believed that it promoted moral.
another thing, I would feel a bit safer in the military if there were some gay guys around, then it wouldn't feel as awkward talking to buff- testosterone filled, males. (knowing that they were more prone to check out the guy standing next to you, then yourself).
and honestly, gay guys, or girls for that matter, don't jump after every guy or girl they see. seriuosly.
I'd say that it's rather frustrating to run into people that think that.

Alright. First off......we're talking about the military, there are different branches with different responsibilities. That being said, I'm going to focus on ground troops, people placed in foreward areas, aka, where they fight. This is not *just* a career. This is for the protection of our country and our right to exist. Granted, not all our military endeavours are undertaken for that particular purpose, but that's another argument in my mind. I want to know that the people on the line are going to fight to protect us at home. The risk of their lives allows me to live my life. My gratitude and prayers go to them.

This being said, everyone has base instincts. Just like how I can be riding in the car with my mom, and she'll smack my chest with her arm when she has to slam on the breaks. It's an automatic response to protect her young. Men have certain base instincts as well. So do women. When two people are in love with each other they do certain things for the other. Being in a combat situation, I have no reason that a couple wouldn't have instinctual responses toward each other. These responses can be subversive to the unit as a whole.

With that in mind, I have no problem with gays being a part of combat, less so than with women, just because the immediate differences are less. However, I am wary of what relationships go on. I think if there is going to be a relationship formed, that the two should have to work in different units, different areas, etc. They should be separated if they are to take place in combat situations. It seems perfectly logical to me. It allows them to participate and removes a large portion of risk.

They shouldn't have to face the boot if they are gay, but if they are having unknown relations with members of their outfit and not report to be reassigned, there should be measures taken. It's like where I work. Family members cannot work directly with or over each other. An office specialist cannot be a family member to a cashier whose till they count, etc. It's to help prevent theft and unfair bias toward particular workers. In the same sence, some separation will help circumvent unforseen actions that could potentially endanger others.

In conclusion: yes they should be allowed, but with some restrictions. The same way a woman should be allowed, but with restrictions as well.

Note: I'm not assuming that it's going to be a giant love mix where a gay individual's going to hit on every man that moves. I'm just assuming that there's potential to form relationships and what impact those relationships have on others.

{Edit} Using ancient cultures really doesn't help the modern-day scenario just because in some it was socially acceptable to have homosexual encounters, however they wouldn't actually attempt to marry those individuals. In many instances it was a bit like "college experimentation," there'd be fooling around, but a wife would be taken and no deal was made. It's our modern society that looks back, sees events, and likes to point fingers. Back then the acts were viewed in a different social norm.

One small victory for gays.

Actually, I was discussing the issue with my boyfriend a bit since he made a small career in the military himself. (If you've read any of my other messages, I tend to bounce ideas off him sometimes because he's a little more articulate than I am. Also, he has a different vantage on situations, so it lets me know if I'm being a bit too ridiculous or not.)

The idea is this, which I haven't seen yet on here. Part of the problem with a gay in the military isn't that he's gay, even in combat. The problem is wether he's flaming or not. It's one thing to be gay and proud of it. It's another thing to be rubbing it in other people's faces - even if it's not open flirtation, but "Look at me, Look at me, I'm gay!" It's another thing still, to be asking for special treatment. Unfortunately it does tend to be a problem with supression, perceived or otherwise. The countermessures taken tend to be a bit more ridiculous than necessary.

The problem is this. If they flame too much, if they get too much special treatment. It creates hostility. So, in a fight, who do you think is going to get shot first? And where do you think it'll come from?

Again. Safety. Part of my hesitation with the subject isn't the fact itself, but what people make of it. To me it's a lot like "Stop leaving the toilet seat up!" Sure, it's silly, but it can fester and next thing you know there's a divorce in the works.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

Actually, I was discussing the issue with my boyfriend a bit since he made a small career in the military himself. (If you've read any of my other messages, I tend to bounce ideas off him sometimes because he's a little more articulate than I am. Also, he has a different vantage on situations, so it lets me know if I'm being a bit too ridiculous or not.)

The idea is this, which I haven't seen yet on here. Part of the problem with a gay in the military isn't that he's gay, even in combat. The problem is wether he's flaming or not. It's one thing to be gay and proud of it. It's another thing to be rubbing it in other people's faces - even if it's not open flirtation, but "Look at me, Look at me, I'm gay!" It's another thing still, to be asking for special treatment. Unfortunately it does tend to be a problem with supression, perceived or otherwise. The countermessures taken tend to be a bit more ridiculous than necessary.

The problem is this. If they flame too much, if they get too much special treatment. It creates hostility. So, in a fight, who do you think is going to get shot first? And where do you think it'll come from?

Again. Safety. Part of my hesitation with the subject isn't the fact itself, but what people make of it. To me it's a lot like "Stop leaving the toilet seat up!" Sure, it's silly, but it can fester and next thing you know there's a divorce in the works.

The homophobia in your posts, even this thread, is crazy.

Not every gay man is a flamer. Not every lesbian is a dyke. This is a ridiculous argument for DADT. What if you have a metrosexual man? Kick him out?

Also, coming out of the closet doesn't change your personality. If you are a flaming gay man before you come out of the closet, you are still going to be feminine and flamboyant. The only thing that changes when a gay person comes out is which details they are willing to share openly, so even if this was a problem, DADT doesn't do anything to solve it.

I'm also confused as to why you're victim-blaming, Sinziana. If the military is recruiting people who are so mentally disturbed that they would murder a fellow soldier because he did something they found annoying, the problem lies with the military's recruiting and screening methods, not the actions of the victim prior to being killed, and there's a very good chance that these people are already a danger, regardless of whether or not they have to tolerate gays. I can think of a lot more annoying things a person could do to me than flirtations or having a big personality, things which are as common to straight people as gays.

I don't mean the last post to single people just because they have an "annoying" personality. I meant to discuss those who seek special treatment from others because of their homosexualism. Special treatment over others isn't supposed to be the goal, and when it's actively sought it can lead to a lot of stewing. And yes, the fact that someone might friendly fire to relieve a problem from their side is a problem outside of one's sexuality, but you can't tell me that a person won't be tempted to correct a personal grievance through violent matters, especially if there's a good chance of coverup in an extreme environment.

Yes, I understand not everyone is going to be like that, but I have no reason to believe that there won't be enough of them who do to make it a harder breech for those who don't. It has every potential to become a media madhouse and I'm honestly not too sure how that will benefit the whole. In a structure like the military I'd rather it work cohesively instead of introducing things that potentially separate and divide. Not that the blame lie solely with the homosexual individuals but the actions and reactions that take place just due to their presence.

I'd also like to reiterate that a homosexual who is comfortable with themselves and respectful of others has less to worry about than one who tries to bulldoze everyone out of their way. And yes, a lot of that's just individual personality. I know quite a few people who are....(can't think of the appropriate word), like that and aren't homosexual. What I worry about is what happens when someone pushes too far and things shift from a personal acceptance level to an ideological battle. When it becomes your side or mine there's a definite division, and both sides tend to get trampled over.

I think in the issue of the front lines it's like playing with matches at a gas station. It's just all around dangerous. I honestly don't think the danger is worth it, personally. My opinion. The only real thing that I think just isn't right is allowing people to serve directly above/ below or in close contact with their relations. And that's an issue between any and all personal relations, parent and child, partners, etc.

Also, as for the Don't Ask Don't Tell rule I am against it. I don't think letting someone know of your orientation is grounds for dismissal. I think if there's unresolved hostility between an individual and their piers that a request should be allowed for transfer, but the hostility doesn't necessarily imply it's only going to be because of sexuality. If a homosexual successfully integrates a unit on merit then all the power to them. If they cannot function in the group they should be moved. If they fail to perform, period, the military should be able to dismiss someone on inability, or any of the other reasons given to a heterosexual.

That would be the ideal. However, I never expect a real world case to follow the ideal. And I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of possibly tying the hands of the people directly involved in our protection. If anything I'm guilty of in this, I think it's fatalism rather than homophobia.

I think gays should be able to join the army.
They're just as capable to fight as any straight person.
I don't get why they are so picky about if they're gay or straight. If they're signing up and willing to fight for their country, they should be able to.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

I don't mean the last post to single people just because they have an "annoying" personality. I meant to discuss those who seek special treatment from others because of their homosexualism. Special treatment over others isn't supposed to be the goal, and when it's actively sought it can lead to a lot of stewing. And yes, the fact that someone might friendly fire to relieve a problem from their side is a problem outside of one's sexuality, but you can't tell me that a person won't be tempted to correct a personal grievance through violent matters, especially if there's a good chance of coverup in an extreme environment.

Yes, I understand not everyone is going to be like that, but I have no reason to believe that there won't be enough of them who do to make it a harder breech for those who don't. It has every potential to become a media madhouse and I'm honestly not too sure how that will benefit the whole. In a structure like the military I'd rather it work cohesively instead of introducing things that potentially separate and divide. Not that the blame lie solely with the homosexual individuals but the actions and reactions that take place just due to their presence.

I'd also like to reiterate that a homosexual who is comfortable with themselves and respectful of others has less to worry about than one who tries to bulldoze everyone out of their way. And yes, a lot of that's just individual personality. I know quite a few people who are....(can't think of the appropriate word), like that and aren't homosexual. What I worry about is what happens when someone pushes too far and things shift from a personal acceptance level to an ideological battle. When it becomes your side or mine there's a definite division, and both sides tend to get trampled over.

I think in the issue of the front lines it's like playing with matches at a gas station. It's just all around dangerous. I honestly don't think the danger is worth it, personally. My opinion. The only real thing that I think just isn't right is allowing people to serve directly above/ below or in close contact with their relations. And that's an issue between any and all personal relations, parent and child, partners, etc.

Also, as for the Don't Ask Don't Tell rule I am against it. I don't think letting someone know of your orientation is grounds for dismissal. I think if there's unresolved hostility between an individual and their piers that a request should be allowed for transfer, but the hostility doesn't necessarily imply it's only going to be because of sexuality. If a homosexual successfully integrates a unit on merit then all the power to them. If they cannot function in the group they should be moved. If they fail to perform, period, the military should be able to dismiss someone on inability, or any of the other reasons given to a heterosexual.

That would be the ideal. However, I never expect a real world case to follow the ideal. And I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of possibly tying the hands of the people directly involved in our protection. If anything I'm guilty of in this, I think it's fatalism rather than homophobia.

No one is asking for anyone to get special treatment. We are asking them to be treated just like everyone else.

Why shouldn't gay's join the army? What would the problem be. They're human beings and they can learn and train the same way any other person can. Male or female. They chose to fight for their countries, what should it matter which gender they prefer. They're not in the army for those reasons.Their personal life is their personal life it's no concern to their occupation ESPECIALLY the army. And if the others are uncomfortable with it SUCK IT UP. Gays aren't there for them and they're not going ' flirt ' or do anything to straight men, they know better. The same goes for lesbians, the army isn't a cesspool or love for them.

If a country was under attack we're going to deny help because somebody's gay? This is one of the most ridiculous debate questions I've heard. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a career. If one wants to train and fight to protect their country and keep others safe what should it matter if they're gay?

@Keyori: Actually, that's not true. You cannot be dishonorably discharged for that. A person engaging in homosexual activity may be discharged as a 'Chapter 15', which is general discharge. I was in the military, and I filed a Chapter 15.

Why shouldn't they? we used to draft everyone indiscriminately. We let blacks and women into the army, what's thedifference with gays?