posted
The military should still never ask any military personnel nor should any military personnel have to tell their sexual orientation. The policy of discharging gays should be completely removed but I still do not want the military asking personnel to check a box for sexual preference.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, the policy is identical for both homosexual and heterosexual.
Homosexual soldiers are not kicked out of the army unless they engage in actions that can lead to the discovery that they have had, or prefer to have, sexual relations with members of their own sex.
Heterosexual soldiers are not kicked out of the army unless they engage in actions that can lead to the discovery that they have had, or prefer to have sexual relations with members of their own sex.
Much like Marriage defined as the union of a man and woman is not unfair to homosexuals. Either are free to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex. (age restrictions and mutual agreement aside)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
I'm curious. Do you really think this, or are you making it up? It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks this is true.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Hey, the policy is identical for both homosexual and heterosexual.
Much like Marriage defined as the union of a man and woman is not unfair to homosexuals. Either are free to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex. (age restrictions and mutual agreement aside)
I'm sorry, I'm not canny enough to understand you if you're joking. Equal provision under the law for individuals with different needs is not equality. It's like saying dwarfs and tall people should have the opportunity to use normal sized stairs and doorways, so they shouldn't be provided or allowed different sizes. In fact, building codes in many states reflect exactly that attitude, leading to the ridiculous situation in which families of dwarfs are forced to build stairways in their houses that correspond to a building codes designed for the safety of people of average height. And unlike dwarfism, homosexuality is not even characterized as a disorder or genetic defect. So we should print signs and manuals and do all government business in English only, because speakers of other languages are free to speak English, if they choose. We should have a state religion, because Jews and Muslims and Catholics and Buddists can be protestants, if they choose. But it's no kind of choice.
It's that kind of passive aggressive crap that will get us absolutely nowhere. It's like you don't even pretend to try and understand people unlike yourself.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Darth_Mauve is referencing this argument, used by many anti-gay bigots, but most famously on this site by OSC in one of his columns:
quote:Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone.
In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm curious. Do you really think this, or are you making it up? It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks this is true.
Eh, it's not that hard to imagine. A lot of people fill in the outlines of the truth with what they *want* to be true. Wishful thinking (and alternately, paranoid thinking) is a pretty powerful thing. This kind of idea pops up when poorly informed people are seeking only to confirm some notion they need or desperately want to be true- it's basic to the human experience of bigotry, that when we come to understand the nature of our wrongs intellectually, we construct a wall of reasoning within which we can harbor our same distrust of others, but do so with a clean conscience. You do it all the time, just not about gay issues.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: I'm pretty sure Darth_Mauve is referencing this argument, used by many anti-gay bigots, but most famously on this site by OSC in one of his columns:
I understood the reference, and recall the article. I had believed Dan was far above such idiocy, which is why I still suspected that he was writing tongue in cheek.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The thing is the policy does not ban gays in the military. They are allowed to serve just like anyone else. They are not to disclose their sexual preference however, or engage in homosexual activities which in active service. This is no different than heterosexual servicemen.
I'm curious. Do you really think this, or are you making it up? It's hard to imagine that anyone thinks this is true.
I wasn't making it up, nor was I saying I think this, I am stating it as a matter of fact. I was wrong on one thing however. Gay's CAN disclose their sexual preference without being automatically discharged.
Hell, here is a quote from President Clinton when he announced it.
One, service men and women will be judged based on their conduct, not their sexual orientation. Two, therefore the practice ... of not asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment procedure will continue. Three, an open statement by a service member that he or she is a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service member will be given an opportunity to refute that presumption.... And four, all provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be enforced in an even-handed manner as regards both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And thanks to the policy provisions agreed to by the Joint Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the legitimate privacy and associational rights of all service members.
It has a lot of good information regarding the background and a bill introduced in 2009 that would repeal the policy.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, that is not how it works. People on this site who have been in the service have said that more than once.
Do a google search for the amount of people discharged just in the last 5 years because of their sexual preferences. It isn't hard to discover....
...unless you don;t want to discover it, of course.
Unless they are willing to swear that they will not have sex at all, on or off duty, in or out of their duty station, being caught or admitting their preferences means a discharge.
Even if they do swear that, they are STILL often discharged.
You have got to be the ONLY person I know, in or out of the service, who doesn't KNOW that.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please point out where I said that I believe it worked exactly that way. I simply provided a information and a link regarding what is currently in effect. The current law provides that sexual preference is not grounds to discharge someone.
While in the service you are not to engage in sexual acts whether you are heterosexual or homosexual unless it is with your spouse. Because of this I would say it is more of a gay marriage debate.
Whether it is being enforced properly or not is the issue that needs to be looked at. I don't believe for a minute it is being enforced fairly, and I DO think something needs to be done.
Oh, and good game going off about the amount of people being discharged. The link I put in my previous post actually provides all of those numbers, as well as provides information behind them.
Next time, try this:
1) Actually read the posts I have typed. 2) Look at the information I provided in the post.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assure you that heterosexual servicemen date openly and have sexual relations with people other than spouses.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I wasn't making it up, nor was I saying I think this, I am stating it as a matter of fact. I was wrong on one thing however. Gay's CAN disclose their sexual preference without being automatically discharged.
Hell, here is a quote from President Clinton when he announced it.
Why are you quoting Clinton when you could quote the law itelf? It's in your link, and as it's dated after your quote, it supersedes it.
"(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,"
How can you claim with a straight face that it's safe to openly claim one is gay, when 10 United States Code §654 plainly says you can get kicked out for saying that?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, in the same document there is a list of how many people were discharged for being gay each year.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine: As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
kmboots:
I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
This exchange was excellent.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
In truth, I dated the tuba player for a couple of weeks and we were not really compatible so he introduced me to his roommate a trombine player. I dated him seriously for a couple of years. The joke was the french horns were next and that I would have to date the trumpets two at a time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that because of our society and the persecution gays have faced, gays spend a disproportionate amount of time defending their right to love who they want to, which can come off as defining themselves by orientation.
I actually did not get why it mattered to not talk about your sexuality. One of my friends (who is out) is dating a guy who is not. A million little things you never really think about
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I wasn't making it up, nor was I saying I think this, I am stating it as a matter of fact. I was wrong on one thing however. Gay's CAN disclose their sexual preference without being automatically discharged.
Hell, here is a quote from President Clinton when he announced it.
Why are you quoting Clinton when you could quote the law itelf? It's in your link, and as it's dated after your quote, it supersedes it.
"(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,"
How can you claim with a straight face that it's safe to openly claim one is gay, when 10 United States Code §654 plainly says you can get kicked out for saying that?
I LOVE how you blatently leave out the rest of that part of the code to meet your ends. Here, I'll post the entire thing here. Try to be more honest next time:
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex
I see you try to twist my words like you have in other threads. Can you show me where I said it was safe for them to reveal their sexual orientation? Let me look...Nope don't see it. I stated that according to the law they are able to without being automatically discharged.
Oh, and if you read my earlier posts on the issue, you would know that I think if someone wants to service they should be able to do so no matter what their sexual orientation is.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orin, sorry to leave you hanging, but yes, that was tongue in cheek.
As far as defining yourself by your sexual preference, this is not something most military folks do, of any sexual orientation. However, it is something done to bisexual and homosexual members of the military.
They can define themselves by the service they offer, the sacrifices they give and are willing to give, but when some bit of evidence is discovered the military defines them by their sexual orientation, and removes them.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Can you show me where I said it was safe for them to reveal their sexual orientation? Let me look...Nope don't see it. I stated that according to the law they are able to without being automatically discharged.
I don't see the practical distintion.
There is virtually no practical way for a military person who outs themselves to demonstrate that they have no 'propensity' for sex. Maybe if they had a physical impairment that prevented them, but there can't be a whole lot of personnel in active units that are so severely physically impaired. So those caveats won't ever be met.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miro: It's a safe assumption that there will be difficulties with this decision. I foresee an increase in the already annoyingly high number of sexual harassment/fraternization type powerpoints I have to sit through. The price of doing business.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Geraine: As far as I know when you are on active duty you are not to engage in any sexual activity, and women are often discharged for getting pregnant as well as the man that got her pregnant.
kmboots:
I'm wondering how many regs I helped break when I dated the Navy band.
This exchange was excellent.
This is NOT true. You can have sex, AND have a baby, while on active duty. You have the OPTION, as a women, to separate from service if pregnant, and I know a few women who got pregnant specifically to avoid shipping overseas, and 2 who did it specifically to get an honorable discharge.
In a war zone the rules are different at time, although I was never in one so I am not sure.
G- I read your post, and it was pretty much without substance if you didn't believe it yourself........what WAS the point to that link if it wasn't to back up your claim that they COULD openly be gay without being forced out of the service?
A large number of people, including Arabic translators which we need desperately, have recently been given General Discharges for homosexuality. In the past 3 years.
You know, while we are engaged in hostilities with Arabic speaking countries.
The UCMJ states the complete opposite of what you posted. Basically they have to completely divorce themselves from who they are to serve, far more so than heterosexuals serving do.
After reading your later posts, I see we actually agree on a lot of points. Hell, if anyone remembers the LAST discussion we had on this I was defending the status quo, at least to a point.
But I fail to see the point in that quote if it wasn't suppose to refute the dangers of stating their preferences.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am far more hopeful about this issue than I am about anything else Obama is doing right now. It's a small step for gay rights, IMO, but it's an important one that has been a long time in coming. I would be very disappointed if a democratically controlled congress supported by a president advocating the policy couldn't get "Don't ask, don't tell" repealed.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think it's a pretty big step for gay rights, for a lot of reasons. It's tacit acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by the United States government. Most of us on Hatrack don't have a problem with that, actually, I'd say more of us have a problem with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" than we do with what that entails. But it'd be a major waypoint for the gay rights movement, and would provide major coverage for the acceptance and integration of gays into mainstream American life.
I also think it creates a big stepping stone for a lot of other pushes for increased rights. The service is one of those things that are incredibly difficult to mess with in modern American life. Especially in the public sphere, insulting any aspect of the military is, well maybe not unheard of, but it's a no-no, and people who try it are regularly punished. Having openly gay service men and women will help them get elected to office, and help them argue that they're part of mainstream society regardless of what conservatives might think or want.
It'll still happen gradually, but I think this will increase the momentum.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We talked about this a few months back, and it looks like Obama is moving on this now. He ordered the policy to cease, but there is a hitch...
Turns out the authority to get rid of it lies with Congress.
Wow! I didn't think anything would happen this fast. That's 2 out of 3: the executive branch and the House (assuming that Pelosi's promise/prediction holds any water).
quote:I'd say more of us have a problem with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" than we do with what that entails.
Not true for me. I have no problem at all with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" or gay marriage, but when my gay friends start to talk about the details of what that entails it definitely squicks me out.
I'm sorry if its politically in correct, but any discussion that involves both ones love life and ones hemorrhoid troubles is one I'd rather not be involved in.
And none of that is to say I'm not delight to hear DODT is on its way out the door.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:when my gay friends start to talk about the details of what that entails it definitely squicks me out.
When my straight friends start to talk about the details of what that entails it squicks me out. I'm much more comfortable when the details of someone's personal sex life are kept private. It doesn't bother me nearly as much when people talk about sex generically, but "what I did to my partner last night" is just beyond the pale.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: While in the service you are not to engage in sexual acts whether you are heterosexual or homosexual unless it is with your spouse. Because of this I would say it is more of a gay marriage debate.
This is flatly untrue. It has NEVER been true. If it was then back in WW2 the military would not have supplied so many condom to the troops. Nor would they in WW1 operated whorehouses for the troops. Adultery is against the military code. Sex outside of marriage is not. Infact it's completely legal for servicemen and women to sleep with each other as long as they are not in the same chain of command unless one is an officer and the other enlisted.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
