|
Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top. |
United States41471 Posts
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote:
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules.
|
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote:
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic.
|
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote:
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Then kick the 5% out of the military that have serious issues. I'd bet money there's still some soldiers that would feel uncomfortable serving alongside black soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should discriminate against blacks, should we?
|
On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote:
So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic.
To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations.
|
|
|
United States41471 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:11 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote:
So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic. To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations.
First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you.
Secondly, if they aren't professional enough to overcome sexual tension they're gonna have serious problems once bullets start flying.
Thirdly, they were already gay. It's just now they don't live under constant threat of being discovered and dismissed as unworthy of serving the country they signed up to die for.
|
Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
|
On September 22 2011 04:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote:
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough. Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules.
I think that's his point. What ARE the exact policy changes for these situations? - nobody knows, they only knew that this had to be done and did it.
|
On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:11 Gamegene wrote:On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote:
So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic. To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations. First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you. Secondly, if they aren't professional enough to overcome sexual tension they're gonna have serious problems once bullets start flying. Thirdly, they were already gay. It's just now they don't live under constant threat of being discovered and dismissed as unworthy of serving the country they signed up to die for.
I agree.
I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't suck it up or that gay servicemen are going to be a pandemic in the military, but you have to admit that there are plenty who will still feel a little uncomfortable, despite whatever rationale they might repeat to themselves.
It's not a bad thing or a good thing, it's just how it is.
|
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder wrote:
Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
the british army doesnt have dadt and we still seem to be able to invade small poor oil countries as well as you, just sayin
|
On September 22 2011 04:18 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder wrote:
Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy. the british army doesnt have dadt and we still seem to be able to invade small poor oil countries as well as you, just sayin
Oh god that's brilliant. Well played, sir.
|
On September 21 2011 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 21:22 Xedat wrote:
Not evry shower also contains urinals, and this is not the point. It would be far more efficient to have one big bathrooms with normal toilets than two bathrooms, the genders are separated because it is required by law and because it would make a lot of people uneasy. Yes, and since showers and locker rooms are generally located in bathroom areas, I don't see the need for the military to go out of their way to create unisex showers outside of bathroom areas o.O Do you wish to knock down all the already-existing gender-split bathrooms just to create unisex bathrooms? I doubt it will ever happen just because we already have working bathrooms. It just seems... unnecessary. My line regarding women taking forever in the bathroom was admittedly a bit tongue-in-cheek, but my first point was that it would be inefficient to have showers in a different location than bathroom areas, because old (and possibly outdated) laws have already allowed the creation of useful facilities. This is an important difference between why it's unnecessary to worry about re-creating unisex bathrooms (if working bathrooms already exist), but it's fine to allow all men (regardless of sexual orientation) to share a bathroom. No one sane is going to argue that gay men are busy checking out other guys instead of washing or going to the bathroom... and that straight men should have that same "right" with women.
You might have misunderstood me there, I am not saying that men and women should share baathrooms, my general statement is that gay men should be allowed to say that they are gay, but Ialso udnerstand that some men might feel a bit uneasy if they shower with a guy who they know is gay, much like a women showering with a man, and that I understand the feeling of those men too.
|
On September 22 2011 04:18 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2011 04:11 Gamegene wrote:On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote:
So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic. To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations. First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you. Secondly, if they aren't professional enough to overcome sexual tension they're gonna have serious problems once bullets start flying. Thirdly, they were already gay. It's just now they don't live under constant threat of being discovered and dismissed as unworthy of serving the country they signed up to die for. I agree. I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't suck it up or that gay servicemen are going to be a pandemic in the military, but you have to admit that there are plenty who will still feel a little uncomfortable, despite whatever rationale they might repeat to themselves. It's not a bad thing or a good thing, it's just how it is.
Ok, those people who feel uncomfortable need to get over it. That's all there is to it. Just, as I've said before, most people have gotten over the uncomfortable feelings of racial integration. You think the lots of whites in the military were super excited to be bunking with blacks? I doubt it. Being "uncomfortable" is a terrible excuse. If they're that uncomfortable, then I'd rather htem not join the military.
|
United States41471 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:17 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:03 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote:
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough. Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules. I think that's his point. What ARE the exact policy changes for these situations? - nobody knows, they only knew that this had to be done and did it.
I think it's pretty simple. I'll illustrate in a series of before and after sketches.
Before:
*in combat*
Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life.
After:
*in combat*
Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life.
Before:
*in shower*
Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties.
After:
*in shower*
Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties.
Before:
*in barracks in free time*
Gay soldier struggles to participate in sexual banter and feels different, pressured to fit in and under constant scrutiny. Is afraid for his job security, his career, his pension, his friends, can lose everything he holds dear at a moments notice.
After:
*in barracks in free time*
Gay soldier can participate in discussions of personal business without having to live a lie.
|
Reminds me of
![[image loading]](http://digmybones.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gay-marriage-pie-chart-jpg.jpg)
Calm down everypony. This isn't the end of the world
|
On September 22 2011 04:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:17 0neder wrote:On September 22 2011 04:03 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote:
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough. Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules. I think that's his point. What ARE the exact policy changes for these situations? - nobody knows, they only knew that this had to be done and did it. I think it's pretty simple. I'll illustrate in a series of before and after sketches. Before: *in combat* Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life. After: *in combat* Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life. Before: *in shower* Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties. After: *in shower* Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties. Before: *in barracks in free time* Gay soldier struggles to participate in sexual banter and feels different, pressured to fit in and under constant scrutiny. Is afraid for his job security, his career, his pension, his friends, can lose everything he holds dear at a moments notice. After: *in barracks in free time* Gay soldier can participate in discussions of personal business without having to live a lie.
Not just that. Most likely even your third scenario won't exist, as most won't come out anyways. A huge thing is something like writing a letter to home to a significant other, and someone glancing over your shoulder, and seeing
"Hey Tom, Currently stationed out here in .............
....
....
....
Miss you a lot, can't wait until I can see you again and be in your arms.
Love,
Joe"
If it had said Sarah instead, no biggie.
On September 22 2011 04:29 Paperplane wrote:Reminds me of Calm down everypony. This isn't the end of the world
LOL
|
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote:
I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
when your military is 10x stronger than every other military force _combined_ it really doesn't matter if they're intimidated or not. your logic makes me fucking head hurt.
this is a very positive thing in the long run.
|
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote:
Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
Have you ever used a change room in a gym? Do you carry the fear that someone will look at your junk in a change room in a gym?
|
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder wrote:
Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder's 1950 equivalent wrote:
Just because people want equal rights for blacks does not mean racial integration is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the black lobby really cares about good military policy.
|
Gays defending my life? I don't think so!
j/k, can't believe it took this long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
