Yahoo.com : Mullen wishes Congress had waited on gay ban vote

[ZoEd]

I have a question... did you choose to be an intolerant, blithering idiot or were you just born that way?

Wow, nice. Embrace homosexuality or be an intolerant, blithering idiot. Thank you God for your enlightening words!

[Larry]

deleted post

[Enter Apotheosis]

Wow, nice. Embrace homosexuality or be an intolerant, blithering idiot. Thank you God for your enlightening words!

Actually, you're right... I went way overboard with that comment. Give me a second to go back and try to pick up the pieces here. :doh:

[Enter Apotheosis]

Wow, nice. Embrace homosexuality or be an intolerant, blithering idiot. Thank you God for your enlightening words!

I don't ask anyone to embrace individuals or groups they are fundamentally opposed to. However, from what I've seen from a handful of posters in this thread there's not even an ounce of real tolerance.

I suppose the frustrating part of this issue is that people seem to disagree on even the most basic elements of the discussion such as what "tolerance" actually entails or what the meaning of "openly gay" is. Reading the comments of some of those opposed outright to the appeal it's very unclear what they expect to happen. To give some examples...

I am also a Staff Sergeant in the US Army, and I can tell you this, many soldiers might know some gay soldiers but they mostly tolerate them bcos they keep their sexual orientation to themelves, I tolerate it toO just because some of these soldiers are good soldiers. But I tell you this, if they start allowing gays to serve openely, I will quickly serve my time and get out.

What do you think is the difference between serving and serving openly? You seem to offer up something in the way of a clue here...

That's the way I deal with it too, I don't really know any gay soldiers personally but as long as they keep to themselves, I am ok with them. But you know how the military is when people BS about how they met this or that chick, can't imagine a gay guy boasting to his fellow soldiers how he tagged some dude in the club. Disgusting

... yet all that does is touch upon a different issue entirely. Should anyone in a professional environment be offering up intimate details of their private life to their coworkers? The answer is a pretty obvious 'no', IMO. That said, I'll be the first to say that it still happens regularly and virtually all of us have experienced it at one point or another. Hell, there's an abundance of people out there (both gay and straight) whose personal lives I desperately wish I knew much less about and whose habits I consider plenty disgusting on their own merits. Those people simply need to learn to shut up or, at the very least, learn to gauge their audience better.

Really, all serving openly should entail is the right to admit a simple preference for the same sex or the existence of a significant other of the same sex in casual conversation. It's not a license to go into explicit detail about subjects of an inappropriate sexual nature.

I will support the rights of homosexuals to indulge themselves, just will not have them push for a man and a man to be called "marriage", and serve openly with fanfare in the Army, Marines or any branch of the Armed Forces.

With fanfare? Who said anything about fanfare? To quote myself from earlier in this thread...

You make it sound like you expect the gay members of the military to suddenly lose all inhibitions, break out in an impromptu San Francisco-style pride parade, and molest sleeping comrades in APCs.

I'm sure there will be some individuals who go overboard initially (and most will probably be civilians)... but half the purpose of repealing this policy is to make homosexuality less of a big deal in the long run and remove a gigantic lightning rod that draws unnecessary and unwanted attention to an issue that should be utterly irrelevant.

Often in the military, you shower together, **** together, sleep together, etc, etc, etc. There is precious little privacy most of the time, and in basic training, or combat environments, there is often NONE.

You don't see a problem with openly gay men and women showering and sleeping with members of the same sex? You don't think they would strike up relationships (replete with jealousy, love triangles and drama like anyone else?) You don't think this has any potential to interfere with morale?

There's no problem if people exercise the level of self-discipline mandated by the job they're getting paid for.

3) How gay is too gay? Seriously, will the flamboyant over the top be discriminated against? Whoa is me, here we go discriminating again. I've seen it already with race. An NCO tells a young black man to stop grabbing his crotch and being overly loud because it's unprofessional and he's accussed of being a racist. So how do you determine what is "too gay" or unprofessional? Who is going to write the guidelines on that and how will they be enforced?

You clearly didn't think this question through.

It's not discrimination if it is reasonably objective and applies to everyone equally. Banning "flamboyancy" or "elements of hip-hop culture" isn't going to fly... but enforcing a dress code and placing limits on certain behaviors (lewd gestures, loudness, etc.) kills multiple birds with one stone.

[Redskins Diehard]

I know that, and that is why I am really torn on this issue....to answer the other guys question yes almost all branches have restriction on who canenlist. The funny thing is even if we suspect or know a guy is gay, as long as we dont ask him and we dont tell we can put him in the Army, even though we all know we are not allowed to put any one with homosexual conduct in the Army. Go figure, ah life as a recruiter...bliss!!!!

Way off topic here. The other poster made a comment that people with a GED or a misdemeanor conviction can't enlist. That is completely untrue. Some of my best Soldiers had one of those "strikes" against them. In fact, the best Soldier I ever served with is now a SSG and holds a GED. The second best had an encounter with the law...or 2...in his younger days.

[Redskins Diehard]

What do you think is the difference between serving and serving openly? You seem to offer up something in the way of a clue here...

... yet all that does is touch upon a different issue entirely. Should anyone in a professional environment be offering up intimate details of their private life to their coworkers? The answer is a pretty obvious 'no', IMO. That said, I'll be the first to say that it still happens regularly and virtually all of us have experienced it at one point or another. Hell, there's an abundance of people out there (both gay and straight) whose personal lives I desperately wish I knew much less about and whose habits I consider plenty disgusting on their own merits. Those people simply need to learn to shut up or, at the very least, learn to gauge their audience better.

Really, all serving openly should entail is the right to admit a simple preference for the same sex or the existence of a significant other of the same sex in casual conversation. It's not a license to go into explicit detail about subjects of an inappropriate sexual nature.

Sorry but this is where you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture of the military. It isn't like your normal 9-5 job. You do live together, work together, and hang out together. Very few people socialize with others outside the military. Why? Because you very likely are living in a strange town. You are taught the "buddy system" from day 1. I lived in the same hotel room sized room with 6 other guys for 9 months in Iraq. There was a row of duffle bags between my cot and the cot next to me. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week I was around those people. Kind of hard to keep personal stuff personal. No matter how "professional" you think you are

[Teller]

You know, I've been thinking about this a little more. And it comes to mind that my hearing and vision had to meet a certain standard to enlist. If they didn't, I wouldn't have been allowed to sign-up.

In the civilian world, hearing and vision problems are considered disabilities, and are legally protected from employment discrimination. (As is sexual orientation, I fully grant.)

Should we allow deaf and blind soldiers to enlist? Or are those that support passage of this legislation going to pick and choose against whom we discriminate? As far as I know, federal law makes no distinction between discrimination on grounds of disablility, race, or sexual orientation. :evilg:

[Redskins Diehard]

You know, I've been thinking about this a little more. And it comes to mind that my hearing and vision had to meet a certain standard to enlist. If they didn't, I wouldn't have been allowed to sign-up.

In the civilian world, hearing and vision problems are considered disabilities, and are legally protected from employment discrimination. (As is sexual orientation, I fully grant.)

Should we allow deaf and blind soldiers to enlist? Or are those that support passage of this legislation going to pick and choose against whom we discriminate? As far as I know, federal law makes no distinction between discrimination on grounds of disablility, race, or sexual orientation. :evilg:

Yes, I am going to allow the picking and choosing. Hearing and vision are requirements to perform the job....having a preference for ***** instead of **** is not. I fully support discrimination against fattys, and slow pokes, and weaklings also.

[Teller]

Yes, I am going to allow the picking and choosing. Hearing and vision are requirements to perform the job....having a preference for ***** instead of **** is not. I fully support discrimination against fattys, and slow pokes, and weaklings also.

There are no jobs in the Army that a hard-of-hearing person could perform with reasonable accommodations, as the law requires? Interesting.

At least you're honest.

[Redskins Diehard]

There are no jobs in the Army that a hard-of-hearing person could perform with reasonable accommodations, as the law requires? Interesting.

At least you're honest.

Looks like we have transitioned to "make stuff up that nobody actually said". Interesting indeed.

So to clarify since you spoke in only vague generalities...exactly how hearing impaired are we talking about? Or are you saying that if we allow homosexuals then we should throw out medical screening...and age discrimination...and any other "illegal" discriminatory practices that the military engages in?

[Teller]

Looks like we have transitioned to "make stuff up that nobody actually said". Interesting indeed.

Nope. Not making up a thing. Simply pointing out other groups of people who are legally protected from discrimination by federal law. And making the point that the "more tolerant" among us find it perfectly fine to discriminate against them.

I'm just sick of the position that if I don't embrace the popular "cause" that I'm the one discriminating. Meanwhile, they're picking and choosing (read: discriminating) themselves, but get a free pass because of their 'tolerance.'

So to clarify since you spoke in only vague generalities...exactly how hearing impaired are we talking about? Or are you saying that if we allow homosexuals then we should throw out medical screening...and age discrimination...and any other "illegal" discriminatory practices that the military engages in?

Someone who has a significant hearing loss can work in HQ, or as a quartermaster for example. Someone with a significant loss of sight can work as a morse interceptor. We can make reasonable accommodations if we really try. If we make them for one group, but not another, what are we -- by definition -- doing?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Sorry but this is where you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture of the military. It isn't like your normal 9-5 job. You do live together, work together, and hang out together. Very few people socialize with others outside the military. Why? Because you very likely are living in a strange town. You are taught the "buddy system" from day 1. I lived in the same hotel room sized room with 6 other guys for 9 months in Iraq. There was a row of duffle bags between my cot and the cot next to me. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week I was around those people. Kind of hard to keep personal stuff personal. No matter how "professional" you think you are

So then... it's pretty much a moot point isn't it?

[Kilmer17]

As someone who has previously opposed soldiers openly serving, let me say that this is a good thing.

Other nations have openly gay soldiers without incident.

I see no reason why Americans cant be the same if not better.

[Larry]

Sorry but this is where you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture of the military. It isn't like your normal 9-5 job. You do live together, work together, and hang out together. Very few people socialize with others outside the military. Why? Because you very likely are living in a strange town. You are taught the "buddy system" from day 1. I lived in the same hotel room sized room with 6 other guys for 9 months in Iraq. There was a row of duffle bags between my cot and the cot next to me. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week I was around those people. Kind of hard to keep personal stuff personal. No matter how "professional" you think you are

And the straights aren't expected to. Only the gays.

[Larry]

As someone who has previously opposed soldiers openly serving, let me say that this is a good thing.

Other nations have openly gay soldiers without incident.

I see no reason why Americans cant be the same if not better.

(Checking carefully for ninja text, sarcasm tags, or any other clue in this message.)

(Not finding any.)

:rubeyes::thud:

[Larry]

"That's right, Private Pyle. Don't make any effort to get over the obstacle. If God wanted you over the obstacle he would've miracled your ***."

[killerbee99]

Way off topic here. The other poster made a comment that people with a GED or a misdemeanor conviction can't enlist. That is completely untrue. Some of my best Soldiers had one of those "strikes" against them. In fact, the best Soldier I ever served with is now a SSG and holds a GED. The second best had an encounter with the law...or 2...in his younger days.

As of right now, you can not join any Branch of the Military with just a GED, I bet a million bucks on this, call you local recruiting station, if you have a drug possession (weed) no waivers are authorized period.

[Fergasun]

I honestly believe the arguments against a DADT repeal are swiss cheese. First of all, gay soldiers are already serving. Right now any of the men you are serving with could be gay, you just don't know it. They joined the military solely for the purpose of oggling you in the shower, and keeping that picture of you in their mind forever. As a gay man, all they can think about when you talk is how much they want you as their lover.

Certainly yes, it is similar to civil rights; not exactly like skin color, more like religion.

[ZoEd]

Way off topic here. The other poster made a comment that people with a GED or a misdemeanor conviction can't enlist. That is completely untrue. Some of my best Soldiers had one of those "strikes" against them. In fact, the best Soldier I ever served with is now a SSG and holds a GED. The second best had an encounter with the law...or 2...in his younger days.

Really? Go to your local AF recruiter or even call one tomorrow, pick one, anyone and ask them. Before calling me a liar or questioning my information find out what's going on in TODAY's military. I can only speak for the AF but if you read my post, I said AF.

[Larry]

Certainly yes, it is similar to civil rights; not exactly like skin color, more like religion.

Oh, I think you can find parallels to both.

I don't recall ever hearing about anybody who had a problem with the thought of showering with a Jew.

But, yeah, I can certainly see a parallel to "I've got no problem serving with a Jew. Long as he doesn't flaunt his Jewish lifestyle by mentioning it, or anything."

[Redskins Diehard]

Nope. Not making up a thing. Simply pointing out other groups of people who are legally protected from discrimination by federal law. And making the point that the "more tolerant" among us find it perfectly fine to discriminate against them.

I'm just sick of the position that if I don't embrace the popular "cause" that I'm the one discriminating. Meanwhile, they're picking and choosing (read: discriminating) themselves, but get a free pass because of their 'tolerance.'

Someone who has a significant hearing loss can work in HQ, or as a quartermaster for example. Someone with a significant loss of sight can work as a morse interceptor. We can make reasonable accommodations if we really try. If we make them for one group, but not another, what are we -- by definition -- doing?

You made a statement that there are no jobs in the Army that a hard of hearing person can do. I never made that claim.

They are discriminating based on an ability to do a job. That "job" being to fight and win our nations wars. The reasonable accommodations in your scenario is "no exposure to loud noise" "not required to hear and follow instructions" or "no need to be able to shoot a target".

What reasonable accommodations does a homosexual need? Oh, they need a separate room because the heteros don't want to share a room....so who is actually being "accommodated" there? Now, if you are saying that there will be separate barracks etc because the homosexuals don't want to share then I say too bad....you want to join you are sharing quarters with heteros.

[Jumbo]

[Original Comment Removed]

My apologies... that was just not a productive way to express my general frustration towards kilerbee's post and serves as an excellent example of not thinking things through before hitting 'Submit Reply'.

Not only showing good self-awareness and reflection, as well as excellent style, but it's good for preservation of posting privileges. :pfft:

[Redskins Diehard]

Really? Go to your local AF recruiter or even call one tomorrow, pick one, anyone and ask them. Before calling me a liar or questioning my information find out what's going on in TODAY's military. I can only speak for the AF but if you read my post, I said AF.

http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/faq/eligibility/#enlist-ged

FAQ

Can I enlist with a GED?

The answer is yes. However, there are many additional criteria for enlisting with a GED as opposed to enlisting with a traditional High School diploma.

These are:

• You must obtain a 65 qualifying score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).
  
• Under normal circumstances, 1% of our enlisted force accessions are GED holders during a one-year period.
  
• If you are a GED holder, you can gain the same eligibility as a high school graduate by obtaining 15 or more semester hours of qualifying college credit.
  
• GED applicants must wait on slots to become available, and this can sometimes mean waiting periods of up to one year.
  
• You must be at least 18 years of age.
  

For more information on this subject, you can chat with one of our online advisers or click here to contact us and get in touch with your local recruiter.

Someone better tell the AF their rules have changed.

[Jumbo]

They <edit> solely for the purpose of oggling you in the shower, and keeping that picture of you in their mind forever. As a <edit>, all they can think about when you talk is how much they want you as their lover.

I am used to women treating me in this fashion. Should I expect the same from gay men?

:pfft:

[Fergasun]

When I lived in my college dorm, 24/7 with a group of guys, I didn't have the option of using the hetero-showers nor were there co-ed bathrooms. I wonder how many occurrence of gay-rape are involved in the millions of situations like that around the country... you'd think if it were big it might be a factor. Similarly, when I go to the gym I don't have the option of using the hetero-only showers.

A few here claim they are "tolerant", but I've seen some thoughts like, "gays can't be trusted with my stuff in the room"; "gays are disgusting" (as if the act they partake of are different than hetero-sexual acts, or their acts couldn't be replicated by a hetero-sexual couple)" and probably the worst sentiment, although not said openly is "gays can't perform in combat". It's such intolerance.

I don't care if I get flamed back.