Topic: A U.S. District Judge said | |
---|---|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sat 09/11/10 10:55 PM
|
|
So because a private employer will not allow smoking on their private grounds, it’s ok for the military to deny basic human rights to a specifically designated group of people? yes, it's the military, and they have a very big and hard job to do... PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY...they should be very strict in who they choose... not only that, some of the best (non - homo) people might not join because of this too... Do you think the military should create special units so those who have prejudice against blacks do not have to serve with them? Why? blacks ain't lookin for some kind of weird, unnatural sex with men...the blacks have to cover their azzes too... Do think the military should make special provisions to keep the ranks of non-citizens separate from already naturalized citizens? are the non-citizens looking at the troops with lust in their eyes? Do you think it would create ‘less stress’ if those who serve are segregated in secular religious units? Legitimate questions for you. Do you think every other poster in this thread, except for me and Dragoness, are in complete agreement with your opinions exactly as quoted above? Can see any differnce in your opinions, as quoted above, and those of any other poster here, besides me and Dragoness? If you can see differences between your views and others, can you put them in writing? |
|
|
|
be prepared for plenty of sexual harassment charges,, hope the military's legal hounds are ready,,,
Conduct Of A Sexual Nature Many different kinds of conduct—verbal, visual or physical—that is of a sexual nature may be sexual harassment, if the behavior is unwelcome and if it is severe or pervasive. Here are some more examples: Verbal or written: Comments about clothing, personal behavior, or a person’s body; sexual or sex-based jokes; requesting sexual favors or repeatedly asking a person out; sexual innuendoes; telling rumors about a person’s personal or sexual life; threatening a person Physical: Assault; impeding or blocking movement; inappropriate touching of a person or a person’s clothing; kissing, hugging, patting, stroking Nonverbal: Looking up and down a person’s body; derogatory gestures or facial expressions of a sexual nature; following a person Visual: Posters, drawings, pictures, screensavers or emails of a sexual nature sexual harassment policies do NOT violate any part of the constitution,,, |
|
|
|
how can one not FORESEE dadt policy before joining the service? How can anyone who enters the military not foresee a change of heart that will lead to requesting a status change to that of conscientious objector? Many people will never understand how that is possible regardless of how the question is answered. The same is true of the question: how can one not FORESEE dadt policy before joining the service? This question is even more difficult to answer because there is so much history involved with discrimination in the military, with the DADT policy, and with changes in the attitudes of gays and lesbians and the developing social acceptance of the group. Below is a portion of that history, the full article can be found at: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html As the United States prepared for World War II, psychiatric screening became a part of the induction process and psychiatry's view of homosexuality as an indicator of psychopathology was introduced into the military. Instead of retaining its previous focus on homosexual behavior, which was classified as a criminal offense, the military shifted to eliminating homosexual persons, based on a medical rationale. In 1942, revised army mobilization regulations included for the first time a paragraph defining both the homosexual and "normal" person and clarifying procedures for rejecting gay draftees. Homosexual Americans were allowed to serve, however, when personnel shortages necessitated it. As expansion of the war effort required that all available personnel be utilized, screening procedures were loosened and many homosexual men and women enlisted and served. This shift was temporary. As the need for recruits diminished near the war's end, antihomosexual policies were enforced with increasing vigilance, and many gay men and lesbians were discharged involuntarily. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, acknowledging a homosexual orientation barred an individual from military service (see Bérubé, 1990, for a comprehensive history of the U.S. military's response to homosexuality during the World War II era). In the 1970s, however, a new movement emerged in the United States that pressed for civil rights for gay men and lesbians. The military policy was one target of this movement, dramatized by the legal challenge to the policy mounted by Leonard Matlovich. Similar challenges continued throughout the 1970s. Although largely unsuccessful, they highlighted the wide latitude of discretion allowed to commanders in implementing existing policy, which resulted in considerable variation in the rigor with which the policy was enforced. In 1981, the DOD formulated a new policy which stated unequivocally that homosexuality is incompatible with military service (DOD Directive 1332.14, January 28, 1982, Part 1, Section H). According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged under the category of homosexuality in the 1980s. The Navy was disproportionately represented, accounting for 51% of the discharges even though it comprised only 27% of the active force during this time period. Statistical breakdowns by gender and race revealed that, for all services, White women were discharged at a rate disproportionate to their representation. Overall, White females represented 6.4% of personnel but 20.2% of those discharged for homosexuality. By the end of the 1980s, reversing the military's policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the armed services came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system. In 1992, legislation to overturn the ban was introduced in the U.S. Congress. By that time, grassroots civilian opposition to the DOD’s policy appeared to be increasing. Many national organizations had officially condemned the policy and many colleges and universities had banned military recruiters and Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses in protest of the policy. By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in implementing a new policy. Clinton's proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public. After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy’s constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely. The policy has remained in effect since 1993, although the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and other organizations monitoring its implementation have repeatedly pointed out its failures. Discharges have actually increased under the policy, and harassment of gay and lesbian personnel appears to have intensified in many locales. The failure of the policy was dramatized in 1999 by the murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell at the hands of Pvt. Calvin Glover, a member of his unit. Glover beat Winchell to death with a baseball bat while he slept. Prosecutors argued that Glover murdered Winchell because he was a homosexual. Glover was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequent inquiries by civilian groups revealed an ongoing pattern of policy violations and antigay harassment that had been ignored by higher-level officers. However, a report by the Army Inspector General exonerated all officers of blame in Winchell's murder and found no climate of homophobia at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the base where Winchell was bludgeoned to death. In the wake of the Winchell murder, Hilary Rodham Clinton, then-Vice-President Al Gore, and even President Clinton labeled the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy a failure. Campaigning for the Democratic Party’s 2000 presidential nomination, candidates Gore and Bill Bradley each promised to work to reverse the policy if he were elected. Meanwhile, candidates for the Republican nomination reaffirmed their support for the current policy (McCain, Bush) or declared that they would seek to completely prohibit military service by homosexuals (Bauer, Keyes, Forbes). With the beginning of the new century, the White House and Congress were controlled by Republicans who were on record opposing service by openly gay personnel. Prospects for eliminating the ban appeared slim. In 2002 and 2003, however, calls for changing the policy gained new momentum. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the war on terrorism and U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq created a renewed need for personnel. In that context, many objected when nine military linguists - including six who were fluent in Arabic - were discharged in 2002 after their homosexuality became known. In 2003, three high-ranking retired military officers publicly disclosed their homosexuality and challenged the DADT policy's legitimacy. Throughout this time, public opinion appeared to favor allowing service by openly gay personnel. A December, 2003, Gallup poll registered 79% of US adults (including 68% of self-described conservatives) in favor of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender, people want to join the military for different reasons. The policies regarding homosexuals in the military are continually changing. Most homosexuals accepted DADT, in the beginning but they quickly discovered that neither the military or Congress were holding up their end of the bargain. The policy was Don’t ask Don’t tell – but when a third party reports an individual as a homosexual because they dislike the person, or (in the case of many lesbians) a male being turned down. The report was not handled justly instead, biased opinions ruled and people WERE ASKED. It is a catch 22 – if you lie and are later found out, you loose – if you answer the direct question of your superior honestly, you loose. Now, homosexuals are no longer willing to submit to institutionalized discrimination and so they fight the DADT policy – which Congress is even now trying to enforce more justly. It is not a just law, it is discrimination. But we don’t sit back and accept discrimination, we try to fix it. And since DADT does not prohibit gays and lesbians from joining, they do and they continue to challenge the system. |
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sun 09/12/10 02:47 PM
|
|
how can one not FORESEE dadt policy before joining the service? How can anyone who enters the military not foresee a change of heart that will lead to requesting a status change to that of conscientious objector? Many people will never understand how that is possible regardless of how the question is answered. The same is true of the question: how can one not FORESEE dadt policy before joining the service? This question is even more difficult to answer because there is so much history involved with discrimination in the military, with the DADT policy, and with changes in the attitudes of gays and lesbians and the developing social acceptance of the group. Below is a portion of that history, the full article can be found at: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html As the United States prepared for World War II, psychiatric screening became a part of the induction process and psychiatry's view of homosexuality as an indicator of psychopathology was introduced into the military. Instead of retaining its previous focus on homosexual behavior, which was classified as a criminal offense, the military shifted to eliminating homosexual persons, based on a medical rationale. In 1942, revised army mobilization regulations included for the first time a paragraph defining both the homosexual and "normal" person and clarifying procedures for rejecting gay draftees. Homosexual Americans were allowed to serve, however, when personnel shortages necessitated it. As expansion of the war effort required that all available personnel be utilized, screening procedures were loosened and many homosexual men and women enlisted and served. This shift was temporary. As the need for recruits diminished near the war's end, antihomosexual policies were enforced with increasing vigilance, and many gay men and lesbians were discharged involuntarily. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, acknowledging a homosexual orientation barred an individual from military service (see Bérubé, 1990, for a comprehensive history of the U.S. military's response to homosexuality during the World War II era). In the 1970s, however, a new movement emerged in the United States that pressed for civil rights for gay men and lesbians. The military policy was one target of this movement, dramatized by the legal challenge to the policy mounted by Leonard Matlovich. Similar challenges continued throughout the 1970s. Although largely unsuccessful, they highlighted the wide latitude of discretion allowed to commanders in implementing existing policy, which resulted in considerable variation in the rigor with which the policy was enforced. In 1981, the DOD formulated a new policy which stated unequivocally that homosexuality is incompatible with military service (DOD Directive 1332.14, January 28, 1982, Part 1, Section H). According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged under the category of homosexuality in the 1980s. The Navy was disproportionately represented, accounting for 51% of the discharges even though it comprised only 27% of the active force during this time period. Statistical breakdowns by gender and race revealed that, for all services, White women were discharged at a rate disproportionate to their representation. Overall, White females represented 6.4% of personnel but 20.2% of those discharged for homosexuality. By the end of the 1980s, reversing the military's policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the armed services came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system. In 1992, legislation to overturn the ban was introduced in the U.S. Congress. By that time, grassroots civilian opposition to the DOD’s policy appeared to be increasing. Many national organizations had officially condemned the policy and many colleges and universities had banned military recruiters and Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses in protest of the policy. By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in implementing a new policy. Clinton's proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public. After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy’s constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely. The policy has remained in effect since 1993, although the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and other organizations monitoring its implementation have repeatedly pointed out its failures. Discharges have actually increased under the policy, and harassment of gay and lesbian personnel appears to have intensified in many locales. The failure of the policy was dramatized in 1999 by the murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell at the hands of Pvt. Calvin Glover, a member of his unit. Glover beat Winchell to death with a baseball bat while he slept. Prosecutors argued that Glover murdered Winchell because he was a homosexual. Glover was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequent inquiries by civilian groups revealed an ongoing pattern of policy violations and antigay harassment that had been ignored by higher-level officers. However, a report by the Army Inspector General exonerated all officers of blame in Winchell's murder and found no climate of homophobia at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the base where Winchell was bludgeoned to death. In the wake of the Winchell murder, Hilary Rodham Clinton, then-Vice-President Al Gore, and even President Clinton labeled the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy a failure. Campaigning for the Democratic Party’s 2000 presidential nomination, candidates Gore and Bill Bradley each promised to work to reverse the policy if he were elected. Meanwhile, candidates for the Republican nomination reaffirmed their support for the current policy (McCain, Bush) or declared that they would seek to completely prohibit military service by homosexuals (Bauer, Keyes, Forbes). With the beginning of the new century, the White House and Congress were controlled by Republicans who were on record opposing service by openly gay personnel. Prospects for eliminating the ban appeared slim. In 2002 and 2003, however, calls for changing the policy gained new momentum. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the war on terrorism and U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq created a renewed need for personnel. In that context, many objected when nine military linguists - including six who were fluent in Arabic - were discharged in 2002 after their homosexuality became known. In 2003, three high-ranking retired military officers publicly disclosed their homosexuality and challenged the DADT policy's legitimacy. Throughout this time, public opinion appeared to favor allowing service by openly gay personnel. A December, 2003, Gallup poll registered 79% of US adults (including 68% of self-described conservatives) in favor of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender, people want to join the military for different reasons. The policies regarding homosexuals in the military are continually changing. Most homosexuals accepted DADT, in the beginning but they quickly discovered that neither the military or Congress were holding up their end of the bargain. The policy was Don’t ask Don’t tell – but when a third party reports an individual as a homosexual because they dislike the person, or (in the case of many lesbians) a male being turned down. The report was not handled justly instead, biased opinions ruled and people WERE ASKED. It is a catch 22 – if you lie and are later found out, you loose – if you answer the direct question of your superior honestly, you loose. Now, homosexuals are no longer willing to submit to institutionalized discrimination and so they fight the DADT policy – which Congress is even now trying to enforce more justly. It is not a just law, it is discrimination. But we don’t sit back and accept discrimination, we try to fix it. And since DADT does not prohibit gays and lesbians from joining, they do and they continue to challenge the system. you don't fix whats not broken...and you never did answer my question, red... why do you even care? are you planning on joining the military? |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 09/12/10 02:54 PM
|
|
if there is a policy AGAINST being homosexual , I oppose it
if anyone is discharged merely for BEING homosexual, I oppose it if there is a policy against OPENLY DISPLAYING homosexuality, I support it if anyone is discharged for openly displaying their homosexuality, I support it I dont agree this should carry over during non work hours, at home and in personal environments, but in the environment and capacity of a soldier on the job, and in the job environment, I totally agree with it openly displaying should also be defined, so that people arent mandated to act like someone they are not. I am bi, but noone would ever know it because I dont OPENLY display it. some men are effeminate and some females are butch but that is no clear indication of sexual preference,, a clear display would be discussing an attraction to someone of the same gender, or their body parts, etc,,,,, I do talk about my children which gives away that at the very least I in some capacity like men and I talked about my spouse, but neither of these topics have reason to make anyone uncomfortable since these are unions we ALL sprang from. This conversation also would not cause tension to other FEMALES I might room with because there is no perceived potential for them to be seen as a sexual object by me. |
|
|
|
if there is a policy AGAINST being homosexual , I oppose it if anyone is discharged merel for BEING homosexual, I oppose it if there is a policy against OPENLY DISPLAYING homosexuality, I support it if anyone is discharged for openly displaying their homosexuality, I support it I dont agre this should carry over during non work hours, at home an in personal environments, but in the environment and capacity of a soldier on the job, and in the job environment, I totally agree with it the sausage hounds just think this a typical 9-5 job they can go lay in... this is our national security, our armed forces, they can't be acting all gay everywhere... |
|
|
|
if there is a policy AGAINST being homosexual , I oppose it if anyone is discharged merel for BEING homosexual, I oppose it if there is a policy against OPENLY DISPLAYING homosexuality, I support it if anyone is discharged for openly displaying their homosexuality, I support it I dont agre this should carry over during non work hours, at home an in personal environments, but in the environment and capacity of a soldier on the job, and in the job environment, I totally agree with it the sausage hounds just think this a typical 9-5 job they can go lay in... this is our national security, our armed forces, they can't be acting all gay everywhere... I disagree, when they are not serving (they do have work hours like everyone else, however unconventional), they should have the same civilian rights as anyone else. If they are permitted to act like drunken baffoons, and they are,, then they should be permitted to act 'gay' or 'macho' or anything else when not in a working environment. |
|
|
|
Personally I never got why they made that policy....But I am just a military brat and never been in the service myself.
I can only differ to those in the military I guess |
|
|
|
I think its about unit cohesion, same reason they dont put straight men with straight women in the barracks,, too much potential for misconduct and the APPEARANCE of misconduct
|
|
|
|
I think its about unit cohesion, same reason they dont put straight men with straight women in the barracks,, too much potential for misconduct and the APPEARANCE of misconduct oh. Again...I've never been in a situation like that...so I can't really comment. |
|
|
|
if there is a policy AGAINST being homosexual , I oppose it if anyone is discharged merel for BEING homosexual, I oppose it if there is a policy against OPENLY DISPLAYING homosexuality, I support it if anyone is discharged for openly displaying their homosexuality, I support it I dont agre this should carry over during non work hours, at home an in personal environments, but in the environment and capacity of a soldier on the job, and in the job environment, I totally agree with it the sausage hounds just think this a typical 9-5 job they can go lay in... this is our national security, our armed forces, they can't be acting all gay everywhere... I disagree, when they are not serving (they do have work hours like everyone else, however unconventional), they should have the same civilian rights as anyone else. If they are permitted to act like drunken baffoons, and they are,, then they should be permitted to act 'gay' or 'macho' or anything else when not in a working environment. your right mostly, what people do on their off time is their business, but, the armed forces do have some rules in place, whether your at work or not, off base or on base, especially on base, where most of the barracks are at anyway. you don't have the personal freedoms that non soldiers have, that's why it isn't just for anybody. When you are on base, ship, whatever your duty station is, you have to follow the harsh rules that are set in place, meaning there is not a lot of off base time. just because your off work detail doesn't mean you can just leave the base, it is up to the CC. During boot camp, you can't do anything unless the CC oks it for about 2-3 months. if your in uniform and off the base, you still have to follow the military codes, or they will bust you. it is not a 9-5 job, there is way more to it. |
|
|
|
I know G.I. stands for Government issue. So if a soldier is a G.I....then the government decides...right?
I'm not going to pretend to understand what the government decides (I have yet to figure that out ) but doesn't this go back to the whole volunteer thing? If you don't agree with it....don't join? I don't know....just offering other sides for discussion |
|
|
|
I know G.I. stands for Government issue. So if a soldier is a G.I....then the government decides...right? I'm not going to pretend to understand what the government decides (I have yet to figure that out ) but doesn't this go back to the whole volunteer thing? If you don't agree with it....don't join? I don't know....just offering other sides for discussion thats a good point...i wonder if we would be having this discussion if the government was drafting the cupcakes... |
|
|
|
Moe, come on....be nice.
I don't think a person sexual preference determines getting the job done. Other than that I don't know. Again....I'm only a military brat |
|
|
|
if there is a policy AGAINST being homosexual , I oppose it if anyone is discharged merely for BEING homosexual, I oppose it if there is a policy against OPENLY DISPLAYING homosexuality, I support it if anyone is discharged for openly displaying their homosexuality, I support it I dont agree this should carry over during non work hours, at home and in personal environments, but in the environment and capacity of a soldier on the job, and in the job environment, I totally agree with it In a previous post some behaviors which can be considered sexual harassment were listed. I have always been a proponant of sexual harassment policies and especially in the military. But the ideal and what actually is, are not even close to the same thing. Sexual harassment in the military has been a very serious on-going concern of the DOD and Congress. Women have always been the greatest target of sexual harassment and assault in and outside of the military. I totally support such policies as long they are enforced with without bias. All branches of military have had such policies for a long time, unfortunately they tend not to be enforced and often when they are it is with prejudice. The DADT policy actually creates a huge problem for equitable and unbiased enforcement of sexual harassement policies. Because the DADT policy itself is a discriminatory measure - it serves to reinforce the bias or prejudice of others and they feel no shame or guilt in using that bais against another. There are literally thousands of cases of that kind of bias surfacing, predominantly against women and mostly against lesbians who have been discharged as lesbians with no more evidence than someone's word. There are many court cases that document this kind of treatment. In many cases the charge was made because she refused the advances of a male cohort or worse an officer. While sexual harassement and assault are not limited by gender, or sexual orientation, most of the studies I have found indicate that the percentage of offenders 'in the military' are closely correlated to offenders 'outside' in the general population. But until the whole DADT thing is out of the way, too many sexual harassment charges and any accompanying discharges will continue to be baised on bais and not properly reviewed. openly displaying should also be defined, so that people arent mandated to act like someone they are not. I am bi, but noone would ever know it because I dont OPENLY display it. I do talk about my children which gives away that at the very least I in some capacity like men and I talked about my spouse, but neither of these topics have reason to make anyone uncomfortable since these are unions we ALL sprang from. This conversation also would not cause tension to other FEMALES I might room with because there is no perceived potential for them to be seen as a sexual object by me. As long as every military personel has to go through a sexual harassment course, they may as well ALL BE told what is or is not acceptible public behavior. For example, if your significant other is on base for whatever acceptable reason, it's ok to hold hands in public or it's no ok. It's ok to hug and have 5 second kiss hello or good-bye or it whatever they deem to be appropriate. If there is any kind of military affair at which significant others are welcome, dancing is fine but hands are to placed... or ... This way EVERYONE will know the rules and guys and girls can have their partners or spouses on base or at social affairs or with them overseas - with equity. Part of being cohesive unit and learning to value and trust the others in your unit is having some understanding of WHO they are. That's how we overcome prejudice and bias by learning about each other. If you talk about your husband or boyfriend and your children, we can still compare notes, I just might be referncing my 'partner' and how well she takes care of our kids in my absence. You want to share a picture of your spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, I'm interested, when you talk about that person I have a picture to relate your conversation to. But gays and lesbians are not allowed to have such pictures - many have been disgarged because of blatent invasion of privacy, perhaps pictures on a cell phone showing two lovers in a kiss. Don't ask Don't tell means - hide all evidence, and lie. This is not how we want to envision our national heroes and it is not the kind of behavior that the military should hold up as a standard. |
|
|
|
Moe, come on....be nice. I don't think a person sexual preference determines getting the job done. Other than that I don't know. Again....I'm only a military brat lol - i thought i was being nice, compared to what i really wanted to say... IMO there are things that gay men do better than straight men, and vice versa... i really don't have that big of a problem with gay's in the military, my problem is all this whining about how gays are discriminated against..they have every right that i have, but that is not enough...they military won't say no if they don't say they are gay, so what is the problem? why do they need to show their gayness in the military? what are they joining for, to get a date? the military has been fine for over 200 years, but now it needs fixing because a few gays have their feelings hurt? they say they want their rights... what about the rights of the men and women that don't want to be bunked with a homo? do gays have no self control the keep their gayness at home? |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 09/12/10 04:02 PM
|
|
if there is a policy AGAINST being homosexual , I oppose it if anyone is discharged merely for BEING homosexual, I oppose it if there is a policy against OPENLY DISPLAYING homosexuality, I support it if anyone is discharged for openly displaying their homosexuality, I support it I dont agree this should carry over during non work hours, at home and in personal environments, but in the environment and capacity of a soldier on the job, and in the job environment, I totally agree with it In a previous post some behaviors which can be considered sexual harassment were listed. I have always been a proponant of sexual harassment policies and especially in the military. But the ideal and what actually is, are not even close to the same thing. Sexual harassment in the military has been a very serious on-going concern of the DOD and Congress. Women have always been the greatest target of sexual harassment and assault in and outside of the military. I totally support such policies as long they are enforced with without bias. All branches of military have had such policies for a long time, unfortunately they tend not to be enforced and often when they are it is with prejudice. The DADT policy actually creates a huge problem for equitable and unbiased enforcement of sexual harassement policies. Because the DADT policy itself is a discriminatory measure - it serves to reinforce the bias or prejudice of others and they feel no shame or guilt in using that bais against another. There are literally thousands of cases of that kind of bias surfacing, predominantly against women and mostly against lesbians who have been discharged as lesbians with no more evidence than someone's word. There are many court cases that document this kind of treatment. In many cases the charge was made because she refused the advances of a male cohort or worse an officer. While sexual harassement and assault are not limited by gender, or sexual orientation, most of the studies I have found indicate that the percentage of offenders 'in the military' are closely correlated to offenders 'outside' in the general population. But until the whole DADT thing is out of the way, too many sexual harassment charges and any accompanying discharges will continue to be baised on bais and not properly reviewed. openly displaying should also be defined, so that people arent mandated to act like someone they are not. I am bi, but noone would ever know it because I dont OPENLY display it. I do talk about my children which gives away that at the very least I in some capacity like men and I talked about my spouse, but neither of these topics have reason to make anyone uncomfortable since these are unions we ALL sprang from. This conversation also would not cause tension to other FEMALES I might room with because there is no perceived potential for them to be seen as a sexual object by me. As long as every military personel has to go through a sexual harassment course, they may as well ALL BE told what is or is not acceptible public behavior. For example, if your significant other is on base for whatever acceptable reason, it's ok to hold hands in public or it's no ok. It's ok to hug and have 5 second kiss hello or good-bye or it whatever they deem to be appropriate. If there is any kind of military affair at which significant others are welcome, dancing is fine but hands are to placed... or ... This way EVERYONE will know the rules and guys and girls can have their partners or spouses on base or at social affairs or with them overseas - with equity. Part of being cohesive unit and learning to value and trust the others in your unit is having some understanding of WHO they are. That's how we overcome prejudice and bias by learning about each other. If you talk about your husband or boyfriend and your children, we can still compare notes, I just might be referncing my 'partner' and how well she takes care of our kids in my absence. You want to share a picture of your spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, I'm interested, when you talk about that person I have a picture to relate your conversation to. But gays and lesbians are not allowed to have such pictures - many have been disgarged because of blatent invasion of privacy, perhaps pictures on a cell phone showing two lovers in a kiss. Don't ask Don't tell means - hide all evidence, and lie. This is not how we want to envision our national heroes and it is not the kind of behavior that the military should hold up as a standard. its not prejudice to not wish to have to live and shower in close corners with the opposite sex, and likewise not prejudice not to want to live and shower with same sex who have the same PROPENSITY for sexual attraction,,, I dont have prejudice against homosexual women or men, I just dont want to share my shower with them,,, I will re iterate that I feel the final choice should be up to military personell, if they feel comfortable enough with it,, so be it but if not,, I think it should be left alone,,, |
|
|
|
I think its about unit cohesion, same reason they dont put straight men with straight women in the barracks,, too much potential for misconduct and the APPEARANCE of misconduct The military is all about cohesion - but how do we accomplish cohesion in any group? We get to know poeple, we learn about their lives. In this way we learn about people's values, what they enjoy. Everyone's family is of utmost importance them. We know that family make-up is a diverse mixture of people but they are family still. Family and the close relationships that we form to create the family that surrounds us IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. If you force people to deny their family, you force them into non-existence. |
|
|
|
I basically say , leave it to the troops to define their environment, they are the ones forced to live in it and its the least we can afford them considering what else we ask them to sacrifice
|
|
|
|
I think its about unit cohesion, same reason they dont put straight men with straight women in the barracks,, too much potential for misconduct and the APPEARANCE of misconduct The military is all about cohesion - but how do we accomplish cohesion in any group? We get to know poeple, we learn about their lives. In this way we learn about people's values, what they enjoy. Everyone's family is of utmost importance them. We know that family make-up is a diverse mixture of people but they are family still. Family and the close relationships that we form to create the family that surrounds us IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. If you force people to deny their family, you force them into non-existence. more straws, huh... |
|
|