• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, you're on the right track. I just don't know how to convey what I'm thinking. I agree with you though~
 
why is it that on every single homosexuality-related article I read all the comments are homophobic?

DADT is absolutely ridiculous and seems to be founded on the idea that homosexuals would...er, attempt to force themselves on the other soldiers, which is absolutely discriminatory and 95% pure fiction. (this is the main reason why i like my representative, cause he really wants to do away with it. and he's an Iraq veteran, so everybody who says about the only people who want to do away with it are those who haven't served can just go away)

Sadly, though, I believe DADT can only be done away with via repeal or Supreme Court decision.

EDIT:
some idiot said:
Gays fuggers are not human...they are sub human freaks and should be sent back to hell where them came!
Click to expand...

...alright I'm fine with everything else but when someone comes out and says this, that's just...

*punts idiot into deep space*
 
Flora and Ashes said:
why is it that on every single homosexuality-related article I read all the comments are homophobic?

DADT is absolutely ridiculous and seems to be founded on the idea that homosexuals would...er, attempt to force themselves on the other soldiers, which is absolutely discriminatory and 95% pure fiction. (this is the main reason why i like my representative, cause he really wants to do away with it. and he's an Iraq veteran, so everybody who says about the only people who want to do away with it are those who haven't served can just go away)

Sadly, though, I believe DADT can only be done away with via repeal or Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure the main argument behind DADT was "soldiers would be distracted if they knew gay people could see them naked!!!" or some suchlike.
 
Flora and Ashes said:
DADT is absolutely ridiculous and seems to be founded on the idea that homosexuals would...er, attempt to force themselves on the other soldiers, which is absolutely discriminatory and 95% pure fiction.
Click to expand...

I've heard tons of crap about how it would "disturb the unit" if gays could serve openly in the military, but whenever I ask how so, everyone suddenly clams up. I've also heard that it would cause distraction on the battlefield - but really, if you're in the middle of a firefight and the only thing you can think of is the boner you're getting from the person next to you, there is something wrong regardless of orientation.

I also love how half the arguments for DADT ("GAYS COULD END UP RAPING THE OTHER MEN", "THEY COULD GET DISTRACTED ON THE BATTLEFIELD", etc.) can be disproven by pointing out that gays already serve in the military, and if the things they were describing had any grounding in reality then they'd already be happening.
 
Forgive me if wrong but all DADT does is try and protect gays who want to serve in the military. Nobody asks if they're gay and they can't tell if they're gay. So they won't be looked at weird or discriminated against, or given special privileges on the other hand.
 
That's actually the most sensical argument I've ever heard in favour of DADT. I think it's completely wrong, but the most common argument is along the lines of "But having gays in the military will mean [insert bad thing here]!" which is crap because there are already gays in the military. DADT, by definition, acknowledges the presence of gay people serving in the forces already, albeit not openly.

In a way, you're right, Pwnemon - I can imagine that lots of gays who are currently serving in the military would choose to remain closeted in regards to the people they work alongside - the military isn't exactly a shiny bundle of acceptance, but the point you're missing is that the law is completely unfair and it should be someone's choice to tell the people they work with whether they're gay, bisexual, straight or whatever, and shouldn't have to risk losing their job by being who they are.

There's an absolutely fantastic episode of The West Wing that directly tackles this topic (Let Bartlet Be Bartlet) - you can watch a clip here (I strongly recommend that everyone does)

But here's the important bit:

MAJOR TATE - Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.

FITZWALLACE - You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?

MAJOR TATE - No sir, I don't.

FITZWALLACE - 'Cause they oppose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.

MAJOR TATE - Yes sir.

FITZWALLACE - That's what I think too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.

MAJOR TATE - Yes sir.

FITZWALLACE - The problem with that is that what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with Whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...Beat that with a stick.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but if you out yourself they, hey! Sorry 'bout that, but you can't continue to serve your country!

Which totally stops discrimination, am I right?
 
Well maybe they should change it to a DA law.

You know, just don't ask. Gays don't have to tell you they're gay if they don't want to and if they do they can. that sounds like a fair idea to me.
 
Oh, and also, I heard something a while ago about a lesbian soldier in the U.S. who was outed by another member of her unit. She was told she'd be discharged under DADT after she served her time in... I believe it was Afghanistan? But anyway, she was harassed so much during her stay in Afghanistan, she ended up seeking asylum up here in Canada. I couldn't find anything about what happened to the soldier who outed her. Presumably, he's still on the force. So make of that what you will.

Pwnemon said:
Well maybe they should change it to a DA law.

You know, just don't ask. Gays don't have to tell you they're gay if they don't want to and if they do they can. that sounds like a fair idea to me.
Click to expand...

So in other words, stop kicking the gays off the squad if they admit to being gay. In other other words, exactly what we're saying.

Yes.
 
Keeping in mind you're 12, it might just be an opinion forced upon you by school/parents/friends, y'know? Maybe you're not yet old enough to properly formulate your own opinions, but regardless, please at least try to justify it.
 
I sort of think they were being sarcastic. Also, I know most people here are LGBT in some way and thus take offense to, you know, negative comments, but I also think there's no need to insult someone for something that was possibly not an insult (or really, ever).
 
Pwnemon said:
You know, just don't ask. Gays don't have to tell you they're gay if they don't want to and if they do they can. that sounds like a fair idea to me.
Click to expand...

This was actually the original purpose of DADT. But it got corrupted into a means by which to discharge someone from the military via their sexual orientation.
 
Pentimento said:
I sort of think they were being sarcastic. Also, I know most people here are LGBT in some way and thus take offense to, you know, negative comments, but I also think there's no need to insult someone for something that was possibly not an insult (or really, ever).
Click to expand...

Frankly I don't see how that could have been a joke - If it were, he probably would have at least said "I was joking" afterwards or something. Also, who insulted him...?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom