Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I was saying, if I'm an officer and I'm gay, and I have involuntary feelings of affection for one of my men, even if I'm not hooking up with the guy, I'm still more likely to put others at risk to protect the guy I like. I can't think of anything that would render a unit inefefctive as fast as that would.

Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

also reject the comparison of homosexuality to blacks. One's race is not a lifestyle choice.

And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates?




And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'

"Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates? "

Yes, the same could be said. And that's PRECISELY why there are guidelines that suggest that folks who decide who goes in harm's way, shouldn't be too friendly with those they'd send into harm's way. I've known officres who were removed from combat command specifically because they were too chummy with the enlisted guys. If being friendly with enlisted men inhibits one's ability to lead in combat, then certainly being sexually attracted to enlisted men is even more serious.

"And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'"

True. But I've heard an awful lot of blacks say they resent that comparison. Being born homosexual may not be a choice. Acting on those impulses is a choice. Being born black involves no choice whatsoever. That's not my argument, by the way, but many people make that argument, and I think there's validity to it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, the same could be said. And that's PRECISELY why there are guidelines that suggest that folks who decide who goes in harm's way, shouldn't be too friendly with those they'd send into harm's way.

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

right...if I was a heterosexual....wait, I am a heterosexual...and I found myself in my early 20's in combat(or anywhere else for that matter) in a women only platoon and my sexual orientation oriented me toward....women.... I'm sure I'd not develop any unrequited affection for these women, I certainly wouldn't sneak any peaks and they definitely woudn't be a distraction...even if they were all lesbians......

seems like the same people that will tell you to give your kids birth control becuase they are going to do it any way and can't control their impulses will also tell you that 18-20 something soldiers can serve together even in the most difficult situations and their "impulses" can easily be controlled and will not affect their performance...which can mean life and death

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

right...if I was a heterosexual....wait, I am a heterosexual...and I found myself in my early 20's in combat(or anywhere else for that matter) in a women only platoon and my sexual orientation oriented me toward....women.... I'm sure I'd not develop any unrequited affection for these women, I certainly wouldn't sneak any peaks and they definitely woudn't be a distraction...even if they were all lesbians......

seems like the same people that will tell you to give your kids birth control becuase they are going to do it any way and can't control their impulses will also tell you that 18-20 something soldiers can serve together even in the most difficult situations and their "impulses" can easily be controlled and will not affect their performance...which can mean life and death

This is a great post Sc ott, and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals will say that abstinence doesn't work, you can't stop people from having sex. Those same folks will then say, 5 minutes later, that having homosexuals in the military won't necessarily have any consequences, because those people can just put their sexuality aside. For a whole year, while living in close quarters with those you are attracted to, and under very trying, often lonely, circumstances. Right.

There is no debating these people, because their platform has no foundation of logic. Amazingly, they see no incostincies in those arguments.

I was an average combat commander, no better, no worse. I was very very glad I never had any girls under my command. I had enough problems to deal with.

[scottw]

JohnR summed it up very nicely

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jim: small nit to pick.

I enjoy discussion with you, and find it respectful and you have a good perspective having served... BUT... can you please stop saying that "I Say liberalism.." this... it is a Michael Savage Quote (and book title). I said it before, if you used this in public forums before him, sue that whack-job and get rich!



As far as the perspective of the inability to control ones sexuality.

Were you married when you were deployed? Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? I assume no as you seem like a stand-up guy.

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

[scottw]

hey John...I think Barney would like to shower with you

Not allowing gay military personnel to shower with straight military peronnel would be “discrimination.” That’s the position of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay member of Congress who is a proponent of banishing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Frank told CNSNews.com that the idea that people might be concerned over gays and straights showering together, and the possible disruption it could case, is a “silly issue”:

“To accept the principle that homosexuals can’t shower with other people is a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this. We don’t get ourselves dry cleaned. We tend to take showers when we go to the gym; when we play sports,” Frank said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim: small nit to pick.

Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? .

WoW...imagine commanding a platoon of hookers?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim: small nit to pick.

I enjoy discussion with you, and find it respectful and you have a good perspective having served... BUT... can you please stop saying that "I Say liberalism.." this... it is a Michael Savage Quote (and book title). I said it before, if you used this in public forums before him, sue that whack-job and get rich!



As far as the perspective of the inability to control ones sexuality.

Were you married when you were deployed? Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? I assume no as you seem like a stand-up guy.

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

When liberals stop supporting an insane agenda (murderers deserve to live, but not unborn babies), I'll be happy tp stop referring to it as a mental disorder. It is what it is.

To your other points, I got married on leave, during my service. No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to. If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?

Your argument literally could not be weaker. A heterosexual soldier, while on duty, has no temptation for sexual distraction. A homosexual soldier would be surrounded by temptation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

Please don't put ugly words in my mouth, hold me accountable for what I actually say, OK?

Homosexuals are not more likely to rape or assault, I never said any such thing. I do think they are just as likely to be distracted by sexuality towards those they are attracted to, as heterosexuals are. So why open up a messy can of worms when people are already dealing wityh life-and-death situations?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

RIROCKHOUND, maybe you're right that male bonding is more likely to be a problem that sexual attrac tion. But the sexual component DOES NOT HELP, it can only hurt, the only question is how much will it hurt.

And I also feel that if you are on a 13 month combat tour, living in close proximity to those you are attracted to, it's not that crazy to assume that things will happen. Look at all the stories of rape and harassment with women. If integrating women into the military has been one problem afetr another, why is letting gays in going to be any different?

[JohnR]

Interesting conversation going on. While I don't have an issue with the basic premise of Gays / Lesbians serving there are going to be some real bad issues to resolve that will be done for reasons of equality or diversity and not for the effectiveness of a fighthing force - BTW the reason we have a military.

Even worse than the issues that are going to need be solved - we have significant forces engaged around the world that could use these resources - we will now how have yet another layer of bureaucracy to provide counceling to, opportunity for, and protection from.

From what I've read, the upper levels of the military are incapable of (or hindered from) focusing on what makes a military tick: people, leadership, gas, guns, and bullets but having to spend considerable time and effort on equality and diversity training. I'm all for equality and diversity, but we have ships and planes that don't get required maintenance becuase the personnel that would be performing that are conducting or receiving the diversity training. Now we're going to add more layer to that?

And now, the backlash will begin (has begun). People that were asked to provide their honest, professional, military opinion and did not support repeal will be labeled as homophobes, unfit or unworthy of the uniform. They will be the next boogeymen steamrolled by the diversity squads that thing that diversity in the military is far more important than the effectiveness of a military.

I don't care what race you are or if you are gay or straight. If you want to server your country, fine. If I were in the military and you were gay, I might sit down and have a beer with you and not have a problem with it, I probably wouldn't want to shower with you. I don't think that makes me homophobic.

DADT might have been the easier way to do this and might have been sufficient until there was some level of peace to work out the kinks.

Ehh, don't think I explained myself well enough, but I have to go to work...