So the DADT survey leaked, and it's DELICIOUSLY homophobic and skewed.
Quick history if you don't know what's going on- Congress has started attempting to do something about Don't Ask Don't Tell (the US Military ban on LGBT people), but the Pentagon has begged them to not do anything until they finish a research study on how gay people serving openly will affect national security. And President Obama recently signed a statement asking Congress to wait for the study, as well. Because we need to know what will happen if soldiers know that they're fighting alongside gay people; it could cause another 9/11 or something. :tinfoilhat:
So the survey that the Pentagon mailed to service people as part of the research has leaked online. Not all of it, apparently. The Pentagon is claiming this isn't a complete leak. But this thing is hilariously homophobic, until you realize that this is actual real.
Article on Leaked DADT Survery (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/a_pentagon_survey_sent_this.html). <-- This includes an embedded Scribed upload of the leaked portions of the survey.
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
:omg:
So yeah, oh ho ho, it's kinda funny, but what does it matter?
Well, I'm glad you asked! Since Obama became president, LGBT people have continued to be fired from the military. These are people who have gone to war for the US, and in some cases have been on the verge of retirement, but because people find out they're LGBT, they get fired. And in most cases DIShonorably Discharged. And for some reason, a lot concentration of them have been Arab linguists ( :?)
This country still seems to have Middle East Bloodlust, and doesn't seem bothered by the fact that we've got two wars going on (and some even want a 3rd war in Iran). But yet, we're losing lots of military personnel over something as trivial as their sexual orientation or gender identity.
And now that there's finally a mechanism in place for LGBT people to potentially be able to serve with dignity and integrity (this Magical DADT Research), it turns out that it's horribly skewed to give gay people the shaft yet again and to make queer people out to be some sort of boogieman.
When the FUCK is this country going to grow up past the 2nd grade?
The really funny thing is that the RAND Corporation, the go-to military contractor for all things study-wise, did an actual study in the early 90s, when the question about gays serving in the military arose - however because the report was too factual and foresaw no major problems with gays serving in the military, the Pentagon along with certain GOP house members moved to suppress the findings and instead relied on an assortment of religious cranks, homophobes and people off their meds to come up with arguments.
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2010, 04:38:17 PM
The really funny thing is that the RAND Corporation, the go-to military contractor for all things study-wise, did an actual study in the early 90s, when the question about gays serving in the military arose - however because the report was too factual and foresaw no major problems with gays serving in the military, the Pentagon along with certain GOP house members moved to suppress the findings and instead relied on an assortment of religious cranks, homophobes and people off their meds to come up with arguments.
Because there really isn't. Because, believe it or not, homosexuals are just people, and are no more interested in straight people than straight people are interested in them. Nor do they find it difficult to work professionally with said straight people.
I think the faggots should get a survey asking whether the heterosexuals get in their way of basic everyday living and doing their job.
I love how pretty much everyone who is actually serving IN the military is like "Gays? Yeah, so?" but the neocon assholes in charge are fucking determined to create a problem.
Huh. Here's a list of countries which prohibit LGBT people from openly serving:
- Cuba
- China
- Iran
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- United States of America
- Venezuela
- Yemen
And a list of countries who don't give a shit:
- Australia
- Austria
- Belgium
- Bermuda
- Brazil
- Canada
- Denmark
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Malta
- The Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Norway
- Peru
- Philippines
- Romania
- Russia
- Slovenia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- United Kingdom
- Uruguay
It's just funny that the US decides to align its military policy with their so-called "Axis of Evil".
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to IOZ's argument, that gays should be exempt from military service...along with the rest of humankind. I just love the ideas of really flamboyantly camp men trying to help dour looking colonels "re-adjust" to an ordinary lifestyle.
Ha, that reminds me of a time on a Canadian Forces base in winter, I was smoking outside in the designated area and this Colonel comes out and lights up. I try to strike up a conversation, so I point at the recent snow which is lying untouched a few feet deep around us, sparkling like crushed diamonds in the mid-afternoon sun - "Isn't the snow pretty?" I swear, this guy takes two steps back, says "the only things I think are pretty are a naked lady and a cold beer!" He then stubs out his almost virgin cigarette, curtly nods goodbye, and rushes back indoors.
Now this guy was probably in his fifties, and I worked alongside other openly gay service members who seemed to have no problem at all, so I think although it's mostly a generational thing, there is a contingent of homophobic assholes in the military.
But goddamn that was some pretty snow.
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2010, 05:44:54 PM
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to IOZ's argument, that gays should be exempt from military service...along with the rest of humankind.
I'm pro the destabalisation and weakening of the american military so making it as difficult for them to recruit as possible is good for me.
As well as a ban on every minority I also think there should be an upper limit on the intellegence of people allowed in, and lastly a program for octogenerians to be allowed into the military.
Why don't we just act like the cartoonishly evil hegemony we are, appoint a shogunate, and enstate Penal Divisions.
There has been talk for a few years now of having an American Foreign Legion, with passports and citizenship for x years of service.
But as it is, mercenaries are still the cheapest option, even with their inflated fees it costs less to put a merc in the field than it does a US soldier.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 11, 2010, 12:01:05 AM
Why don't we just act like the cartoonishly evil hegemony we are, appoint a shogunate, and enstate Penal Divisions.
:lmnuendo:
Do not pass go, Jerry. Go directly to boot camp.
Refelxive response:
It may be my career field but...
1.) Excluding leave and weekends, I haven't spent a day in service, including BMT, without a homosexual serving next to me.
2.) Trust me on this. You have to "get caught" with the sexual organs of a member of the same sex in contact with either your mouth or your sexual organs to get kicked out. Just kissing, sharing a one bedroom apartment (including on base), etc. is frequently overlooked.
3.) I don't know anyone who has been asked to fill out that survey.
4.) If you were a Arabic linguist, given the current state of affairs and having realized how unsuited you were to the military life style, wouldn't you share you're homosexual tendencies?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 10, 2010, 05:44:36 PM
Huh. Here's a list of countries which prohibit LGBT people from openly serving:
- Cuba
- China
- Iran
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- United States of America
- Venezuela
- Yemen
And a list of countries who don't give a shit:
- Australia
- Austria
- Belgium
- Bermuda
- Brazil
- Canada
- Denmark
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Malta
- The Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Norway
- Peru
- Philippines
- Romania
- Russia
- Slovenia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- United Kingdom
- Uruguay
It's just funny that the US decides to align its military policy with their so-called "Axis of Evil".
I'm just glad we're not on the same list as Belgium or Canada.
Throughout History, many of the most Elite Regiments, from the Spartans, to the SAS, have been largely, (if not exclusively)
comprised of Gay men.
They bond better, (as a Unit!) and are less likely to have ties outside of the Military. And who would you be more likely to put your life on the line for? Your fellow Squaddy, or your fellow Squaddy, who also happens to be your lover?
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Fire in the hole!"
I haven't read the actual survey, but I fail to see how this:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 10, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
is homophobic, assuming that the capitalization and emoticons are your added emphasis and the question does not actually look exactly like that on the survey.
The answer to such a question would be relevant, but the way you phrase something on a survey has far more effect on the answers than most people realize.
I understand that, but the question "what would you do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a homosexual?" doesn't seem homophobic at all in the context of what the survey is trying to find out.
Yeah, you might get people who would want to say they'd harass them. If you phrased it like that sort of thing is frowned upon, you'll get a slightly overoptimistic result.
I think the entire point of the survey is to find out how many people taking the survey would want to harass a known homosexual.
So it's good that they didn't put on politically correct airs while interviewing soldiers. It might have skewed the results optimistically.
are we in agreement? I'm confused.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 11, 2010, 02:54:49 PM
I haven't read the actual survey, but I fail to see how this:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 10, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
is homophobic, assuming that the capitalization and emoticons are your added emphasis and the question does not actually look exactly like that on the survey.
Well, for example, the available responses to a question about what you would do if you had to share living quarters with a known homosexual are:
- Take No Action
- Discuss Appropriate Behavior
- Talk to a Chaplain, Mentor, or Leader for advice
- Talk to a Leader to see if I have other options
- Something else
- Don't know
Out of that particular list, 3 answers are negative reactions, 2 are neutral (unless "Something Else" is something stupid), and only one is positive (take no action).
In the following question, how would you react to living with a known homosexual in
Wartime Conditions, the two neutral answers, "Don't know" and "Something else" are removed. So three of the answers are negative reactions, and only one is positive. That's a skew towards the negative.
This gets continued with the question about sharing a shower with someone who's LGBT. The list of responses is the same, with the addition of "Use another shower".
There's another question about whether you will continue to attend, or allow your family to attend, military social events if gay people are allowed to take their partners. Again, one answer is positive (continue to attend), two answers are negative (don't attend, don't allow my family to attend), and then the two usual neutral answers (don't know / something else).
And the reason this survey pisses me off so much is that the US continues to be so completely immature about issues of sexuality so that, rather than live up to our whole "Land of the Free, etc etc etc" claims, we have to draaaaaaaag this DADT repeal for years and make absolutely fucking sure that current soldiers (who are brave enough to risk their lives in war), won't be too scared if they know gay people are around.
Quote from: StoreBrand on July 11, 2010, 06:02:19 AM
Refelxive response:
2.) Trust me on this. You have to "get caught" with the sexual organs of a member of the same sex in contact with either your mouth or your sexual organs to get kicked out. Just kissing, sharing a one bedroom apartment (including on base), etc. is frequently overlooked.
Unfortunately, I've been under the impression that this just isn't the case. And regardless of how the law REALLY works out in real life, knowing that the law says you CAN be kicked out for being open about your sexuality is a major issue and would definitely put me under a lot of stress if I were in the military. And, if this is such a no-issue, why haven't we repealed DADT, then?
Quote from: StoreBrand on July 11, 2010, 06:02:19 AM
4.) If you were a Arabic linguist, given the current state of affairs and having realized how unsuited you were to the military life style, wouldn't you share you're homosexual tendencies?
Um.. what? I really don't understand what you're saying. We're fighting two wars in the middle east, and Arab translators aren't needed? Or they somehow tend to be less suited for military life? So.. they would choose to take a dishonorable discharge and lose all of their benefits?
Just a side note, I really, REALLY, dislike the phrase "homosexual
tendencies"
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 11, 2010, 02:54:49 PM
I haven't read the actual survey, but I fail to see how this:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 10, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
is homophobic, assuming that the capitalization and emoticons are your added emphasis and the question does not actually look exactly like that on the survey.
Well, for example, the available responses to a question about what you would do if you had to share living quarters with a known homosexual are:
- Take No Action
- Discuss Appropriate Behavior
- Talk to a Chaplain, Mentor, or Leader for advice
- Talk to a Leader to see if I have other options
- Something else
- Don't know
Out of that particular list, 3 answers are negative reactions, 2 are neutral (unless "Something Else" is something stupid), and only one is positive (take no action).
In the following question, how would you react to living with a known homosexual in
Wartime Conditions, the two neutral answers, "Don't know" and "Something else" are removed. So three of the answers are negative reactions, and only one is positive. That's a skew towards the negative.
This gets continued with the question about sharing a shower with someone who's LGBT. The list of responses is the same, with the addition of "Use another shower".
There's another question about whether you will continue to attend, or allow your family to attend, military social events if gay people are allowed to take their partners. Again, one answer is positive (continue to attend), two answers are negative (don't attend, don't allow my family to attend), and then the two usual neutral answers (don't know / something else).
And the reason this survey pisses me off so much is that the US continues to be so completely immature about issues of sexuality so that, rather than live up to our whole "Land of the Free, etc etc etc" claims, we have to draaaaaaaag this DADT repeal for years and make absolutely fucking sure that current soldiers (who are brave enough to risk their lives in war), won't be too scared if they know gay people are around.
Quote from: StoreBrand on July 11, 2010, 06:02:19 AM
Refelxive response:
2.) Trust me on this. You have to "get caught" with the sexual organs of a member of the same sex in contact with either your mouth or your sexual organs to get kicked out. Just kissing, sharing a one bedroom apartment (including on base), etc. is frequently overlooked.
Unfortunately, I've been under the impression that this just isn't the case. And regardless of how the law REALLY works out in real life, knowing that the law says you CAN be kicked out for being open about your sexuality is a major issue and would definitely put me under a lot of stress if I were in the military. And, if this is such a no-issue, why haven't we repealed DADT, then?
Quote from: StoreBrand on July 11, 2010, 06:02:19 AM
4.) If you were a Arabic linguist, given the current state of affairs and having realized how unsuited you were to the military life style, wouldn't you share you're homosexual tendencies?
Um.. what? I really don't understand what you're saying. We're fighting two wars in the middle east, and Arab translators aren't needed? Or they somehow tend to be less suited for military life? So.. they would choose to take a dishonorable discharge and lose all of their benefits?
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 11, 2010, 04:37:06 PM
are we in agreement? I'm confused.
No Yes, I'm just really
bad at debating stupid. :lol:
Edit for clarity
I was listening to some piece on NPR last year about the policy, and they were interviewing all sorts of people in the service regarding the issue. i remember at the end, it was implied that the prevailing opinion in the armed forces is that DADT is an acceptable policy that works given the current state of our society, and that this view is held by both heterosexual and homosexual members of the service....
the impression was given that this fight is being fought by those unaffected on behalf of those that don't want the 'help'....
Allow me to shove my foot in my mouth. You're probably talking about Lt. Dan Choi who is also a linguist. I made those statements before I realized exactly what you were talking about. Publicly announcing it will get you kicked out.
I was addressing what I run across most frequently, the other side of why DADT should be repealed. The handful of enlisted people I have known who have been kicked out for being gay did it because they were looking for a way out of the military, not because they were trying to change policy or just got caught. What I meant by unsuited to the military life style is a nicer way of saying the service member didn't know what s/he was signing up for, wants to GTFO, and already passed the 180 day mark. Due to Airborne Arabic linguists being in high demand and having a very high stress job,at least to me, would explain why a relatively large percentage of those kicked out for being gay are in that particular career field. There are only like 6 ways to get out of your contract and I would bet a disproportionately large percentage of each of those groups are made up of Arabic linguists or people in similarly high stress jobs.
The reason I made the statement about it being hard to get kicked out for being gay is because 1.) IME people really don't seem to care. 2.) Leadership recognizes people go "oh, shit. I made a mistake." and try to get out any way they can. 80% ish of the military are men and can't get out due to pregnancy. Young, healthy people tend to not have medical problems warranting a medical discharge. Same thing for the other 3 ways. Getting kicked out for being LGBT is the least unpleasant way to get out that anyone can at least fake if s/he really isn't with the least amount of negative consequences so it gets abused. Leadership looks out for people trying to beat the system.
That was the only point I was trying to make. And I should have said sexuality or homosexuality instead of homosexual tendencies.
Ah, cool, thanks for clearing that up. I get what you're saying.
Quote from: BadBeast on July 11, 2010, 02:40:55 PM
Throughout History, many of the most Elite Regiments, from the Spartans, to the SAS, have been largely, (if not exclusively)
comprised of Gay men.
They bond better, (as a Unit!) and are less likely to have ties outside of the Military. And who would you be more likely to put your life on the line for? Your fellow Squaddy, or your fellow Squaddy, who also happens to be your lover?
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Fire in the hole!"
Believe it or not there was a fundie (Scott Lively) who made the argument that repealing our DADT policy too brutal and aggressive. You know, like the Nazis (http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=4744590)!
Quote
Most people don't realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler's initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach's homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler's partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the "gay" Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
"Many of the [S.A.'s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts," wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that "[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate "gays"], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes super masculine homosexuals. They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate. Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it."
And honestly, the fact that this DADT debate keeps dragging on is ridiculous. You want to get rid of it, THEN STOP FUCKIN' FIRING PEOPLE and stop treating our soldiers like delicate flowers that can't act like adults.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 11, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 11, 2010, 02:54:49 PM
I haven't read the actual survey, but I fail to see how this:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 10, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
is homophobic, assuming that the capitalization and emoticons are your added emphasis and the question does not actually look exactly like that on the survey.
Well, for example, the available responses to a question about what you would do if you had to share living quarters with a known homosexual are:
- Take No Action
- Discuss Appropriate Behavior
- Talk to a Chaplain, Mentor, or Leader for advice
- Talk to a Leader to see if I have other options
- Something else
- Don't know
Out of that particular list, 3 answers are negative reactions, 2 are neutral (unless "Something Else" is something stupid), and only one is positive (take no action).
I only see one negative response there (talking to a leader to see if I have other options). The others all seem pretty value-neutral to me. Mind you I have no use for bigotry, especially with regards to something as trivial as sexuality and ESPECIALLY when the people in question are willing to take a bullet for their country, but I also have no use for over-sensitivity and political correctness. The point of the survey is to gauge the likely responses of american soldiers to the open presence of homosexuals in their unit, not to teach them how to be more open-minded and tolerant.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 12, 2010, 03:03:19 AM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 11, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 11, 2010, 02:54:49 PM
I haven't read the actual survey, but I fail to see how this:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 10, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
is homophobic, assuming that the capitalization and emoticons are your added emphasis and the question does not actually look exactly like that on the survey.
Well, for example, the available responses to a question about what you would do if you had to share living quarters with a known homosexual are:
- Take No Action
- Discuss Appropriate Behavior
- Talk to a Chaplain, Mentor, or Leader for advice
- Talk to a Leader to see if I have other options
- Something else
- Don't know
Out of that particular list, 3 answers are negative reactions, 2 are neutral (unless "Something Else" is something stupid), and only one is positive (take no action).
I only see one negative response there (talking to a leader to see if I have other options). The others all seem pretty value-neutral to me. Mind you I have no use for bigotry, especially with regards to something as trivial as sexuality and ESPECIALLY when the people in question are willing to take a bullet for their country, but I also have no use for over-sensitivity and political correctness. The point of the survey is to gauge the likely responses of american soldiers to the open presence of homosexuals in their unit, not to teach them how to be more open-minded and tolerant.
Point taken. I'll admit I tend to let myself get a bit oversensitive on this issue, or any LGBT issues. And then I type up long-winded knee-jerk rants about it.
Still sucks that everyone has to wait for this research project to be completed before anything can happen, though, instead of them just saying "Hey, we're not gonna kick people out just for being gay, and try not to be dicks to them."
On the bright side, our childrens' generation will probably mostly think it was pretty silly that people used to care about that sort of thing, and their childrens' generation probably won't even understand that it used to be an issue.
http://terminallance.com/?p=399
Check the cartoon
QuoteThe issue of gays in the military has always been a tough subject, but recently it's made headlines quite frequently and for that reason I will leave my personal opinion out of this. It is more or less irrelevant to the joke. As the strip suggests though, it is quite ironic that so many Marines are against gays and lesbians serving in the military, but are guilty of doing gayer shit than the average gay man on a daily basis. The "oil check" was something I never really thought was appropriate, in any situation–yet it had its hayday in my old platoon for a good couple of weeks.
There's always some new practical, physical joke that spreads around and lasts for a week or two. Usually it involves some form of homo-erotic behavior like fingering another man's asshole or showing someone your balls. I suppose when you're stuck in shitty situations on a near constant basis away from civilization, a group of young men will inevitably resort to using their own bodies to find humor.
If you were (or are) in the Marine Corps you should definitely check this site out
An actual relevant Monty Python reference. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8)
Quote from: LMNO on July 12, 2010, 02:33:26 PM
An actual relevant Monty Python reference. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8)
Why does this never get old?
Beats me... I still burst out laughing every time I see the Fish Slapping Dance, too.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 12, 2010, 03:45:11 AM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 12, 2010, 03:03:19 AM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 11, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on July 11, 2010, 02:54:49 PM
I haven't read the actual survey, but I fail to see how this:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on July 10, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
It includes such gems as "What you would do if you knew you were sharing a shower with a HOMOSEXUAL!? :x" and "What would you do if you found out that a gay person was living on-base with their SAME SEX PARTNER!? :eek:"
is homophobic, assuming that the capitalization and emoticons are your added emphasis and the question does not actually look exactly like that on the survey.
Well, for example, the available responses to a question about what you would do if you had to share living quarters with a known homosexual are:
- Take No Action
- Discuss Appropriate Behavior
- Talk to a Chaplain, Mentor, or Leader for advice
- Talk to a Leader to see if I have other options
- Something else
- Don't know
Out of that particular list, 3 answers are negative reactions, 2 are neutral (unless "Something Else" is something stupid), and only one is positive (take no action).
I only see one negative response there (talking to a leader to see if I have other options). The others all seem pretty value-neutral to me. Mind you I have no use for bigotry, especially with regards to something as trivial as sexuality and ESPECIALLY when the people in question are willing to take a bullet for their country, but I also have no use for over-sensitivity and political correctness. The point of the survey is to gauge the likely responses of american soldiers to the open presence of homosexuals in their unit, not to teach them how to be more open-minded and tolerant.
Point taken. I'll admit I tend to let myself get a bit oversensitive on this issue, or any LGBT issues. And then I type up long-winded knee-jerk rants about it.
Still sucks that everyone has to wait for this research project to be completed before anything can happen, though, instead of them just saying "Hey, we're not gonna kick people out just for being gay, and try not to be dicks to them."
Understandable, dude.
When you look at it, it's a stupid policy. I think that a repeal of DADT, followed up with an understanding that LGBT soldiers will not get fired for that will do wonders for acceptance as well as unit morale. If you come into the military a homophobe and said gay person actually saves your life, and in a bad ass way wastes a bunch of enemy soldiers, you're going to have to reassess your homophobia.
Imagine the stories to the kids. Say Zeke's son gets suspended from school for beating up on a kid for being gay:
"Look son, I used to hate gay people too. There was this one guy in my unit that I used to call faggot all the time. And he was gay. But you know what, that guy saved my life, and if he didn't, you'd have never been born. He and I were best buds after that until he was killed in action. It still hurts me to this day. Think about that."
That conversation would never happen, and the reason is that non-homophobic parents don't raise kids who beat up gays. Kids have to be taught homophobia, it doesn't come naturally.
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2010, 08:34:26 PM
That conversation would never happen, and the reason is that non-homophobic parents don't raise kids who beat up gays. Kids have to be taught homophobia, it doesn't come naturally.
Not necessarily. If your parents don't teach you, your peers do.
I was homophobic for a while in elementary school and junior high. I didn't understand. My peers dictated my opinion until I started thinking, well, what's wrong with it anyway, and the eventual realization that my mother was friends with several gay people. I never beat anyone up, since I was never in any position to do so, but I cracked stupid jokes.
One of my best friends coming out firmly changed my opinion. Unfortunately, at first I thought he was kidding and laughed it off. He and I are still friends and I still feel bad about it.
What I mean, Nigel, is that it might not necessarily occur to a reformed homophobic parent that they should teach their children about what homosexuality is and why homophobia is wrong. "Friends" will fill in those blanks. Fortunately, when I got to high school, I sat at the weirdo table and got to know people for who they were, not what they were labeled as. My mother, friend of the gay man though she was, never taught me that homosexuality was ok. She just took it for granted. My father, who was going to be a Catholic priest until he decided he liked the idea of sex, commented on a couple of occasions, that he was liberal for letting me get my ear pierced (in the mid-1990s), that it was very open-minded of me to have lesbian friends (with a reluctant affect), and that I should not be wearing nail polish (I was 16), and when I retorted to that last one, "oh what are you afraid that I'm gay?" He got all awkward and said, "Oh... uh... no... I don't think you're gay.... uh, Kevin.... uh.................. are you?"
Parents don't always teach what they should. That said, I have full faith in your parenting abilities, I'm just pointing out that not all parents teach what they should.
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2010, 08:34:26 PM
That conversation would never happen...
Yea everyone knows gheys cant COMBAT
\
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 13, 2010, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2010, 08:34:26 PM
That conversation would never happen, and the reason is that non-homophobic parents don't raise kids who beat up gays. Kids have to be taught homophobia, it doesn't come naturally.
Not necessarily. If your parents don't teach you, your peers do.
I was homophobic for a while in elementary school and junior high. I didn't understand. My peers dictated my opinion until I started thinking, well, what's wrong with it anyway, and the eventual realization that my mother was friends with several gay people. I never beat anyone up, since I was never in any position to do so, but I cracked stupid jokes.
One of my best friends coming out firmly changed my opinion. Unfortunately, at first I thought he was kidding and laughed it off. He and I are still friends and I still feel bad about it.
Yeah, I remember that when I was a little kid I used to be racist against Chinese people. My parents never taught it to me, it was just what the kids at my school did. The default (joking) insult among the kids in my grade 1 class was "You're Chinese" and we used to exchange jokes about Chinese people. For whatever reason, they were our default Acceptable Target. I still feel horrible about it. This was in the heart of multicultural Toronto, too. In the nineties. A couple of my friends were Chinese.
Kids who aren't taught any better get stupid ideas from their friends.
Addendum: Also, Nigel, as Twiddleton said, I have no doubt at all that you're a good parent.
IF SOMEBODY MADE ME SHOWER WITH A FAG I WOULD RAPE THE SHIT OUT OF HIM SO HE KNOWS I'M NOT A FAG TOO.
Quote from: GIGGLES on July 14, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
IF SOMEBODY MADE ME SHOWER WITH A FAG I WOULD RAPE THE SHIT OUT OF HIM SO HE KNOWS I'M NOT A FAG TOO.
Might be funny if straight man on straight/gay man rape in the military wasn't a real and underreported problem.
Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize
http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/
QuoteWASHINGTON—As Congress prepares to allow gay individuals to serve openly in the military, those against the proposed change voiced their concerns Monday, warning the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could soon lead to strong, strapping American soldiers engaging in mind-blowing homosexual intercourse right on the battlefield.
"We're sending our soldiers out there with a mission, and that mission is to protect this country," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), one of many conservative politicians who staunchly oppose the change. "If this is repealed, what's to stop all-night sex romps from breaking out while U.S. servicemen are hiding in a bunker, or crawling around an irrigation ditch bathed only by the light of the moon, or, say, the dozens of other situations I've already thought through in elaborate detail?"
"We can't allow this to happen," Gohmert added as beads of sweat collected on his brow. "It's wrong. Sweaty male sex—no matter how erotic and uninhibited—is so wrong and so, so naughty."
:lulz:
HE SAID THAT?! :o
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2010, 08:34:26 PM
That conversation would never happen, and the reason is that non-homophobic parents don't raise kids who beat up gays. Kids have to be taught homophobia, it doesn't come naturally.
I disagree.
My parents were/are not homophobic in the slightest. Yet in high school, I participated in, and occasionally started, loud chanting of the word "AIDS" in the locker room when Don Thomas, who was at the time the only openly gay student in the school, was changing after or before gym.
It never bothered me at the time...In fact, I found it to be hilarious.
Later that same year, my friend Dave Pritchard came out. I began avoiding him like the plague...Until one day, he sat across from me at lunch and asked me what my problem was. I told him I didn't like the idea of gays staring at my ass.
He laughed, and said, "Roger, just because I'm Gay doesn't mean I'm a rapist. Besides, I don't find you in the least attractive."
Two thoughts hit my mind at the same time:
1. "WHY NOT? WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME?" <--- Funny how your brain works.
2. That I'd been a complete ass and a terrible person. Here I was, avoiding a guy I'd been friends with for 4 years, for no good reason other than my own stupid prejudices...And I am still haunted to some degree by the idea of how Don Thomas must have felt when we tormented him in the locker room. It's bothered me now for 25 years.
Quote from: Kai on July 10, 2010, 05:19:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2010, 04:38:17 PM
The really funny thing is that the RAND Corporation, the go-to military contractor for all things study-wise, did an actual study in the early 90s, when the question about gays serving in the military arose - however because the report was too factual and foresaw no major problems with gays serving in the military, the Pentagon along with certain GOP house members moved to suppress the findings and instead relied on an assortment of religious cranks, homophobes and people off their meds to come up with arguments.
Because there really isn't. Because, believe it or not, homosexuals are just people, and are no more interested in straight people than straight people are interested in them. Nor do they find it difficult to work professionally with said straight people.
I think the faggots should get a survey asking whether the heterosexuals get in their way of basic everyday living and doing their job.
Bolded your basic problem. Becuase we all know straight males are always gazing lustily at lesbians.
When I can tell a person is a lesbian just by looking at them, it does not engender lustful stares. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on July 12, 2010, 02:33:26 PM
An actual relevant Monty Python reference. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8)
my favourite monty python sketch, that one.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 14, 2010, 02:14:39 AM
Quote from: GIGGLES on July 14, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
IF SOMEBODY MADE ME SHOWER WITH A FAG I WOULD RAPE THE SHIT OUT OF HIM SO HE KNOWS I'M NOT A FAG TOO.
Might be funny if straight man on straight/gay man rape in the military wasn't a real and underreported problem.
IMO that is what makes it funny.
OK, I will revise my opinion... I guess I was making a false assumption about the level of dialogue parents have with their kids about things like that. If non-homophobic parents talk to their kids a lot, and in doing to pass on their sense of social justice, kids will reject homophobia when it's introduced to them by their peers. IMO.
The Right Reverend Nigel was wrong! :cry:
Quote from: Nigel on July 16, 2010, 05:47:44 PM
OK, I will revise my opinion... I guess I was making a false assumption about the level of dialogue parents have with their kids about things like that. If non-homophobic parents talk to their kids a lot, and in doing to pass on their sense of social justice, kids will reject homophobia when it's introduced to them by their peers. IMO.
On the other hand, if I hadn't been raised the way I was, I wouldn't have recognized my behavior as wrong when confronted about it.
Still, to me it's a bit hopeful to hear that, even someone raised into that mindset can still have an epiphany (or similar) and realize the problem.
I went to elementary schools whose absolute main focus was pro-tolerance. We had huge MLK day events, and everything. So I was, conversely, never given much of a chance to become a hateful, intolerant person.
Boo hoo, I know. :lol:
I grew up in a fairly intolerant (although not hostile) atmosphere, and yet i am willing to accept pretty much any behavior as long as it doesn't directly have a negative impact on others....
therefore we must defenestrate the notion of nurture in favor of nature.
we obviously have a tolerance gene that determines our outlook...
You are but one. You could just be mutated, like Dok. Or bat boy.
Honestly, I think the best explanation, though seemingly a cop-out, is "nature and/or nurture"
From what I can tell, there are no absolutes.
I was raised in a fairly strict, religious family that didn't have a good view of gays and lesbians. Yet, I grew up to be someone who grew up to not only be tolerant of the lifestyle, I've gone on to work alongside them on initiatives.
It is likely the opposite also holds true. A young person grows up in a very open and tolerant family, yet, through experiences and their personal interpretation of those experiences, builds an intolerance to a certain kind of person, in this case gays and lesbians.
In both cases, a rebellion (purposeful or perhaps not) against the parental paradigms.
And of course there are the scenarios where each hold on to and ascribe to the parental paradigms as they move through life, perhaps softening or hardening on the viewpoint, depending on experiences and their shrapnel.
So I think the rebellion speaks to nature. Something innate to the individual that chooses a path that is different from the parents.
The sticking with the parent paradigm is the nurture.
But then there is the nature and nurture. The rebellion coupled with experiences in the environment that reinforces the new paradigm.
yea. i was being silly.
it seems perfectly clear that nothing in human behavior is as simple as those who 'take sides' in the nature/nurture thing would present.
Quote from: RWHN on July 16, 2010, 07:45:10 PM
Honestly, I think the best explanation, though seemingly a cop-out, is "nature and/or nurture"
From what I can tell, there are no absolutes.
I was raised in a fairly strict, religious family that didn't have a good view of gays and lesbians. Yet, I grew up to be someone who grew up to not only be tolerant of the lifestyle, I've gone on to work alongside them on initiatives.
It is likely the opposite also holds true. A young person grows up in a very open and tolerant family, yet, through experiences and their personal interpretation of those experiences, builds an intolerance to a certain kind of person, in this case gays and lesbians.
In both cases, a rebellion (purposeful or perhaps not) against the parental paradigms.
And of course there are the scenarios where each hold on to and ascribe to the parental paradigms as they move through life, perhaps softening or hardening on the viewpoint, depending on experiences and their shrapnel.
So I think the rebellion speaks to nature. Something innate to the individual that chooses a path that is different from the parents.
The sticking with the parent paradigm is the nurture.
But then there is the nature and nurture. The rebellion coupled with experiences in the environment that reinforces the new paradigm.
Rebellion could also, potentially, be a genetic predisposition, and thus an aspect of nature.
Nurture is more than just the parents influence as well.
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2010, 05:41:21 PM
I love how pretty much everyone who is actually serving IN the military is like "Gays? Yeah, so?" but the neocon assholes in charge are fucking determined to create a problem.
:cn:
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on July 22, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2010, 05:41:21 PM
I love how pretty much everyone who is actually serving IN the military is like "Gays? Yeah, so?" but the neocon assholes in charge are fucking determined to create a problem.
:cn:
Anecdotal only, here, but when I was in, we knew there were gays. We knew who many of them were.
Nobody gave a shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2010, 08:36:54 PM
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on July 22, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2010, 05:41:21 PM
I love how pretty much everyone who is actually serving IN the military is like "Gays? Yeah, so?" but the neocon assholes in charge are fucking determined to create a problem.
:cn:
Anecdotal only, here, but when I was in, we knew there were gays. We knew who many of them were.
Nobody gave a shit.
we have this joke in the Marine Corps, where if any of us stuck around and dadt was repealed, that we would reminisce about the good old days when the Marine Corps was 'fagless.'
it's funny given what you said, cuz yes, a lot of gays are known... and yes, nobody gives a shit about what they do so long as no one knows about it.
One essential part of my army that I need for the new regime is I want to rebuild the Minos Labyrinth but instead of a half man, head of a bull I want to put an armed anf vicious man hating bulldyke in there and drop in my detractors. That and my corps must have traditional Spartan values, where homosexuality in the military would need to be encouraged.
This adds little to the debate, I just thought I'd get it off my chest.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on July 22, 2010, 11:42:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2010, 08:36:54 PM
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on July 22, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 10, 2010, 05:41:21 PM
I love how pretty much everyone who is actually serving IN the military is like "Gays? Yeah, so?" but the neocon assholes in charge are fucking determined to create a problem.
:cn:
Anecdotal only, here, but when I was in, we knew there were gays. We knew who many of them were.
Nobody gave a shit.
we have this joke in the Marine Corps, where if any of us stuck around and dadt was repealed, that we would reminisce about the good old days when the Marine Corps was 'fagless.'
it's funny given what you said, cuz yes, a lot of gays are known... and yes, nobody gives a shit about what they do so long as no one knows about it.
That's a good reason why it needs to be repealed. The only time it seems to be enforced is when someone gets pissed off and wants to retaliate against someone who just happens to be homosexual.
Yeah, all it's really doing so far is crapping on people who go out of their way to 'serve the country', as they say.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 23, 2010, 02:26:51 AM
Yeah, all it's really doing so far is crapping on people who go out of their way to 'serve the country', as they say.
this. pretty sad imo. i was on recruiter's assistance (a program that is just what it sounds like). spoke to some highschoolers who asked me if the Marine Corps discriminates. i replied simply 'yes' much to their surprise. 'but of course never on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.'
someone proceeded to ask about gays, which prompted an awkward silence and strange looks from his classmates, followed by an outburst of laughter. after they calmed down i said gay people could join so long as they keep their sexuality a secret and do not engage in 'homosexual activity.' heterosexuals are also prohibited from homosexual conduct. it felt like a copout to me, but it is the stance of the Marine Corps :roll:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 23, 2010, 02:22:15 AM
That's a good reason why it needs to be repealed. The only time it seems to be enforced is when someone gets pissed off and wants to retaliate against someone who just happens to be homosexual.
also... this.
on that note females cause an awful lot of problems too. not always directly, mind you, but in the way they influence (immature) males around them. don't confuse this with me saying they arent capable etc.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on July 23, 2010, 06:59:31 AM
on that note females cause an awful lot of problems too. not always directly, mind you, but in the way they influence (immature) males around them. don't confuse this with me saying they arent capable etc.
That's a discipline issue.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:16:44 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on July 23, 2010, 06:59:31 AM
on that note females cause an awful lot of problems too. not always directly, mind you, but in the way they influence (immature) males around them. don't confuse this with me saying they arent capable etc.
That's a discipline issue.
same reason anybody would have problems with gays serving openly. they dont have the discipline to forget about their 'feelings' and just get the fucking job done.
Oh where is Bill Hicks, now that we need him?
"I'm against gays serving in the military. I don't think it's right. It just ain't natural or moral. It goes against my moral beliefs. Hey, is that a village full of innocent women and children? Where'd I put the napalm? Wheeeeeee BOOM!!!"
Quote from: Cain on July 25, 2010, 05:38:17 PM
Oh where is Bill Hicks, now that we need him?
"I'm against gays serving in the military. I don't think it's right. It just ain't natural or moral. It goes against my moral beliefs. Hey, is that a village full of innocent women and children? Where'd I put the napalm? Wheeeeeee BOOM!!!"
This
If I had to shower with gays I would rinse, lather, rinse, dry off, get dressed.
Or is that too simple?
You forgot to commit a hate crime.
Quote from: Rainy Day Pixie on July 25, 2010, 06:11:41 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 25, 2010, 05:38:17 PM
Oh where is Bill Hicks, now that we need him?
"I'm against gays serving in the military. I don't think it's right. It just ain't natural or moral. It goes against my moral beliefs. Hey, is that a village full of innocent women and children? Where'd I put the napalm? Wheeeeeee BOOM!!!"
This
Hired killers are real sticklers for the finer points of Natural Law and the deontological and teleological ethics that result from it. When not, you know, dropping bombs on people.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 25, 2010, 06:26:56 PM
If I had to shower with gays I would rinse, lather, rinse, dry off, get dressed.
Or is that too simple?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 25, 2010, 09:10:34 PM
You forgot to commit a hate crime.
:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz:
Something I posted on another forum.
"AMG THERE R DOOD THAT PUT THERE DOOD PARTS IN UTHER DOODS!!!!!!! THAT MAKES DEM TERRIBAD AT FITE!!!!! I NO DIS CUZ I R A GENERAL!!!!!!"
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Something I posted on another forum.
"AMG THERE R DOOD THAT PUT THERE DOOD PARTS IN UTHER DOODS!!!!!!! THAT MAKES DEM TERRIBAD AT FITE!!!!! I NO DIS CUZ I R A GENERAL!!!!!!"
And what part of the response at Maintankadin made you think that re-posting that thoughtful message would be a good idea?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Something I posted on another forum.
"AMG THERE R DOOD THAT PUT THERE DOOD PARTS IN UTHER DOODS!!!!!!! THAT MAKES DEM TERRIBAD AT FITE!!!!! I NO DIS CUZ I R A GENERAL!!!!!!"
And what part of the response at Maintankadin made you think that re-posting that thoughtful message would be a good idea?
Well I thought it was funny.
No offense, but are you a /b/tard?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on August 01, 2010, 06:38:16 AM
No offense, but are you a /b/tard?
I avoid 4chan. I have friends who are gaga over it.
I have a perverse urge to WOMP that.
Quote from: Cain on August 01, 2010, 12:27:00 PM
I have a perverse urge to WOMP that.
4chan + Lady Gaga?
Naturally.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 01, 2010, 06:29:15 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Something I posted on another forum.
"AMG THERE R DOOD THAT PUT THERE DOOD PARTS IN UTHER DOODS!!!!!!! THAT MAKES DEM TERRIBAD AT FITE!!!!! I NO DIS CUZ I R A GENERAL!!!!!!"
And what part of the response at Maintankadin made you think that re-posting that thoughtful message would be a good idea?
Well I thought it was funny.
try dealing with the prejudices of thousands while trying to win a war that can't be won and having your career on the line and failing. prejudice
shouldnt be so pervasive to troop welfare and mission accomplishment, but it is. i'm glad you come from a place so enlightened that the idea of discriminating against homosexuals is ridiculous to you (no sarcasm), but a substantial portion of america struggles with this shit.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on August 02, 2010, 06:25:39 AM
try dealing with the prejudices of thousands while trying to win a war that can't be won and having your career on the line and failing. prejudice shouldnt be so pervasive to troop welfare and mission accomplishment, but it is. i'm glad you come from a place so enlightened that the idea of discriminating against homosexuals is ridiculous to you (no sarcasm), but a substantial portion of america struggles with this shit.
HAI. Stop taking yourself so seriously.
Yeah, dealing with hostility from your own troops while in a hostile environment where anybody who isn't your troops might be about to kill you is totally not a serious subject.
asstard.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 02, 2010, 06:29:24 AM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on August 02, 2010, 06:25:39 AM
try dealing with the prejudices of thousands while trying to win a war that can't be won and having your career on the line and failing. prejudice shouldnt be so pervasive to troop welfare and mission accomplishment, but it is. i'm glad you come from a place so enlightened that the idea of discriminating against homosexuals is ridiculous to you (no sarcasm), but a substantial portion of america struggles with this shit.
HAI. Stop taking yourself so seriously.
it is my
business
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 02, 2010, 06:29:24 AM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on August 02, 2010, 06:25:39 AM
try dealing with the prejudices of thousands while trying to win a war that can't be won and having your career on the line and failing. prejudice shouldnt be so pervasive to troop welfare and mission accomplishment, but it is. i'm glad you come from a place so enlightened that the idea of discriminating against homosexuals is ridiculous to you (no sarcasm), but a substantial portion of america struggles with this shit.
HAI. Stop taking yourself so seriously.
There are other subforums where this type of levity is tolerated. This happens to not be one of them.
Carry on.
Quote from: Cain on August 01, 2010, 12:27:00 PM
I have a perverse urge to WOMP that.
Ha! I say go as the spirit moves you.
On another note, I think "gays in the military" and "homosexual marriages" will soon take a turn for the accepted, just on a long haul, not a short one. Gen X'ers are getting older and holding more "important" posts...they tended as a group growing up to have more tolerant views on homosexuality, as opposed to their forbears.
I'm hopeful that the fact the debate (though still alive) seems to be creeping further into tolerance and eventual acceptance (I'm taking pot and its potential legality as a sign of this as well) means we can soon seen an end to fucktardry.
Though I've been known to Polly Anna this shit before.
Quote from: Jenne on August 05, 2010, 01:12:25 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 01, 2010, 12:27:00 PM
I have a perverse urge to WOMP that.
Ha! I say go as the spirit moves you.
On another note, I think "gays in the military" and "homosexual marriages" will soon take a turn for the accepted, just on a long haul, not a short one. Gen X'ers are getting older and holding more "important" posts...they tended as a group growing up to have more tolerant views on homosexuality, as opposed to their forbears.
I'm hopeful that the fact the debate (though still alive) seems to be creeping further into tolerance and eventual acceptance (I'm taking pot and its potential legality as a sign of this as well) means we can soon seen an end to fucktardry.
Though I've been known to Polly Anna this shit before.
I'm optimistic on pot and acceptance of gays. An end to fucktardry though I think is wildly over optimistic. it's just going to be different sorts of fucktardry.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 05, 2010, 04:43:58 AM
I'm optimistic on pot and acceptance of gays. An end to fucktardry though I think is wildly over optimistic. it's just going to be different sorts of fucktardry.
"We'll take the faggots and the stoners, but keep the goddamn Mexicans
out of this."
\
:mullet: