• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repealed!

Bware

I'm the Jugganaut!!
I do have some questions about some issues that could arise.

1) If men and women soldiers who are having sex together are not allowed to share a dorm room or a bunker, will gays who are having sex together be allowed to share rooms or bunkers? I mean, do you say that only women can bunk with other women, or men with other men - UNLESS they are having sex together?

2) Can a heterosexual man or woman in the military demand to be assigned another heterosexual roommate if the roommate they are assigned is gay? Why or why not?

3) Would it be right to expect or demand that heterosexual females in the military shower and room with heterosexual men? If not, why not?

I am sure that many gay men and women are serving in our military with honor and bravery - and I support their right to serve, as well as their right to be open about their sexuality. But other members of the military have rights too, and I want to be sure that their rights are protected as well.
Hence the reasons that don't ask don't tell was created in the first place. It was to avoid problems like this and to protect the gay members. Let's face it, there are a lot of homophobic members in the military, it's wrong, but I guarantee you that the gay members will be treated poorly by other members who are uncomfortable around them. It's human nature, it's wrong, but it WILL happen. Another reason that don't ask don't tell should not be repealed is the relationship aspect. Part of the reason that men and women are not allowed to co-habitate when we get deployed is that the military doesn't want you to have romantic relationships with other members when deployed. If my wife were getting shot at, I would put myself in danger to protect her, no matter how capable she is (she's a way better shot than me...shhh).

Before I get flamed for this, let me say that I am not in anyway anti gay, my father in law is gay and I have two other gay friends. I have told them all the exact same thing. Don't ask don't tell was put in place to protect gay and straight members alike.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
"butthurt"??? So if a person argues a faulty point of yours they are "butthurt"? I wasn't taking anything sexist or anything, it's just that your points were a bit on the absurd side and I was trying to point that out. Your points weren't offensive, just misinformed. Your "butthurt" comment is, though, a bit offensive. If that's what you were shooting for, you've got it. If you were shooting for looking like an *** enough that no one would want to bother with debating with you anymore, you have that as well. At least from me. Out.
 

Bware

I'm the Jugganaut!!
However sexual relations between spouses etc isn't able to be regulated and shouldn't be, I am talking about sex between soldiers. It is frowned upon.

However it is interesting to point out that the Romans and Greeks had homosexuals in their armies. And logic says that if you're fighting to protect a lover you will likely fight harder.
And put yourself in danger in the process...
 

darkstar

Member
"Frowned upon"? Never come across that thought or ideal while I was in. A lot of military personnel actually met and started relationships while stationed together before marrying. Matter of fact, I can't say I recall ever being involved with a civilian at all while I was in the Navy. Nope, not a one. Every relationship I had was with another service-member. There were no issues and no reprimands. Nothing.

What branch were you in anyway?

Friends in the marines, I followed my father and stuck with army. Thus branches that see combat first hand. As I understand it from friends in Navy and Airforce, they aren't as strict on the subject because they don't usually see active combat unless the job focuses on it, such as a navy seal.

That being said, that is based on hearsay and assumptions. But logic would state that if you are going into combat, you don't want a baby on board as that's unethical. If you're working on base in the US fixing planes or working in a lab or something, its not quite the same issue.
 

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
Hence the reasons that don't ask don't tell was created in the first place. It was to avoid problems like this and to protect the gay members. Let's face it, there are a lot of homophobic members in the military, it's wrong, but I guarantee you that the gay members will be treated poorly by other members who are uncomfortable around them. It's human nature, it's wrong, but it WILL happen. Another reason that don't ask don't tell should not be repealed is the relationship aspect. Part of the reason that men and women are not allowed to co-habitate when we get deployed is that the military doesn't want you to have romantic relationships with other members when deployed. If my wife were getting shot at, I would put myself in danger to protect her, no matter how capable she is (she's a way better shot than me...shhh).

Before I get flamed for this, let me say that I am not in anyway anti gay, my father in law is gay and I have two other gay friends. I have told them all the exact same thing. Don't ask don't tell was put in place to protect gay and straight members alike.

I've never heard that it was enacted to protect homosexuals. Seems like a powerful distraction from the real issues.

Edit: I should revise that to say, I've heard people claim it protects homosexuals. I've never heard that as the impetus for its introduction as a policy.
 
Last edited:

darkstar

Member
"butthurt"??? So if a person argues a faulty point of yours they are "butthurt"? I wasn't taking anything sexist or anything, it's just that your points were a bit on the absurd side and I was trying to point that out. Your points weren't offensive, just misinformed. Your "butthurt" comment is, though, a bit offensive. If that's what you were shooting for, you've got it. If you were shooting for looking like an *** enough that no one would want to bother with debating with you anymore, you have that as well. At least from me. Out.

I was giving a preemptive disclaimer. If you are offended by a term such as that I'm sorry but its a little overly sensitive considering everyone attacks various things including people's intelligence on a regular basis with terms much worse than butthurt.

Either way, I hope to have cleared up some of this misconceptions. As I said, I'm not trying to or have any intention of debating the point, whether you wanted to or not. I made a statement to respond to one person's concerns and that's it.
I have been respectful in all arguments presented by me, or at least I am fairly certain of that.
It did seem to be implied by your questioning of me attributing pregnancy to damage, that you were going down the path of me being accused of being sexist which is far from the case.
It was not a personal attack in the least. If you are offended I am, as I said, sorry. But I do also restate that all things considered, it is a little oversensitive since I never named you specifically. It was a general statement and disclaimer in general that you and personal experience on how things explode on this forum go.

Think what you want, makes no difference to me. But I am not planning on being the bad guy or attacking anyone at all.
 

turk179

I smell something....
Also understand that these examples for reasons are explanations I have heard or assume. So if you plan on trying to make me out to be sexist or something, don't waste your time. It's a dead wrong assumption and you're reading too much into things or allowing yourself to see correlations between words where there are none, and none meant.

I only brought up pregnancy as something that would be a direct consequence of sex between a male and female soldier that would rather be avoided if both could see combat.

Either way my original point still stands that the military frowns on relations between soldiers while on base. It still happens of course but they don't condone such.

Therefore their stance on homosexuals being banked together should and probably will be the same as a man and woman together for the same reasoning. This was a response to a specific question posed by Kathryn and served its purpose. People reading too much into other aspects or trying to imply me meaning anything derogatory is purely imagined or misunderstood.
I will not be debating this further, if anyone remains butthurt after this disclaimer then the fault lies with you.
Unless the U.C.M.J. has been updated since I was in, your point stands in regards to homosexuals being bunked together due to article 125. But your point does not stand in regards to relations between men and women. There really are no articles or paragraphs that "frown upon" men and women relationships in service. I can understand you not wanting to debate this topic any further because we are going slightly off topic anyways.
 

darkstar

Member
Unless the U.C.M.J. has been updated since I was in, your point stands in regards to homosexuals being bunked together due to article 125. But your point does not stand in regards to relations between men and women. There really are no articles or paragraphs that "frown upon" men and women relationships in service. I can understand you not wanting to debate this topic any further because we are going slightly off topic anyways.

It's more of the off topic. Either way, whether an actual rule or not they generally don't ask, though its not really a supported action. I haven't seen anyone actually punished unless they were an officer. However I HAVE seen people reassigned to different bunkmates.

Either way the original point was that I believe the military will handle homosexuals being banked together in the same way they handle males and females banked together. Obviously this depends on branch as well as other factors that I honestly don't know. Then again small details are usually not something I'm overly concerned with and as I said before are largely based on HEARSAY AND ASSUMPTION as well as personal observations.
 

darkstar

Member
Which cases? Are there enough cases to warrant a policy similar to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for heterosexuals for their protection in combat?

This is personal experience and has nothing to do with the military at all. If I'm in a fight to defend myself I act in a logical and calm manner.
If I'm protecting my wife I'm more likely to throw concern for myself out the window and can make mistakes.

Therefore I agree that fighting harder when defending a lover in combat would be obvious, but that you may be likely to put yourself in more danger while thinking of them that's all. But that was completely off topic and has nothing to do with legislation.
 

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
This is personal experience and has nothing to do with the military at all. If I'm in a fight to defend myself I act in a logical and calm manner.
If I'm protecting my wife I'm more likely to throw concern for myself out the window and can make mistakes.

Therefore I agree that fighting harder when defending a lover in combat would be obvious, but that you may be likely to put yourself in more danger while thinking of them that's all. But that was completely off topic and has nothing to do with legislation.

Ah, okay. I had wondered if that was used as a step in reasoning to support DADT.
 

IsmailaGodHasHeard

Well-Known Member
Alexander the Great was bisexual and he was a kick *** warrior. People who support DADT are ignorant. I am ashamed to say that I used to support DADT. People helped me see the truth that GLBT soldiers were outed against their will. That is a violation of the right to privacy for a GLBT person of any profession to be outed against their will. I love all of the troops who have fought for my Constitutional rights.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
The thing that amazes me when it comes to the transgender part of LGBT is that the army seems more focused on giving them rights then giving them adequate health care. Our culture has officially lost it's mind when they can't see that someone who's living as a transgender needs serious psychiatric help.
 

IsmailaGodHasHeard

Well-Known Member
The thing that amazes me when it comes to the transgender part of LGBT is that the army seems more focused on giving them rights then giving them adequate health care. Our culture has officially lost it's mind when they can't see that someone who's living as a transgender needs serious psychiatric help.

I might agree with you, but I know that gays and bisexuals have the right to serve openly.
 
Oneatatime - I don't see that as reality at all. The repeal of DADT is a step in a positive direction for gays in the military. You have to start somewhere, right?

Notice that I have not one time stated or implied that DADT should have remained in place, or that gays in the military should be subjected to any sort of discrimination, or that discrimination should be accepted, tolerated, or encouraged. That's because I don't believe any of these options are acceptable.

I am all for people being able to be who they are without having to suffer discimination so please don't think that I believe that homosexuals should just keep quiet about ther sexuality. I only meant to point out that those who are open about thier sexuality will likely suffer discrimination.

Homosexuals are screwed whatever they do which is a terrible shame. I just don't understand why people can't just accept other people for who they are but for the moment this is just the they way things are I guess.

Hopefully this change will result in the eventual acceptance of open sexuality (That is if they wish to make their sexuality known) in the armed forces as it has elsewhere.
 
Top