Don't Ask - Don't Tell is Repealed

[TheKnight]

Whether the "Desire" to have sex and a relationship with the same or opposite sex is innate or a learned behavior, there is obviously a "Choice" whether to have a sexual relationship at all. "There are a lot of celibate people in the world. I actually know quite a few. Not all priests. Some in their 20's, some in their 50/60's. Some are still virgins, some have had sex in the past, and have chosen that is not important to them. "Obviously they are all single". It's not like there's a condition internally that if you don't have a sexual relationship with another person, that you'll explode. "Although some of us think we might".

Point is; and I'm actually glad that the whole "Born/Not Born gay" topic was brought up; that each of us still have choices. We aren't forced to say, act, react, or behave a certain way. Whether gay or straight, we all "Choose" whether to have sexual/physical relationships. We all "Choose" whether we speak openly about it among friends, strangers, family, or co-workers. We all "Choose" to what level we allow others to influence our reactions. There are so many topics of behavior in life that we "Choose" to engage in or speak about. This is simply another topic. Not saying that if a person is gay or straight, that they shouldn't engage in sexual/physical relationships with other people.

Not saying that people shouldn't talk openly about their desires and experiences. Simply that we "CHOOSE" whether we engage and speak about such activities. While I am very passionate about certain topics and activities in my life, I choose not to discuss or participate all of them with everyone. There are certain topics and activities that I don't share with my wife. Others that I don't share with my parents. Others I don't share with my co-workers or friends. Maybe because some of these people aren't into the same things I'm into. Maybe because some of these people would be offended by such topics or activities. I don't discuss religion with some people. I don't discuss politics with some people. I don't discuss sex with some people. And no, there isn't a difference between being gay and talking about it and being a hunter, conservative, catholic, straight, etc... and speaking about those topics. For every topic or behavior on the planet, there WILL be someone that will be offended by that activity or even discussing it. Whether it's a member of PETA around a bunch of hunters, or an extremely left wing liberal surrounded by a group of staunch conservative.

We choose what we say, to whom, at what settings, as well as which activities we engage in around certain people. This topic is no different. If a person wants to parade around and proudly proclaim they are gay or straight, they WILL eventually offend someone. And then, they will be addressed by the situation. Just like a person who wants to proclaim their religious or political beliefs. If they don't "Choose" to monitor their speech and activities, they will eventually offend someone. The difference is; and I eluded to it in a previous post; there are some people who are allowed to express their beliefs and activities, and it doesn't matter if they offend anyone. Those who are offended, are expected to be tolerant and "Suck it up". But if they were to express their beliefs on certain subjects, and it offends certain groups of people, they will be expected to limit their freedom of expression. We all know this double standard exists unfortunately. Anyway; if people would simply be a little considerate of others around them, and not be so selfish about "Their Rights", then we can "Choose" more properly our speech and activities, and who we say and do them around. And when someone says or does something that does offend us; we won't have such thin skin, we'll put it into perspective, and we won't let it bother us.

I agree with every word in this post.

 

[Roy_Mustang]

Christcorp I do agree with you, my issue comes mainly with those who cannot separate the desire from actively living the lifestyle (as if there were only one, but then again that discussion would merit its own thread). Too often I have seen people react as if they are one and the same. I've seen people lose so-called "best friends" because they trusted those friends enough to come out to them, even if they had no intention of pursuing that desire (for whatever reason).

Maybe I misread Sam's meaning in his post, and for that I apologize if that is the case. But given the general tenor of this thread, it was a bit of a tossup.

 

[Maximus]

=TheKnight;152544]I understand what you're saying. However DADT didn't really allow gays to serve. It allowed them to not be denied from service right away. It was a compromise to go from "You can't serve" to "If you can keep us from knowing then we don't care."

My interpretation was: it allowed anyone to serve, that served in a professional manor. It was intended to: keep your personal affairs out of the military work place. It did have inherent problems but, it was a step forward, the next step was America's and that political football was dropped. We're back to making the military bear the burden of a social issue. Not fair to those in harms way because, while the military is a microcosm of America, it's only a fraction of a fraction of Americans that can't complain or vote.

I interpret "snap on" as friendly fire.
As a future MP (hopefully) I find it absolutely abhorrent that any service member would willing fire upon his comrades. In fact, I hold such strong views on it that I see it as treason against the United States. Such a person, who would betray his country and his unit by murdering a fellow service member does not deserve to be in the service in the first place. Chances are that such a person has a psychological problem and is definitely not the norm.

I never meant "snap on" to mean "friendly fire" on another Marine. That's why my hypothetical stated "argue" and that the "homophobe" stood up and was killed by the fire fight, not friendly fire, sorry for the confusion.

I have not been in combat, so I don't know. But I worked in law enforcement for 3 years. I was once in a shooting with one of my partners. During that situation while I was helping coordinate radio traffic, it didn't occur to me that my partner might be gay. In fact, I've never heard of anyone in a life or death situation stop to argue anything let alone sexuality.

I was in the peace time Marine Corps in the late '70's early '80's, and never in a war zone. I have no combat experience, so I can't comment on that scenario.
I did however serve with a Marine that was gay, but he kept it to himself. That's my first hand knowledge in this discussion. Remember, at that time, he would have been booted out in a heartbeat and by allowing me to know, it was a great risk. He was a good guy and did his job, I minded my own business and had zero problems with his lifestyle, it didn't effect me. I really didn't understand why he was Gay but again, he did his job, I did mine.

Understood. And I'm fine with the fact that he disagrees or even if he is reporting what Marines have told him. Our very own General Casey stated that he doesn't think we should implement repeal at this time.

The difference is that Gen. Casey did not say that soldiers will die because of it. He didn't say "Down at Keller, there are injured soldiers. I don't want to have to go visit soldiers that were injured because of this distraction. I don't want soldiers dying because of this distraction."

I'm fine with Amos disagreeing, even publicly. My disagreement is with the actual content of his statement, not the fact that he made it. It is simply wrong to say that people will die because of this "distraction." I honestly do believe that to say such insults our military and does not present a clear and accurate picture of how troops on the ground feel.

What I believe we have here is: a top General being conveniently taken out of context, then crucified for daring to say he didn't think that now was the time to change DADT. Please remember the people quoting him, they used phrases like "John Wayne" and "images of WW II Cowboy" for cripes sake, they had huge axes to grind....and found pay dirt in a honorable and honest man, what they perceive/stereotype as the "quintessential homophobe"! This was by design!
The words "Marines will die if Gays are allowed to serve openly" never came out of his mouth. He said distract and distractions could cause a casualty. He's 100% right, there is no wiggle room in that statement. He clearly stated that he didn't know exactly how it would distract, but that his Marines thought in might distract after reading the polls. The hospital comment was totally out of context and I'm sure some reporter was pushing the issue. Amos has stated that, in the end, he would follow law after it either passed, or failed; that's the bottom line.

Great conversation Knight, you really are an extraordinary kid, I know you've got a great career ahead of you

 

[TheKnight]

My interpretation was: it allowed anyone to serve, that served in a professional manor. It was intended to: keep your personal affairs out of the military work place. It did have inherent problems but, it was a step forward, the next step was America's and that political football was dropped. We're back to making the military bear the burden of a social issue. Not fair to those in harms way because, while the military is a microcosm of America, it's only a fraction of a fraction of Americans that can't complain or vote.

Actually, military service personnel can complain and vote. They just have to do so differently.

And I don't believe that it's "making the military bear the burden of social issue."

Sure, it may be a key factor in future battles over gay rights, but it is (in and of itself) an issue.

I never meant "snap on" to mean "friendly fire" on another Marine. That's why my hypothetical stated "argue" and that the "homophobe" stood up and was killed by the fire fight, not friendly fire, sorry for the confusion.

Indeed. I figured you hadn't meant friendly fire but posted what I did in case you did mean friendly fire.

Either way, who the hell gets into such a heated argument over something as insignificant as sexuality (or anything) during a firefight? And then loses his bearing and compromises his position which results in his death?

I'm sorry, but I don't think such a person exists. And if they do they are, hopefully, nowhere near any combat operations.

I was in the peace time Marine Corps in the late '70's early '80's, and never in a war zone. I have no combat experience, so I can't comment on that scenario.
I did however serve with a Marine that was gay, but he kept it to himself. That's my first hand knowledge in this discussion. Remember, at that time, he would have been booted out in a heartbeat and by allowing me to know, it was a great risk. He was a good guy and did his job, I minded my own business and had zero problems with his lifestyle, it didn't effect me. I really didn't understand why he was Gay but again, he did his job, I did mine.

Ask yourself why you're straight and I think you'll find the answer.

What I believe we have here is: a top General being conveniently taken out of context, then crucified for daring to say he didn't think that now was the time to change DADT.

He didn't say that. He said Marines will die over it, and he doesn't want his Marines dying.

All I'm saying is they won't.

Please remember the people quoting him, they used phrases like "John Wayne" and "images of WW II Cowboy" for cripes sake, they had huge axes to grind....and found pay dirt in a honorable and honest man, what they perceive/stereotype as the "quintessential homophobe"! This was by design!
The words "Marines will die if Gays are allowed to serve openly" never came out of his mouth. He said distract and distractions could cause a casualty. He's 100% right, there is no wiggle room in that statement. He clearly stated that he didn't know exactly how it would distract, but that his Marines thought in might distract after reading the polls. The hospital comment was totally out of context and I'm sure some reporter was pushing the issue. Amos has stated that, in the end, he would follow law after it either passed, or failed; that's the bottom line.

Great conversation Knight, you really are an extraordinary kid, I know you've got a great career ahead of you

Eh tomayto tomahto. I've read his comments from various sources and to be honest it didn't sound like a coherent thought out statement. It sounded more like an emotional statement off the top of his head.

Granted, that could be due to the people who reported it.

Either way, he did say that he would follow suit and that I respect. I'm sure that his worries, about distractions, will not adversely affect the most disciplined fighting force (the Marines) on planet Earth.

 

[SamAca10]

I think that no matter what are beliefs, view points, or perspectives are on this topic all of us know one certainty: The military will get through this, and we'll all be alright. As a professional force fighting for the defense of our nation, our abilities to be Officers will depend on it.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Bruno -- I think there is a distinction between having such strong personal objections about someone that it will interfere with you performing your job and disagreeing with someone's life choices but being able to put that aside in the work place and get along. Hence, I dont' buy the 'religious' argument at all.

Many religions object to homosexuality - true. But many also object to other 'lifestyles' and some people's cultures and upbringing result in them being uncomfortable among folks who are not like them.

Some fundamental religions teach that the husband is dominate over the wife in a relationship and wives should not work outside the home. Men ascribe to this believe may serve in the military but also need to realize they will be working among wives who have a career outside the home.
Some religions shun blood transfusions and medical care - people who practice this are free to serve but may not impart this believe on other soldiers preventing them from getting a blood transfusion or other medical care.
When the services were integrated, one big concern was the reactions of southern white males. They got over it.

We don't have to agree with every belief or every lifestyle aspect in order to get along with, work with, serve with or like or even love someone. Most people realize this and those who don't agree normally live rather secluded lives.
Hopefully some posts have given kids like flyboy some food for thought.

Sam - You hit the nail on the head. The military will adapt and will be alright.

 

[aglages]

Some religions shun blood transfusions and medical care - people who practice this are free to serve but may not impart this believe on other soldiers preventing them from getting a blood transfusion or other medical care.

What do you mean by "impart"? Discuss? Attempt to convince?

 

[Maximus]

Here is the full controversial statement:

"Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives,” he said on Tuesday, explaining how he came to his decision. “That’s the currency of this fight."

“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”

 

[temp]

My two quick pieces.

Being LGB is NOT a choice. Good lord, for those that believe this, I would choose to be straight in a heart beat. If I had the choice this instant, I would be heterosexual. That is not a switch I can control.

Second. I will not begin a religious argument per se, but here's what baffles me. The texts used primarily to discriminate against gays are in the Old Testament in Leviticus. Yet, people who violate the COMMANDMENTS are accepted just fine and are ok to serve with (Atheist [violates numero uno], Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. [violate number 2], non-churchgoers [number 4], KILL/MURDER [violates 6, everyone in the military hits this one!], jealousy, lying, and adultery...).

So, if people are going to cite Leviticus for why they can't serve with a LGB member, then why can they serve with atheists, non-christians, etc.?

That is an elephant in the room for me, had to address it.

 

[bruno]

Thread is closed. The thread is not going to go down a path that it clearly must go down in order for a response to be made to the previous post. This is not a forum for promulgating religious beliefs, nor is it a forum for posing religious questions to those who hold religious beliefs.
I might point out to all of you posting that the DADT law WAS REPEALED and the bill has been signed by the President - so further back and forth about this is simply argumentative at this point because this is now the Law that all service members will live with.