Don't ask Don't tell

[DragonMage]

LOL @ Saz and his "education" into the world of Daisy Dukes. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Also, since I don't think I've seen much in the way of women responding much to this topic (though I have to admit I haven't read every reply yet), I agree that homosexuals AND women should not be allowed in combat situations for several of the reasons pointed out here.

I know myself, because of the way I was raised by a military man, would be an excellent front line soldier. But what of the confidence in me from my fellow soldiers? Will they trust me? And how would I feel knowing that, as has been pointed out already, others might ignore their miltary training and die trying to 'protect' me by reverting back to their instincts? I KNOW what kind of a distraction I have been in the past to men just in general, therefore I also KNOW what a distraction a female would be in combat. Just because I know I can do the job doesn't mean others would be so confident or even 'allow' me to defend myself.

But I don't believe the men in this article were to be combat soldiers, were they? Interpreters to be sure...kind of a Communications issue. And even one alone working subversively behind enemy lines trying to blend in, should be successful enough. It would only be said 'possible' sexual tensions by other squad/platoon members if they KNOW their mate is homosexual that could cause problems. That and the concern I've heard voiced by people I know that homosexual males (and women) are considered too 'flighty' for high pressure situations. I'm not too sure if I completely agree with that. There are always exceptions. Even hard core trained combat troops can lose it in the heat of battle - especially the first time out with 'real' bullets being shot at them.

I'm reminded of the female (naval?) pilot who was trying to prove herself and ended up ditching her jet in the ocean and dying. I, for one, will admit my limitations. As much as I always wanted to fly jets, even if I'd had perfect eyesight, I don't think I'd have had the stamina to keep up with the men. Many things I can do just as well as a man. Many things, too, I can do better. But unless someone attacks us here at home, I'll leave the fighting to the men and I'd feel better knowing they did so without adding uncertainty in respects to the reliability of their team to the pressure they are already under. Anything else: communications, strategy, etc. fine. [img]smile.gif[/img] Just not combat.

[Sir Taliesin]

It seems that a lot of people here seem to think that being in the military is comparible to a regular 9-5 job. It's not. When you are in the military your on the job 24-7. There is no such thing as an 8 hour work day. You are with your squad/section all the time. You eat, sleep, poop, piss, work and take a break together. Think about that when you wish to throw sex into the mix. Doesn't matter if its gay/lesbian or straight. It's not conducive to good military bearing or discipline.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: It seems that a lot of people here seem to think that being in the military is comparible to a regular 9-5 job. It's not. When you are in the military your on the job 24-7. There is no such thing as an 8 hour work day. You are with your squad/section all the time. You eat, sleep, poop, piss, work and take a break together. Think about that when you wish to throw sex into the mix. Doesn't matter if its gay/lesbian or straight. It's not conducive to good military bearing or discipline.

A very fine point. If a soldier doesn't have the correct military bearing or discipline to behave a certain way while serving, they will get weeded out.

You get removed from the military simply for being gay, not any particular event or behavior. Not for lack of discipline or misdirection.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: First, for some of us (me, at least) there is an agreement with the don't ask/ don't tell policy with absolutely no fear whatsoever of homosexuality. Second, though, what is it about being "gay" that makes it protectible, like the skin color, gender, and religion you list. What is it the later list has in common that makes "gay" not fit the list. Inalienable characteristics? Historical discrimination? What is it about physically desiring the same sex that places on the pedestal reserved for race, gender, and religion? I'm not being argumentative here, I just want to point out that if you're going to protect a class of people you need to justify why. The Supreme Court has a test for what constitutes a "protected class" but I don't have it right now, and some on-line (non-Westlaw) searches have not turned up a good concise statement of it - though I did happen to encounter a gay porn site that won't close no matter what. I'll look for this test and perhaps post more on it later, but the rest of my morning is busy. Third, do transexuals get the same protection? What about transvestites? What about pedophiles? Sado-masochists? Is it a lifestyle that's protected or the act of sodomy? Note that sodomy - no matter the gender performing or receiving - is still illegal in nearly half the states. And, the Supreme Court upheld this regarding Georgia in Bowers v. Hardwick (yes, that's really the name of the case ). Anyway, just some thoughts. If you're going to protect it, define why, define what you're protecting, and draw the limits so as not to open any floodgates as to other things you're not anticipating.

Well, It would be unfortunate if the courts were left to decide if homosexuality is something you are born with like race or culture. Or a way of living that is personal that you chose, like religion. I have yet to meet a homosexual who believed the latter, So I bet it would fall into a class like race as far as civil rights legislation goes, but I am FAR from an expert.

I do know what is right and wrong in my own mind and heart, and any sort of prejudice is clearly wrong. The real can of worms was opened when we started giving people freedom as well as rights.

[ 11-19-2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]