Military Discharged 770 Last Year for Being Gay

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-21 12:48pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote: I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.

how exactly does the fact you see it as a necessary evil make it not intolerance?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-21 12:50pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.

Would you also have argued against ending racial segregation in the US armed forces? That would be a logical extension of your arguments.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 12:50pm

The Kernel wrote: You probably would have seen Jim Crow laws as a necessary evil too 40 years ago, but that doesn't make them right, nor justified.

Oh yes let's bring in the racist issue as an attempt to make me look like a bad guy. Stay on topic....

Spare me. If openly gay men in the military found they had a problem with intollerence, they have many avenues open to them. They don't need you tossing them out in order to "protect" them.

Before or after they get the shit kicked out of them in a pillow party?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 12:53pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.
Would you also have argued against ending racial segregation in the US armed forces? That would be a logical extension of your arguments.

I think sexuality is a more sensitive issue than skin color for most people. Granted it is due to a misconception about gays but a lot of men don't like the idea of sleeping next to someone who has sex with other men. I find this silly but once again as I already covered the enlisted members aren't very intelligent most of the time.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 12:55pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote: I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.
how exactly does the fact you see it as a necessary evil make it not intolerance?

Is it intolerant to make women and men sleep in seperate quarters?

Before this goes any further I'd like to state that I would have no problem with openly gay people serving in our military. I just feel that our military hasn't matured enough for this to happen.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-21 12:55pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote: Oh yes let's bring in the racist issue as an attempt to make me look like a bad guy. Stay on topic....

Please tell me the moral difference between segregation based on race and segregation based on sexual orientation. Otherwise the analogy fits.

Before or after they get the shit kicked out of them in a pillow party?

Leap in logic and a Slippery Slope fallacy all in one. You are presuming that gays would have their lives in mortal danger being openly gay in the military without any evidence of widespread abuse of openly gay men in the armed services. Furthermore, even if it was true, this is NOT a morally defensible position. All it would indicate would be that discipline would need to have tighter enforcement and anyone who physically gay bashes would be held criminally liable.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-06-21 12:56pm

Personally I think that openly gay peoople should be allowed to serve, however, on their forms have them sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that they will not contact the media if harrassed, and that the military will deal with any incedents internally.

I dont know... could work.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 01:00pm

The Kernel wrote: Leap in logic and a Slippery Slope fallacy all in one. You are presuming that gays would have their lives in mortal danger being openly gay in the military without any evidence of widespread abuse of openly gay men in the armed services. Furthermore, even if it was true, this is NOT a morally defensible position. All it would indicate would be that discipline would need to have tighter enforcement and anyone who physically gay bashes would be held criminally liable.

I'm telling you that is the reason for the don't ask don't tell policy. I've read in this thread that the British allow openly gay people into the military and there haven't been any problems. Maybe it is time to allow it, but I still don't think OUR military has matured enough.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-21 01:00pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Personally I think that openly gay peoople should be allowed to serve, however, on their forms have them sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that they will not contact the media if harrassed, and that the military will deal with any incedents internally.

I dont know... could work.

The problem with that is what would keep the system honest? Without the media being a possible deterent to letting off gay bashers with a slap on the wrist, you run the risk of biasing the system one way or the other with no recourse for external scrutiny.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-21 01:00pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Personally I think that openly gay peoople should be allowed to serve, however, on their forms have them sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that they will not contact the media if harrassed, and that the military will deal with any incedents internally.

I dont know... could work.

Sounds like a green light for the barracks fag to get his ass kicked by homophobic thugs and the whole incident gets swept under the rug. I don't like the idea.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 01:01pm

Elfdart wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Personally I think that openly gay peoople should be allowed to serve, however, on their forms have them sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that they will not contact the media if harrassed, and that the military will deal with any incedents internally.

I dont know... could work.
Sounds like a green light for the barracks fag to get his ass kicked by homophobic thugs and the whole incident gets swept under the rug. I don't like the idea.

Hence the existence of the don't ask don't tell policy.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-21 01:03pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote: I'm telling you that is the reason for the don't ask don't tell policy. I've read in this thread that the British allow openly gay people into the military and there haven't been any problems. Maybe it is time to allow it, but I still don't think OUR military has matured enough.

And I'm telling you that their reasoning is just thinly disguised homophobia. If you choose to disagree with me, then I suggest you find a better way to defend the position of the armed services rather than to say it is for the saftey of the gays.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-21 01:08pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Unfortunately, it is not a load of shit. Yes, it is unfair. It is simply just easier to have the don't ask don't tell policy. In order to throw a soldier out for abuse that would require the abuse or worse to have already happened. This brings unwanted media attention to the military, which it does not need.

Maybe that's exactly what the military does need. If they think the best solution to the problem of potential abuse of gay soldiers is to not let gays serve in the military at all, they deserve the public scrutiny brought on them by the media.

The military prides itself on making good soldiers and good men. I've seen military schools turn little brat children into respectable young men. If the military can't control its soldiers, then it deserves some scrutiny.

As for discipline;

While I was in tech school we had many underage drinking incidents, fights, and DUIs. It was such a large problem that most of our weekends were spent in lockdown. It's an unfortunate fact that a majority of enlisted soldiers aren't very intelligent, and with lack of intelligence comes abundance of intolerance.

Then maybe the Army should stop worry about gays in the military and start worrying about morons in the military. This whole shit-pile seems utterly self-perpetuating, to me. The Army doesn't care if you're a homophobic bigot, and if you are, they'll accommodate you by keeping those damn faggots out of your Army.

I don't like the policy the military has but it isn't done with concern towards the well being of morale in the military, which would also be effected.

Again, a load of bullshit. That same argument could be made for Arabs in the military. The same argument could have been made back in the 60's for keeping black children out of public schools. How ironic that the organization which forcibly integrated the South can't forcibly integrate homosexuals in itself.

By kicking gays out of the military in order to allegedly protect them from abuse, the military is saying, "We're going to make special accommodations for the bigoted assholes that populate our ranks by forcibly removing anyone who might be an object of their ire so they don't do something stupid."

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-06-21 01:08pm

Elfdart wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Personally I think that openly gay peoople should be allowed to serve, however, on their forms have them sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that they will not contact the media if harrassed, and that the military will deal with any incedents internally.

I dont know... could work.
Sounds like a green light for the barracks fag to get his ass kicked by homophobic thugs and the whole incident gets swept under the rug. I don't like the idea.

what a nice characterizaion of the military, not all of them are homophobic thugs you know... I would bet money that the majority arent.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-21 01:18pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote: I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.
how exactly does the fact you see it as a necessary evil make it not intolerance?
Is it intolerant to make women and men sleep in seperate quarters?

false analogy dimwit. separting people into different sleeping quarters based on gender is not comparable to keeping someone from serving based upon sexual orientation. your post also didn't bother answering my question, which makes it an evasion as well.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 01:38pm

The Kernel wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote: I'm telling you that is the reason for the don't ask don't tell policy. I've read in this thread that the British allow openly gay people into the military and there haven't been any problems. Maybe it is time to allow it, but I still don't think OUR military has matured enough.
And I'm telling you that their reasoning is just thinly disguised homophobia. If you choose to disagree with me, then I suggest you find a better way to defend the position of the armed services rather than to say it is for the saftey of the gays.

What is your evidence to support that? They still do after all allow gays into the military. You just can't be open about it.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 01:47pm

Durandal wrote: Maybe that's exactly what the military does need. If they think the best solution to the problem of potential abuse of gay soldiers is to not let gays serve in the military at all, they deserve the public scrutiny brought on them by the media.

They do let gays serve in the military. Don't ask don't tell.

The military prides itself on making good soldiers and good men. I've seen military schools turn little brat children into respectable young men. If the military can't control its soldiers, then it deserves some scrutiny.

I agree here. Something needs to be done about those undisciplined soldiers.

Then maybe the Army should stop worry about gays in the military and start worrying about morons in the military. This whole shit-pile seems utterly self-perpetuating, to me. The Army doesn't care if you're a homophobic bigot, and if you are, they'll accommodate you by keeping those damn faggots out of your Army.

Just for accuracy, I serve in the Air Force. I also agree here, I remember a few specific individuals in tech school that I couldn't believe made it through basic without being recycled or discharged. It was amazing to me, actually. The level of shit that went on was unreal....it might have just been my squadron though, they were undermanned.

Again, a load of bullshit. That same argument could be made for Arabs in the military. The same argument could have been made back in the 60's for keeping black children out of public schools. How ironic that the organization which forcibly integrated the South can't forcibly integrate homosexuals in itself.

By kicking gays out of the military in order to allegedly protect them from abuse, the military is saying, "We're going to make special accommodations for the bigoted assholes that populate our ranks by forcibly removing anyone who might be an object of their ire so they don't do something stupid."

That's pretty much what they're saying. As I said before the military wants to avoid any negative media coverage. Having a young gay male die because he was beat to death would be a very bad thing and it would require the drill sgts or TIs, whatever, to remain in the barracks or dorms for the entire time they are training the new recruits.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-21 01:49pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:what a nice characterizaion of the military, not all of them are homophobic thugs you know... I would bet money that the majority arent.

And he wasn't implying that they all were. He was saying that such a policy was a green light for abuse by those soldiers who are homophobic troglodytes.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:What is your evidence to support that? They still do after all allow gays into the military. You just can't be open about it.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in the last month. Once the military finds out these people are gay, they are discharged for being gay. How is this policy equivalent to allowing gays in the military? Just because they don't ask them when they sign up doesn't mean that they allow gays in the military. It means that they don't rigorously check the requirement that all servicemen be heterosexual when someone signs up. Please tell me you can see the difference without me having to use gender- or race-based analogies.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 01:52pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote: how exactly does the fact you see it as a necessary evil make it not intolerance?
Is it intolerant to make women and men sleep in seperate quarters?
false analogy dimwit. separting people into different sleeping quarters based on gender is not comparable to keeping someone from serving based upon sexual orientation. your post also didn't bother answering my question, which makes it an evasion as well.

I disagree, gender and sexual orientation have a lot in common. We're talking about keeping someone from serving who openly talks about being gay. Gays can serve, just can't talk about it.

I guess a necessary evil would be a form of intolerance simply because it is an evil, if you will.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-21 01:52pm

Durandal wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:What is your evidence to support that? They still do after all allow gays into the military. You just can't be open about it.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard in the last month. Once the military finds out these people are gay, they are discharged for being gay. How is this policy equivalent to allowing gays in the military? Just because they don't ask them when they sign up doesn't mean that they allow gays in the military. It means that they don't rigorously check the requirement that all servicemen be heterosexual when someone signs up. Please tell me you can see the difference without me having to use gender- or race-based analogies.

Damn, you beat me to it.

I'd also offer the analogy of religious intollerance. If a company allows any person of any religious persuasion to work for them as long as they don't admit to being, say, Muslim is this okay? What if they fire people who choose to be openly Muslim because they are afraid it will cause tension among other employees? Do they have a leg to stand on here?

Whether you like it or not, the above analogy is identical to the gays in the military issue.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-21 01:55pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:They do let gays serve in the military. Don't ask don't tell.

See my previous post. Discharging gays for being gay is not indicative of allowing gays in the military to any rational person.

I agree here. Something needs to be done about those undisciplined soldiers.

Yeah, how about, for starters, kicking them the fuck out instead of kicking gay soldiers out?

Just for accuracy, I serve in the Air Force. I also agree here, I remember a few specific individuals in tech school that I couldn't believe made it through basic without being recycled or discharged. It was amazing to me, actually. The level of shit that went on was unreal....it might have just been my squadron though, they were undermanned.

Then the military deserves media scrutiny. I don't give a shit if you think media attention "isn't what the military needs." This kind of bullshit conduct is totally unacceptable, especially in an organization which prides itself on discipline and a solid hierarchy.

That's pretty much what they're saying. As I said before the military wants to avoid any negative media coverage. Having a young gay male die because he was beat to death would be a very bad thing and it would require the drill sgts or TIs, whatever, to remain in the barracks or dorms for the entire time they are training the new recruits.

No, what it would require is more rigorous screening of recruits, and automatic dishonorable discharges for such abuses wouldn't hurt, either. The military can either wait for a gay male to be beat to death (which will happen eventually because of that idiotic "don't ask, don't tell" policy) or be proactive about it. If they want to ignore the problem and hope it goes away, fine. But they'll have no one but themselves to blame when the shit hits the fan.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 01:56pm

Durandal wrote:
That's the stupidest thing I've heard in the last month. Once the military finds out these people are gay, they are discharged for being gay. How is this policy equivalent to allowing gays in the military? Just because they don't ask them when they sign up doesn't mean that they allow gays in the military. It means that they don't rigorously check the requirement that all servicemen be heterosexual when someone signs up. Please tell me you can see the difference without me having to use gender- or race-based analogies.

The way it was explained to us is that they are discharged for being openly gay.

I agree it does seem pretty stupid. However, I'm just explaining it to you how it was explained to me.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-21 01:59pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote: Is it intolerant to make women and men sleep in seperate quarters?
false analogy dimwit. separting people into different sleeping quarters based on gender is not comparable to keeping someone from serving based upon sexual orientation. your post also didn't bother answering my question, which makes it an evasion as well.
I disagree, gender and sexual orientation have a lot in common. We're talking about keeping someone from serving who openly talks about being gay.

you apparently completely fail to realize that keeping someone from serving based on what they do in their personal life is not the same thing as separating sleeping quarters based on practical reasons. see durandel's reply about the don't ask don't tell policy for something better phrased than what i could say.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-21 02:05pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:The way it was explained to us is that they are discharged for being openly gay.

I agree it does seem pretty stupid. However, I'm just explaining it to you how it was explained to me.

No, you're endorsing the policy (in the name of protecting homosexuals) and saying that there's an appreciable difference between being gay and being "openly gay." How do you be openly gay? Just by telling someone that you're gay? So people are being booted out of the service for the horrible, horrible crime of disseminating personal information about themselves if someone asks them? Oh HORRORS! We've gotta get rid of them right fucking now! We wouldn't want our good, god-fearing, heterosexual soldiers to get in trouble by savagely abusing one of those fucking faggots, now would we?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-21 02:22pm

A lot of a good points have been raised in this discussion. After doing some research I've found that I can't reasonably defend my position without grasping at straws, which I've probably already done.

Therefore, I concede.

Besides, I wouldn't even care. Hopefully we can look forward to co-ed showers next!

(jk)