|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: Religious Right Goes Nuts Over Potential DADT Repeal |
 |
|
Gays will infect our army with AIDS, soldiers will dress up as members of the opposite gender and it will be impossible to prevent it, and straight soldiers will be raped. Also, Hitler was gay, and he discovered that homosexual soldiers are possessed of unlimited savagery and brutality. Of course this is in addition to the on-going rhetoric about gays causing earthquakes, gays being allowed to serve openly reducing unit cohesion, and other totally baseless claims.
I wonder how America will survive with only AIDs ravaged, constantly raped, cross-dressing, earthquake-inducing, savage Nazi stormtroopers to defend it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In a workplace mostly populated by macho redneck meatheads, why would any gay man want to tell anyone about his sexuality? That's just asking for a kicking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nuts Go Nuts Over Potential DADT Repeal would be a much more accurate and appropriate title to your thread given the links you've provided.
| Quote: |
| Of course this is in addition to the on-going rhetoric about gays causing earthquakes, gays being allowed to serve openly reducing unit cohesion, and other totally baseless claims. |
This concern at least has some merit (you're being quite a bit disingenuous by placing it next to the earthquakes quip), though it should be of no concern if the introduction of open homosexuality is treated similarly to the introduction of women by providing separate barracks when appropriate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| This concern at least has some merit (you're being quite a bit disingenuous by placing it next to the earthquakes quip), though it should be of no concern if the introduction of open homosexuality is treated similarly to the introduction of women by providing separate barracks when appropriate. |
I don't feel it has merit as phrased, because it's not the gays that could hypothetically reduce unit cohesion, it's the bigotry that would be reducing unit cohesion. That is how that statement should be framed: anti-homosexual bigots might reduce unit cohesion.
That said, I've seen as much proof that homosexuals serving openly would reduce unit cohesion to the point of causing missions to fail as I have that homosexuals cause earthquakes. Sure, many people in the military disagree with homosexuality. There are also no doubt people who look down on blacks, people who look down on women, people who look down on Muslims, people who look down on Jews, and so on and so on. None the less, there are people from all those categories in our armed forces, serving openly, and somehow we get by. There's no reason I've ever seen that says the results will be any different with gays.
I might not have much respect for soldiers as a group, but I don't think they're collectively irrational children who will let their dislike of another person get in the way of successfully accomplishing the tasks put before them, and the rare individual that does will be an object lesson when he gets slapped with a dishonorable discharge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Also, Hitler was gay, and he discovered that homosexual soldiers are possessed of unlimited savagery and brutality. |
Without even clicking on the link, I'm guessing that they're referring to Ernst Roehm's SA, who did indeed have a hefty contingent of homosexuals, and were reportedly quite brutal(though no more so than most Nazi groups, I'd imagine).
The funny thing is, though, these anti-gay propagandists are probably the kind of people who, before learning about the SA, would have insisted that homosexuals are all wiliting pantywaists who would run at the first sound of gunfire. But now, of course, they're all a bunch of war-crazed sadists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| In a workplace mostly populated by macho redneck meatheads, why would any gay man want to tell anyone about his sexuality? That's just asking for a kicking. |
Wow. There's so much outright ignorance in that post that it's mind-boggling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| cj1976 wrote: |
| In a workplace mostly populated by macho redneck meatheads, why would any gay man want to tell anyone about his sexuality? That's just asking for a kicking. |
Wow. There's so much outright ignorance in that post that it's mind-boggling. |
You think? Maybe I exaggerated the number of rednecks a bit, but still it can't be the most welcoming place for gays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why should gays even serve in the military until there's equal marriage rights and non-descrimination laws in every state. I find it kind of offensive that there's all this talk about repealing DADT now that they actually have trouble filling the ranks. They didn't have a problem discriminating against gays before but now that they need gays, DADT is suddenly a bad idea. Barack Obama wants to leave the gay marriage issue for the states to decide, leaving gay marriage to just stagnate across the nation, but he wants gays to serve in the military. Kind of a bad deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Why should gays even serve in the military until there's equal marriage rights and non-descrimination laws in every state. I find it kind of offensive that there's all this talk about repealing DADT now that they actually have trouble filling the ranks. They didn't have a problem discriminating against gays before but now that they need gays, DADT is suddenly a bad idea. Barack Obama wants to leave the gay marriage issue for the states to decide, leaving gay marriage to just stagnate across the nation, but he wants gays to serve in the military. Kind of a bad deal. |
Look pal, cannon fodder don't come easy these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Barack Obama wants to leave the gay marriage issue for the states to decide, leaving gay marriage to just stagnate across the nation, but he wants gays to serve in the military. Kind of a bad deal. |
In other words, Obama is doing nothing for homosexuals. "Allowing" homosexuals to serve openly in the military isn't exactly doing them a favor. Women have it extremely hard in the service, especially at infantry level, with enormous amounts of sexual harassment and even far too much rape.
While the openly gay may be safe from rape (from most soldiers), they will be many times fold harassed. You're not doing anyone any favors here.
You will have to scrap the entire chain of command to make this fly. Right now there is too much "silence" if you know what I mean, there's too much pressure from above "keeping the peace."
And the marriage thing... Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act means that it would take a Federal initiative to permit homosexual marriage. As it is, state's must reciprocate marriage licenses, compelling states to become outraged at other states and putting pressure on each other.
He's washing his hands of the matter and letting the children police themselves.
Obama does about as much for gays as he does African Americans.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Why should gays even serve in the military until there's equal marriage rights and non-descrimination laws in every state. I find it kind of offensive that there's all this talk about repealing DADT now that they actually have trouble filling the ranks. They didn't have a problem discriminating against gays before but now that they need gays, DADT is suddenly a bad idea. Barack Obama wants to leave the gay marriage issue for the states to decide, leaving gay marriage to just stagnate across the nation, but he wants gays to serve in the military. Kind of a bad deal. |
Oh relax. Everything in time. The gays will get equal treatment soon enough. These things take time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Why should gays even serve in the military until there's equal marriage rights and non-descrimination laws in every state. |
I don't necessarily think they should. But if they want to, they should be allowed to legally serve openly. Institutionalized discrimination is unacceptable.
I understand your feelings, but whether you personally feel inclined towards military service in the current environment or not, surely you don't think the government should be discriminating against homosexuals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before I respond to the specifics of your post, let me clarify my position. I don't think homosexuals should be treated unequally in any aspect of our society. I don't think they should be granted state-sponsored marriages, as I don't think anyone should be granted state-sponsored marriages. I think they should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, though they should be treated as separate genders in the same manner women are.
I only came into this thread only to state that worries about troop effectiveness (including unit cohesion) is the best and possibly only concern for a change in DADT policy (well, that and to point out the inappropriateness of the thread title). I don't agree with it, but I disagree that we should dismiss those who do as simply intolerant bigots.
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't feel it has merit as phrased, because it's not the gays that could hypothetically reduce unit cohesion, it's the bigotry that would be reducing unit cohesion. That is how that statement should be framed: anti-homosexual bigots might reduce unit cohesion. |
The gays are already there. The bigotry is already there. The only change will be the openness of homosexuality. Therefore, your quote "gays being allowed to serve openly [will reduce] unit cohesion" remains a viable statement.
| Quote: |
| That said, I've seen as much proof that homosexuals serving openly would reduce unit cohesion to the point of causing missions to fail as I have that homosexuals cause earthquakes. |
I would think, given that we know there exists a history of violence against homosexuals in the armed forces, problems undoubtedly will arise from a change in DADT policy. The severity of those problems, however, is unknown. I'm of the opinion that, if done properly, a policy change should result in very few serious issues, but it remains a valid concern.
| Quote: |
| Sure, many people in the military disagree with homosexuality. There are also no doubt people who look down on blacks, people who look down on women, people who look down on Muslims, people who look down on Jews, and so on and so on. None the less, there are people from all those categories in our armed forces, serving openly, and somehow we get by. |
We do get by... but not with violent outbursts against those individuals. Though I think they should be given the chouce, in this regard homosexuals are actually lucky to be able to hide their difference from their bigotted brothers-in-arms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't feel it has merit as phrased, because it's not the gays that could hypothetically reduce unit cohesion, it's the bigotry that would be reducing unit cohesion. That is how that statement should be framed: anti-homosexual bigots might reduce unit cohesion. |
The gays are already there. The bigotry is already there. The only change will be the openness of homosexuality. Therefore, your quote "gays being allowed to serve openly [will reduce] unit cohesion" remains a viable statement. |
It might be there in some vague, abstract sense, but it's remains passive and meaningless until it's given a target. Once it is given a target, it becomes the problem. Gays being openly gay doesn't actively affect anyone else, and thus can't be a problem in and of itself. Bigotry by its very nature does affect others, which is why I attribute the blame for any potential problem to it.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I would think, given that we know there exists a history of violence against homosexuals in the armed forces, problems undoubtedly will arise from a change in DADT policy. The severity of those problems, however, is unknown. I'm of the opinion that, if done properly, a policy change should result in very few serious issues, but it remains a valid concern. |
There exists a history of violence against blacks, women, Jews, and so on. None of these groups caused group cohesion to fail sufficiently to hinder our army's ability to achieve its goals. I don't see any reason to think the open inclusion of this minority will be any different. Yes, I'm sure there will be some problems on an individual level. No, I don't think it will be an issue for the army on the whole, and I've yet to see anyone prove otherwise.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| We do get by... but not with violent outbursts against those individuals. Though I think they should be given the chouce, in this regard homosexuals are actually lucky to be able to hide their difference from their bigotted brothers-in-arms. |
Well, they can continue to hide their orientation if they wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| In a workplace mostly populated by macho redneck meatheads, why would any gay man want to tell anyone about his sexuality? That's just asking for a kicking. |
Obviously you have never served your country and could not hold a soldier's jock. Just saying... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
