Is anyone surprised that soldiers at Bragg were reluctant express support of DA/DT?

If they wanted truthful responses it should have been done anonymously.

"http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/10/18/942982"

Quote from article:
__________________________________________________________

Sgt. 1st Class Brandon Johnson, who said he works with U.S. Army Special Operations Command, said he does not want the policy to end and does not want to know if he has gay comrades.

"I would not want to know," he said. "I think it would be a distraction if you did know."

A group of three female soldiers, a sergeant and two specialists, all said they knew lesbians in the Army and had no problem working alongside them. But they said they feared for gay male soldiers if they are allowed to serve openly.

"For females it's OK if there's gay people around, but guys look at it very differently," said one of the specialists, who gave her age as 26.

The soldiers said stories of assaults on reputedly gay male soldiers for their sexuality are common and that allowing them to serve openly would make it worse.

"There'd be a lot more deaths in the military," one said.

There was also some indifference.

"As long as they don't hit on me, I don't care," said one young private who did not want to be named.

The soldiers who were interviewed said they would abide by any policy changes if the president gets them passed.

"Whatever he decides is what we'll follow," said a soldier with close cropped gray hair outside the Airborne One military supply store on Yadkin Road. "That's called discipline."

That was a common response.

"It's his choice," said another soldier who would not be named. "He's our boss."
__________________________________________________________


Normal responses;

1. I don't want to know who's gay.

2. Attacks on gay soldiers will increase with more gays being killed.

3. As long as they don't hit on me, I don't care.

4. I'll abide by any policy changes.

I think #4 gives us a good example of how our military folks can get the job done, regardless of personal opinions about homosexuals being in the ranks.

Notice how everyone is afraid of how others may treat gay soldiers, but personally has no problem with them?

Hmmm. Perhaps perception is not reality here. If the military took away the sanctioned, institutionalized homophobia/mistreatment of homosexuals as a matter of policy, maybe the acceptance of homosexuals would actually increase. Maybe this mythical dislike of gays is a self-perpetuating thing. Soldiers don't like gays because military policy tells them they shouldn't.

Just a thought - one backed up by the experiences of every member of NATO save one.

The military as an institution is unique in the regard that policy informs culture; whereas, in the rest of the country, the inverse is usually true.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Notice how everyone is afraid of how others may treat gay soldiers, but personally has no problem with them?

Hmmm. Perhaps perception is not reality here. If the military took away the sanctioned, institutionalized homophobia/mistreatment of homosexuals as a matter of policy, maybe the acceptance of homosexuals would actually increase. Maybe this mythical dislike of gays is a self-perpetuating thing. Soldiers don't like gays because military policy tells them they shouldn't.

Just a thought - one backed up by the experiences of every member of NATO save one.

The military as an institution is unique in the regard that policy informs culture; whereas, in the rest of the country, the inverse is usually true.

Could it be that....Obama is ONE of them?

Way to miss the point yet again, ICorps.

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Notice how everyone is afraid of how others may treat gay soldiers, but personally has no problem with them?

Hmmm. Perhaps perception is not reality here. If the military took away the sanctioned, institutionalized homophobia/mistreatment of homosexuals as a matter of policy, maybe the acceptance of homosexuals would actually increase. Maybe this mythical dislike of gays is a self-perpetuating thing. Soldiers don't like gays because military policy tells them they shouldn't.

Just a thought - one backed up by the experiences of every member of NATO save one.

The military as an institution is unique in the regard that policy informs culture; whereas, in the rest of the country, the inverse is usually true.

Could it be that....Obama is ONE of them?

Kathy, why is it, do you think, that some people tend to label as gay, those who support gay rights? Supporting gay rights is really a lot broader than just that. Supporting gay rights is supporting human rights as well. All right thinking people, be they gay or straight support the human rights of all people.

That being said let's look at the people who label gay supporters as gay. One tends to wonder about their sexual orientation. Could it be that some of those be people are they themselves gay and not able to live with it? Perhaps they feel the need to defend their straight persona. Since we're all military experts here, we all know that the best defense is a good strong offense. Perhaps, also, those same people who label others as gay are doing so to turn attention away from themselves.

Vicdude: I agree with your statement about all 'right thinking people.' The issue for discussion ought NOT to be 'gay' rights, but rather 'human rights.' I don't believe in gay rights, straight rights, black rights, white rights, women's rights or men's rights; I believe in human rights and, I might add....that includes the rights of the human unborn. I could only speculate as to why "some people tend." Folks in MY circle of likeminded types include gays who don't support gay rights for the same reasons I don't. We tend NOT to separate ourselves from the majority population that is not gay/lesbian. Instead, we argue for inclusion and maintain that we ALREADY enjoy ALL the same rights that others do.

IF....you genuinely believe in human rights for ALL....then you'd be better to join the banner of those who fight for the rights of the unborn, the truly oppressed among us!

quote:

we argue for inclusion and maintain that we ALREADY enjoy ALL the same rights that others do.

That is clearly NOT a true statement. Gays can be fired simply on the basis of their sexual orientation; heterosexuals cannot be fired because they're straight. Gays can be kicked out of their housing simply because they're gay; heterosexuals cannot be kicked out of their housing because they're straight.

And specifically to this forum and website: GAYS CAN BE KICKED OUT OF THE MILITARY if anybody knows they're gay; heterosexuals cannot be kicked out of the military simply because they're straight. And furthermore, gay members of the military cannot have consensual sexual relations with the person of their choice -- they're officially required to be celibate; heterosexuals in the military have no such constraints.

Given that list, your statement that gays "already enjoy ALL the same rights that others do" is laughably false.

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:
Vicdude: I agree with your statement about all 'right thinking people.' The issue for discussion ought NOT to be 'gay' rights, but rather 'human rights.' I don't believe in gay rights, straight rights, black rights, white rights, women's rights or men's rights; I believe in human rights and, I might add....that includes the rights of the human unborn. I could only speculate as to why "some people tend." Folks in MY circle of likeminded types include gays who don't support gay rights for the same reasons I don't. We tend NOT to separate ourselves from the majority population that is not gay/lesbian. Instead, we argue for inclusion and maintain that we ALREADY enjoy ALL the same rights that others do.

IF....you genuinely believe in human rights for ALL....then you'd be better to join the banner of those who fight for the rights of the unborn, the truly oppressed among us!

Hahahahahahahah...truly you crack me up ICorps...er...kathy! Homosexuals most certainly do NOT enjoy the SAME rights as heterosexuals. IF you were a homosexual, you'd understand that point! There is a HUGE difference in being allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender (that you could NEVER love), and being allowed to marry the person of the same gender that you DO love! Really, can you be that stupid?! I'd love to meet these "likeminded gays" who advocate that they should remain second class citizens! I certainly have serious doubts that they exist! Homosexuals can not serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals in the military. In some states, we can still be fired from our jobs, be evicted from our homes just for being homosexual, and this is just a partial list of the inequalities suffered by homosexuals in this country! Thank you for once again showing us all that you are NOT who you say you are...the evidence just keeps piling up!

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:
Vicdude: I agree with your statement about all 'right thinking people.' The issue for discussion ought NOT to be 'gay' rights, but rather 'human rights.' I don't believe in gay rights, straight rights, black rights, white rights, women's rights or men's rights; I believe in human rights and, I might add....that includes the rights of the human unborn. I could only speculate as to why "some people tend." Folks in MY circle of likeminded types include gays who don't support gay rights for the same reasons I don't. We tend NOT to separate ourselves from the majority population that is not gay/lesbian. Instead, we argue for inclusion and maintain that we ALREADY enjoy ALL the same rights that others do.

IF....you genuinely believe in human rights for ALL....then you'd be better to join the banner of those who fight for the rights of the unborn, the truly oppressed among us!

Kathy, I'm sorry but this is where we part ways. I adamantly support the woman's right to choice.

I, of course, agree that an ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure but never the less I see no reason for three lives being ruined because of a moment's lapse in judgment.

quote:

Originally posted by Vicdude:

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:
Vicdude: I agree with your statement about all 'right thinking people.' The issue for discussion ought NOT to be 'gay' rights, but rather 'human rights.' I don't believe in gay rights, straight rights, black rights, white rights, women's rights or men's rights; I believe in human rights and, I might add....that includes the rights of the human unborn. I could only speculate as to why "some people tend." Folks in MY circle of likeminded types include gays who don't support gay rights for the same reasons I don't. We tend NOT to separate ourselves from the majority population that is not gay/lesbian. Instead, we argue for inclusion and maintain that we ALREADY enjoy ALL the same rights that others do.

IF....you genuinely believe in human rights for ALL....then you'd be better to join the banner of those who fight for the rights of the unborn, the truly oppressed among us!

Kathy, I'm sorry but this is where we part ways. I adamantly support the woman's right to choice.

I, of course, agree that an ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure but never the less I see no reason for three lives being ruined because of a moment's lapse in judgment.

The issue of 'human rights' notwithstanding, I'm NOT in agreement with the assumption that the birth of a human being necessarily 'ruins' even one life, let alone three. But, we know for certain that an abortion certainly DOES 'ruin' at least one life, if not more.

But, if we carry your argument forward to application in the DADT debate....why not support the rights of those who prefer NOT to know the orientation(s) of homosexuals? Are we not presuming that it's OK to offend when we do so? In that vein, is DADT not the "ounce" in this equation? Why 'ruin' the lives of those who were otherwise content in NOT knowing?

And Kathy, would you say the same about someone's religion? Their hobbies? Their personal preferences for sexual activities? What they did the past weekend? etc. etc.

Remember, DADT is all about terminating a service members career if ANYONE finds out they're gay. And it was justified on the basis that such knowledge would destroy unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness. That fact that tens of thousands of straight service members already know gays IN THEIR OWN UNIT, and yet there is no demonstrable negative impact on operational readiness shows that the justification for DADT was and is false.

Repealing DADT simply allows ALL service men and women to serve under the same rules and regulations of conduct. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

quote:

Originally posted by dupontgaf:
And Kathy, would you say the same about someone's religion? Their hobbies? Their personal preferences for sexual activities? What they did the past weekend? etc. etc.

Remember, DADT is all about terminating a service members career if ANYONE finds out they're gay. And it was justified on the basis that such knowledge would destroy unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness. That fact that tens of thousands of straight service members already know gays IN THEIR OWN UNIT, and yet there is no demonstrable negative impact on operational readiness shows that the justification for DADT was and is false.

Repealing DADT simply allows ALL service men and women to serve under the same rules and regulations of conduct. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

How about simply modifying DADT instead of repealing it? Could it be that a few compromises just might work?

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:
How about simply modifying DADT instead of repealing it? Could it be that a few compromises just might work?

What modifications are you suggesting? DADT was, in itself, a compromise - what is the next step that is still short of full equality?

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by Vicdude:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 21194237:

The issue of 'human rights' notwithstanding, I'm NOT in agreement with the assumption that the birth of a human being necessarily 'ruins' even one life, let alone three. But, we know for certain that an abortion certainly DOES 'ruin' at least one life, if not more.

But, if we carry your argument forward to application in the DADT debate....why not support the rights of those who prefer NOT to know the orientation(s) of homosexuals? Are we not presuming that it's OK to offend when we do so? In that vein, is DADT not the "ounce" in this equation? Why 'ruin' the lives of those who were otherwise content in NOT knowing?

I guess my phrasing needs to be tightened up a bit. When I spoke of three lives being ruined I was referring to the parents of an unwanted child and the child it's self. Where is the good of two unwilling parents having an unwanted child? Who will suffer the most is the child. That said, I must say again that I support the woman's right of choice. No, I did not mention the man's right of choice because usually it's the woman who will bear the burden of the unwanted child. I'm not some heavy duty intellect or a real deep thinker so I'm not really equipped to get into any highbrow and, or religious discussions about when life begins. To my mind life begins at birth. Those nine months in the womb aren't reckoned into our age. All that leads to my simple though firm opinion that a woman should be able to choose if she wants to bear a child or not.

The repeal of DADT will not be a problem to those who would rather not know the sexual orientation of those around them. The repeal of DADT will not lead to hordes of G/L people running around telling whoever will listen, their sexual orientation. All the repeal of DADT will do is lift the burden of secrecy concerning their sexual orientation off their shoulders. And, hopefully it'll be a step toward allowing them to enjoy all the rights and privileges the rest of the population enjoys.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vicdude,

quote:

Originally posted by Vicdude:

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by Vicdude:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 21194237:

The issue of 'human rights' notwithstanding, I'm NOT in agreement with the assumption that the birth of a human being necessarily 'ruins' even one life, let alone three. But, we know for certain that an abortion certainly DOES 'ruin' at least one life, if not more.

But, if we carry your argument forward to application in the DADT debate....why not support the rights of those who prefer NOT to know the orientation(s) of homosexuals? Are we not presuming that it's OK to offend when we do so? In that vein, is DADT not the "ounce" in this equation? Why 'ruin' the lives of those who were otherwise content in NOT knowing?

I guess my phrasing needs to be tightened up a bit. When I spoke of three lives being ruined I was referring to the parents of an unwanted child and the child it's self. Where is the good of two unwilling parents having an unwanted child? Who will suffer the most is the child. That said, I must say again that I support the woman's right of choice. No, I did not mention the man's right of choice because usually it's the woman who will bear the burden of the unwanted child. I'm not some heavy duty intellect or a real deep thinker so I'm not really equipped to get into any highbrow and, or religious discussions about when life begins. To my mind life begins at birth. Those nine months in the womb aren't reckoned into our age. All that leads to my simple though firm opinion that a woman should be able to choose if she wants to bear a child or not.

The repeal of DADT will not be a problem to those who would rather not know the sexual orientation of those around them. The repeal of DADT will not lead to hordes of G/L people running around telling whoever will listen, their sexual orientation. All the repeal of DADT will do is lift the burden of secrecy concerning their sexual orientation off their shoulders. And, hopefully it'll be a step toward allowing them to enjoy all the rights and privileges the rest of the population enjoys.

'Spose all orphans 'suffered' or....all children born into families that 'wanted' them NEVER suffered? If the answer is NO, then how do we choose which ought to live? 'Spose all parents who didn't want children suffered? Or, that all who DID want children suffered not? In order to ensure that NO one 'suffers'....could the answer be to abort ALL pregnancies?

As long as we're peering into a crystal ball, how can you know that the repeal of DADT won't develop into a monumental 'problem?' DADT came about as a compromise regarding homosexuals serving in 1993 and has worked relatively well. With a few minor tweeks of the UCMJ regarding how violations are handled, DADT should continue to be a good compromise between those who'd disallow homosexuals to serve at all and others who aren't concerned.

quote:

how can you know that the repeal of DADT won't develop into a monumental 'problem?' DADT came about as a compromise regarding homosexuals serving in 1993 and has worked relatively well. With a few minor tweeks of the UCMJ regarding how violations are handled, DADT should continue to be a good compromise between those who'd disallow homosexuals to serve at all and others who aren't concerned.

No, it still punishes people for either lying or be honest and not necessarily for actions. It's an unjust law and should be removed completely.

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:

quote:

how can you know that the repeal of DADT won't develop into a monumental 'problem?' DADT came about as a compromise regarding homosexuals serving in 1993 and has worked relatively well. With a few minor tweeks of the UCMJ regarding how violations are handled, DADT should continue to be a good compromise between those who'd disallow homosexuals to serve at all and others who aren't concerned.

No, it still punishes people for either lying or be honest and not necessarily for actions. It's an unjust law and should be removed completely.

What "lies" MUST be told?

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:

quote:

how can you know that the repeal of DADT won't develop into a monumental 'problem?' DADT came about as a compromise regarding homosexuals serving in 1993 and has worked relatively well. With a few minor tweeks of the UCMJ regarding how violations are handled, DADT should continue to be a good compromise between those who'd disallow homosexuals to serve at all and others who aren't concerned.

No, it still punishes people for either lying or be honest and not necessarily for actions. It's an unjust law and should be removed completely.

What "lies" MUST be told?

About one's sexual interest, even if imagined.
This law punishes someone for even thinking 'gay'. It's not based on sexual actions, it's based on assumption, on imagined intent, even if the "intent" is not actualized.
Straights don't have to worry about talking about their sexual interests... if those interests are 'straight'. But gay people can't talk among their co-workers about their sex lives. And what pure-blooded American services person doesn't talk about their sex lives?
So, the law itself makes liars out of American service members because it's intent to keep to them quiet ... and why is that…. so everyone can pretend their straight? Why not try and keep every one's sexual interest "quiet"... now that would be a fair law.

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:

quote:

how can you know that the repeal of DADT won't develop into a monumental 'problem?' DADT came about as a compromise regarding homosexuals serving in 1993 and has worked relatively well. With a few minor tweeks of the UCMJ regarding how violations are handled, DADT should continue to be a good compromise between those who'd disallow homosexuals to serve at all and others who aren't concerned.

No, it still punishes people for either lying or be honest and not necessarily for actions. It's an unjust law and should be removed completely.

What "lies" MUST be told?

About one's sexual interest, even if imagined.
This law punishes someone for even thinking 'gay'. It's not based on sexual actions, it's based on assumption, on imagined intent, even if the "intent" is not actualized.
Straights don't have to worry about talking about their sexual interests... if those interests are 'straight'. But gay people can't talk among their co-workers about their sex lives. And what pure-blooded American services person doesn't talk about their sex lives?
So, the law itself makes liars out of American service members because it's intent to keep to them quiet ... and why is that…. so everyone can pretend their straight? Why not try and keep every one's sexual interest "quiet"... now that would be a fair law.

Me thinks that you misunderstand the intent of DADT. It requires that no one ask you and that you not tell about your sexual 'interests.' As such, NO lies are required of anyone!