Don,

quote:

Ya, male Coasties who have concerns over dressing or showering with males who are attracted to males.

What are the "straight" guys afraid of, the "gay" guys going to laugh at their equipment? Funny I don't hear much about this situation in female berthing.

quote:

What are the "straight" guys afraid of, the "gay" guys going to laugh at their equipment? Funny I don't hear much about this situation in female berthing.

actually, I heard this come out of female berthing FREQUENTLY as a 378 JO.

and regarding statutory rape, sex with underage persons etc, history is rife with examples of that being completely acceptable, and to compound the issue, the age of consent currently varies by state by as much as 3 years (theres a big difference in my opinion between a 15 year old and an 18 year old). NAMBLA is an extreem example, but not outside the realm of the possible at all.

quote:

and regarding statutory rape, sex with underage persons etc, history is rife with examples of that being completely acceptable, and to compound the issue, the age of consent currently varies by state by as much as 3 years (theres a big difference in my opinion between a 15 year old and an 18 year old).

Yes, and society shut it down with laws. However, those laws are changing and the age of consent is diminishing as young people become sexually active earlier in life. NAMBLA is an extreme and way outside the realm of current possibility. Who knows what the year 2525 holds in store.

The same arguments you're making now are the ones made back in 1948 when Truman integrated the troops. "It's not natural," "it will hurt troop morale," "this is a fighting force, not a place for social experimentation."

There are virtually NO major Western 1st-World powers left that have a ban on homosexuals. Congratulations, we have the same policies in place as backwater despotic third world countries.

Meanwhile, our American troops DO fight on a day-to-day basis with gays and lesbians. The UK, France, Germany, and a huge whole host of other European countries are not as short sighted and narrow minded as us. As a result, in Afghanistan and Iraq, American troops are fighting side-by-side with homosexuals every day.

And for those European countries, do you know what the incidence of homosexual rape is?

None.

Absolute ZERO.

There has not been a SINGLE reported case of homosexual rape involving a victim and assailant who were both in the service. Meanwhile, do you know what the incidence of heterosexual rape is between the troops?

Plenty of white folks were "uncomfortable" with what Truman did. Just like back then, I offer the following advice: get over it or get out. You are not as important as you think you are, you can be replaced, and the service will be better for it to reduce the number of closed-minded neanderthals within its ranks.

Well ... this closed minded neanderthal isn't in your ranks anymore, but he has served at a number of units where the introduction of two or more homosexuals MAY interfere with the good order and discipline of the unit. Why introduce a problem where none exists?

Great ... there have been no heterosexuals raped by homosexuals in the military (I'll capitulate this point, although I suspect it isn't true). How many homosexuals, in and out of the service have had ther AZZ beaten by heterosexuals who are annoyed by their antics? How many heterosexual guys may become offended by the sight (or worse, advances) of a homosexual, and just give him a little heave-ho over the rail while he's on BMOW rounds? Or for that matter,simply decide not to reach and hold his legs, his belt, his "whatever", as they're hittin' the green water?

I can see you're on a ship ... but I think you fail to see the need for unconditional bonding between shipmates ... even ones who don't necessarily like each other, but will still watch out for their shipmate. I don't think that will always hold true for homosexuals.

And I gotta tell ya' ... I don't think I'm gonna have my shipmate's back in a barfight while he's wearing lipstick and eyeliner.

quote:

Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
Great ... there have been no heterosexuals raped by homosexuals in the military (I'll capitulate this point, although I suspect it isn't true).

It isn't. I distinctly remember one of the Areas (and I'm not going to disclose which) dealt w/ a male-on-male sexual assault at one of it's (operational) subunits as recently as 2 years ago.

...and also another incident several years before that which resulted in an RFC.

Gromit,
Who is the "you" you are referring to? Apparently your opinion is that anyone who disagrees with your position is a "closed minded neanderthal" who doesn't belong in the service. There have been very few people in this thread who have made a "no gays allowed" argument. Again, there is a question of limits. Hooligan and I have determined that NAMBLA is out of bounds, a limit if you will. There is an ongoing discussion of what the acceptable limits of conduct are. Once again, this is not necessarily about being gay or straight, it's about setting boundaries of acceptable conduct. Again, I ask, where is the limit? Lets assume it's ok (legal)to marry within your gender, then why is it not ok (legal) to marry multiple people of the opposite sex? Who's rights are being impacted in that situation? Lets say I am in love with 3 women, and they all love me? If we all consent, shouldn't we be able to form a 4 person union? Society has said no. Perhaps society is just full of neanderthals.

Again, I don't have any problem with gays in the military at all, but it will require some logistical adjustment due to the privacy concerns listed by other posters, until we reach the point where everyone can bunk with everyone else, regardless of gender or orientation. If a service member has an expectation of privacy from members of the opposite sex, the same must hold true for members of the opposite orientation.

Somewhere there must be a limit. What do you think the limit is, or are you for no limits on personal conduct at all?

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
It isn't. I distinctly remember one of the Areas (and I'm not going to disclose which) dealt w/ a male-on-male sexual assault at one of it's (operational) subunits as recently as 2 years ago.

...and also another incident several years before that which resulted in an RFC.

That would be here in the US.

quote:

And for those European countries, do you know what the incidence of homosexual rape is?

Reading is fundamental.

quote:

Originally posted by LEDETOIC:

quote:

Any issue that advances the rights of Americans is not childish.

I disagree. At some point there has to be a line. Not saying it's a gay/straight line, but a line must be drawn. What's the next issue? Nambla's rights? Or maybe someone thinks its their right to marry a donkey. Or maybe polygamy makes a come back.

Yeah, sounds crazy now right? Just ask yourselves, where is the line?

The line is drawn at people who do not have freedom of choice. People who are American ciitzens with their rights in a straitjacket.

NAMBLA involves minors. Polygamy is often associated with pedophilia, minors, arranged marriages and religious cults. Both of these emit an array of hurtful and illegal acts.


But I was raised to believe that we are all different. With diverse religions, races, natioinalities we all have different views. As long as you are not hurting anyone or anything, inflicting any pain upon anyone or anything, then what right does the government have to regulate your life after you turned eighteen?

quote:

Who is the "you" you are referring to? Apparently your opinion is that anyone who disagrees with your position is a "closed minded neanderthal" who doesn't belong in the service.

That is the "you" I am referring to. No one here in particular, just the mindset in general. Limits need to be set, I agree. But how can we in the military profess to be "protecting freedom" when we deny entry to people who already have the freedom to be gay?

NAMBLA is a non-starter to me; it's promotes an illegal agenda and is of very shady existence as an "unchartered" group within the US. Polygamy is similarly illegal. Homosexuality is not.

To answer your question, the limits I would set would be the same limits set by law.

As has already been stated, you are already serving with gays. You just don't know who it is.

[QOUTE]...wouldn't you think the gay community would be open-minded when it comes to accepting the rules already in place, you know, DADT?

Don[/QUOTE]

The "rules already in place" are restricting the rights of American citizens. The U.S Government's purpose is to protect the lives and welfare of American citizens. That is the basis that this country was founded on. Read the U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights. Everyone of those rights is there to protect us.

However, politicians found a way to regulate whom Americans marry based on their sexuality. And why? Because that is what they really believe or because their constituents say so?

When I was in boot camp I don't recall having separate berthing. I was living with thirty other females and using group showers. Oh, but maybe that was because the squadbays were originally built for "straight guys" and they forgot to accomadate females.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:

quote:

Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
Great ... there have been no heterosexuals raped by homosexuals in the military (I'll capitulate this point, although I suspect it isn't true).

It isn't. I distinctly remember one of the Areas (and I'm not going to disclose which) dealt w/ a male-on-male sexual assault at one of it's (operational) subunits as recently as 2 years ago.

...and also another incident several years before that which resulted in an RFC.

.....i believe the stat quoted were for countries that had gays serving openly, not the U.S. which does not allow it.....

After reading some of these posts i have come to the conclusion that there are not many christians left in the guard. Someone please tell me i am wrong. Guess PC takes precedence over religious beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:
After reading some of these posts i have come to the conclusion that there are not many christians left in the guard. Someone please tell me i am wrong. Guess PC takes precedence over religious beliefs.

Does this statement mean you are against ending the policy or are you the affirmative?

I think that the policy should stay as is or even be more restrictive.

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:
I think that the policy should stay as is or even be moreQUOTE]Originally posted by joedepilot:
After reading some of these posts i have come to the conclusion that there are not many christians left in the guard. Someone please tell me i am wrong. Guess PC takes precedence over religious beliefs.

I don't claim to know a lot about Christianity. But I do claim that a Christian is someone who sees people without judgement (regardless of sexuality, nationality or race) forgiveness (as we all make the same mistakes) believes that all people are good somewhere and continues to make the world a better place without any kind of hate or discrimination.

Personally, I think I'm more spirtual than religious. I believe in a higher power, that everything happens for a reason and in karma. Whatever religion or label you want to put on that, go right ahead.

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

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:
After reading some of these posts i have come to the conclusion that there are not many christians left in the guard. Someone please tell me i am wrong. Guess PC takes precedence over religious beliefs.

That all depends onhow you define "christians."

Some self-described "christians" are narrow-minded individuals who focus too much energy on obscure lines of text and miss the bigger picture. They write off contradictions that don't bother them, but shout and scream and make noise over others that do offend them.

Other Christians focus on the greater message and the overall idea. Concepts like "judge not, lest ye be judged," or "love the sinner, hate the sin." People who believe that Jesus loves EVERYONE, for that's what's written, with no ifs, ands, or buts. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is the operating philosophy of some. That God and Jesus are able to forgive, and so should I.

"God Himself, sir, does not propose to judge a man until his life is over. Why should you and I?"
-Samuel Johnson

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:
I think that the policy should stay as is or even be more restrictive.

FYI, there are Christians that happen to be gay, bi, homosexual and heterosexual. You might even go to church with them!

We are all hard working American citizens, raising kids, saving money, going to school, church, starting businesses, buying houses in good neighborhoods.

And you know what? There are African-American, Caucasion, Asian, Indian, European, gay, straight, bi, homosexual, heterosexual, Muslim, Christian, Jewish or non-denominational men and women in the U.S Military, specifically in the U.S Coast Guard.

And there are persons of all sexualities, nationalities and races that are better than you or I. And at the end of the day we are all human.

I don't know of any examples of hetrosexuals being raped by homosexuals in the military, but I know of several in the civilian world. Unfortunately, most of the time the male victims are treated just like female victims of rape. They are accused of putting themselves in a situation allowing it to happen and often the case never even goes to trial. A victim is a victim, regardless of gender or sexual preference. Who knows how many cases go unreported because of embarrassment regardless of who the victim or perpetrator is.

quote:

Originally posted by GSX_R750:
This isn't in the best interest of the military, it is in favor of gays (just my opinion, nothing to debate). I have nothing against gay folks, but this WILL create some major problems, again, IMHO. This is like allowing unisex berthing.

Doesn't affect me, though...I'll be out very soon. However, this affects some folks...I would not be ok with it if I were staying in. The majority may be ok with it. Either way, my opinion holds no weight.

Have fun with it shipmates.

How about it is in favor of the human race, or more specifically the American citizen? As we are all human correct? We have homosexuals in the military now, so berthing will not be a problem. I was on a 378' for four years, there were people that may or may not have been homosexual. And did I have an issue? No.

However, when I was in A school I did have an issue with my two roomates. One was underage and loved to drink, the other loved to party, too much. And I thought about transferring but decided to toughen up and stick it out.

My point being roomates have issues all the time and has anyone heard of sexuality being a issue in reality? Or are these issues figments of your imagination?