|
Post by m52nickerson on May 26, 2010 6:56:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on May 26, 2010 9:01:31 GMT -5
DADT is the absolute dumbest policy I've ever seen. It's ok to be gay as long as you don't say anything about it. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on May 26, 2010 9:29:47 GMT -5
The vets I know at my school are against gays serving for some reason. They don't seem to get the fact that gays already serve, and have possibly seen them shower already (which is what I'm assuming the problem is). Why is it such a big deal, seriously? So some dude finds you attractive, doesn't mean anything's gonna happen. How many girls does a hetero find attractive that he never scores with? It's the same damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on May 26, 2010 10:21:04 GMT -5
About damn time. I wonder if how many morons will resign over this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 26, 2010 10:53:35 GMT -5
I expect the bill to pass, but I don't expect DADT to be repealed. It requires the executive branch to sign off on it, and I don't think that Gates will. I think the study is going to be used as an excuse to do nothing. Honestly, the study is a pretty dumb idea by itself. This is not how the military is handled, the leadership doesn't poll soldiers to see what they want to do. The military tells the soldiers what they want to do. When blacks (and later, women) were integrated into the military they didn't do a study to see how it would impact the soldiers. The soldiers were told to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on May 26, 2010 10:54:24 GMT -5
I estimate that being a soldier is 40% staying alive, 30% killing enemy combatants, 25% obeying orders, and 5% personal stuff.
Being gay falls in the 5%. It hardly matters compared to the other three aspects.
EDIT: Wait this thing is temporary? But what matters is the long term effects. Do a survey on that.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on May 26, 2010 12:53:25 GMT -5
I don't know about guys, but I as a straight female would be flattered if a lesbian/bisexual woman found me attractive.
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on May 26, 2010 21:01:53 GMT -5
Pro-DADT guys are in the minority all along. Gotta wonder why it takes so long to repeal it.
|
|
|
Post by yojetak on May 26, 2010 22:14:09 GMT -5
Pro-DADT guys are in the minority all along. Gotta wonder why it takes so long to repeal it. They have money and are evil.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on May 27, 2010 0:16:33 GMT -5
They have money and are evil. And they tend to be those officers.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on May 27, 2010 0:27:15 GMT -5
Death on the battlefield doesn't distinguish on gender, skin color, religion, political pref and sexual pref.
War is an equal opportunity invitation to the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on May 27, 2010 0:41:28 GMT -5
I really hope they're successful in ending this ridiculous policy, although I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of gay soldiers, particularly males, chose not to disclose their sexuality due to fear of persecution from other military members. I have nothing but respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line for their countries, but there are a significant number who adhere to very outdated beliefs about homosexuality (given that there is a bias towards conservatism amongst soldiers), which is something that the military needs to work on. In addition to ending DADT, I hope they can establish some kind of safety net to help protect gay officers from backlash from their peers if they do choose to disclose their preferences.
One of the possible benefits of ending the policy is that it might demystify homosexuality for certain officers, which may show them that gays and lesbians aren't any different than straight people. Treating it like a dirty secret is only making people feel more uncomfortable with same sex partnerships, whereas maintaining openness will normalize it for everyone involved. It'll take a while (possibly decades), but with enough time, I think the military will become accepting of all sexual orientations and, eventually, those who are transgendered. Yay for progress.
Same here. To me, it's not all that different from being asked out or hit on by a member of the opposite sex who I'm not attracted too. It's not threatening, and while it can be uncomfortable in the sense that I feel guilty for turning someone down, there's no reason to panic or get disgusted by it. People should take it as a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on May 27, 2010 3:14:02 GMT -5
I expect the bill to pass, but I don't expect DADT to be repealed. It requires the executive branch to sign off on it, and I don't think that Gates will. I think the study is going to be used as an excuse to do nothing. Honestly, the study is a pretty dumb idea by itself. This is not how the military is handled, the leadership doesn't poll soldiers to see what they want to do. The military tells the soldiers what they want to do. When blacks (and later, women) were integrated into the military they didn't do a study to see how it would impact the soldiers. The soldiers were told to deal with it. Obama can overrule Gates if he has to.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on May 27, 2010 5:31:09 GMT -5
I personally get a little weirded out if a guy hits on me. However, if my life depends on said guy shooting someone or blowing someone up, then I'll serve side-by-side with him anyday.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on May 27, 2010 9:10:19 GMT -5
I've had guys hit on me before. A couple of them know I'm straight and do it to tease me. I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to flirt back to tease back. It's not a big deal. Someone finds you attractive. Be happy. It's a compliment. I think the folks who are so worried about all of it are just that way because they think they might like it!
POST 666 FOR THE WIN!!
|
|