No, they didn't fire Jann Wenner. They're now claiming Bill Clinton didn't say what they said he said-- namely, that the best descriptive for for the "don't ask don't tell" policy was 'dumbass'. Personally I don't understand why that policy's so unpopular. If you're queer, fine, just keep your hands to yourself and we'll get along fine.
Ahhhhhhhh, don't say this. Why do I find myself agreeing with Kagy on TWO topics in the span of a week?!?! (Mack Brown and this) Scary. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
I guess all those military officers who have been sued for sexual harassment of women should be told the same thing huh? ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
Why? Do you believe that all homosexuals are just sex-craved maniacs? Do you work with any women? Do they know that you are heterosexual? Do they worry about you keeping your hands to yourself? If not, then why should soldiers worry about it. Just because you prefer someone of the same sex doesn't mean you prefer everyone of the same sex. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!
I guess all those military officers who have been sued for sexual harassment of women should be told the same thing huh? I would assume that they were... They didn't follow it, and thus they are being sued. Now, whether the system is actually protecting the people involved is a separate question. I think the policy itself makes alot of sense, though. You can't force two groups of people to get along, and right now, I think it would cause more harm than good to try to do so. It's simply something that takes time and will work its way through society. But fundamentally, if people have different sexual orientations, it shouldn't affect how they do their military jobs, and there's absolutely no reason to disallow groups into the military for their sexual preference. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Should men and women be allowed to shower together now? I'm assuming they have "community showers" in the military. I guess I don't know for sure though.
Hmm. Wasn't this the same argument used to justify keeping blacks, and women, out of the army? Of course "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't go that far. Its just silly: we know there are gays in the military, but we'll pretend like they aren't there. ------------------ I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen
I don't think anyone is asking people to get along. Some guys who enter the military are undoubtedly racist but they don't ask African Americans to paint themselves white. The thing is that they are asking people to conceal who they are IN THEIR PERSONAL TIME as well as in their professional life as a soldier. To me, a soldier is like a blank canvas. They just do what they do and that's it - no sex, no gender, no race, no religion. However, when they are not on duty, they should feel free to be anything that they want even if that means upseting some others. Maybe there is a Texan in a division who HATES people from New York. You can't ask the New Yorker to lie and say he is from Dallas. To ask someone to lie about themselves is, in essence, betraying the very code by which soldiers are supposed to live anyway. And I have to agree with RM95 (what a shock ). If you were to go to a gay bar, let's say, would you honestly expect to see men having sex with other men or so out of control that they start grabbing at you and attempting to have sex with you? How does being gay suddenly equate you with being some sort of sex-crazed freak? Homosexuals just choose to live their lives with same-gender partners just like the rest of us choose to live with opposite-gender partners. Just like some women are attracted to you and others aren't (and vice versa), some men are as well and others aren't. It isn't like they choose a lifestyle simply for the sex and nothing else. ------------------ Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.
The article BK provided a link to states..."Due to a transcription error, the words "don't ask" were printed as "dumb ass" in our interview with President Clinton. So, who was the dumbass at Rolling Stone who typeset the word dumbass when Clinton actually said "don't ask"? And where does this dumbass work now that he's been fired over his failure to typeset "don't ask" correctly? Don't ask, dumbass! ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
Where do you see me calling homosexuals "sex crazed"? The point was that I can get along fine with a gay man unless he decides it's recruitment week. Hell, it's the same thing with ugly women. I can get along fine with them too unless they decide I'm too irresistable not to touch. And I have that problem SO often. Pffft. What I don't get is the supposed "counter" argument-- what about heterosexual men being around women, etc etc. It seems to me we've already worked out appropriate boundaries for conduct (I'm not claiming they're followed, but I think most people at least know they exist). The concept's the same. My sexuality is irrelevant at work (especially since I work in technical support training-- techs are 90 percent male and 9 percent bowser female). It only becomes relevant when I push it on someone else. Same with gays in the military. I wouldn't care either way unless another solider asked me to "shine his rifle" for him.
Wasn't this the same argument used to justify keeping blacks, and women, out of the army? Probably so. However, there's a feasibility question here. First off, the ultimate goal I'm trying to get to is full equal rights. Unfortunately, social change cannot happen without the support of the people. You can make all the laws you want for equal rights for minorities, but if there's not at least some support for it, it's simply not going to work -- no matter how hard government and law enforcement try. If you try to force laws down society's throat (without their general support), you get a very powerful and violent reaction (see Prohibition). So you have to create law with society in mind and encourage social change through that law -- then use that to pass more effective laws. Just look at how much change there has been towards the gay community in the last 5 to 10 years. Never would you have seen two guys kissing on network TV or mainstream movies even 5 years ago. The process is in motion, but you have to be careful not to push it too far, too fast. It may not be "right", but its effective. Allow all sexual orientations in the military, but don't make it a super-public thing. Over time, people will get to know others in the military who are gay, and it will change attitudes. Somewhere down the line, you can change the policy again. Just look at minority rights. How do you think the country would have reacted if, along with the end of slavery, integration, equal rights/pay, etc, etc all were placed into law at the same time? It would have been the right thing to do, but it would have caused an incredible social disaster within the country. Instead, you go bit by bit with a larger goal in mind. Granted, we're still not there yet, but if you look at discrimination today vs. 20 years ago, progress is being made -- it just has to be done from the inside (how people are raised) rather than simply by laws. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!! [This message has been edited by shanna (edited December 08, 2000).]
BK, the question of the moment then becomes the following: Can you get along fine with gorgeous women after they dismiss your romantic advances? ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
I can get along with gorgeous men without causing trouble, why can't BK get along with gorgeous blonde co-workers????????? Huh? And, while I am at it, I have not seen BK, but he sounds dreamy to me. (Psssst ... no, I am not gay! But I shouldn't have to make that disclaimer, should I? But in the military I would not only be compelled to shut up, but face dismissal if I did say those things. Strange how you can call someone a ***, kike, n****r, spic, mick, b*stard, etc... and be perfectly safe carrying a weapon. But admit the person you have the most affection for is the same gender as you, and you are dangerous to the safety of the country. Doesn't make sense to me.) (PS Actually, I hope BK is "dreamy". ------------------
And from what I understand. A large percentage of the problems have come from fellow soldiers or officers outing their comrades (or worse, beating them to kingdom come or even murder). I would tend to believe that most gays in the military aren't walking around shouting, "hey look! I'm gay!". ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
If you try to force laws down society's throat (without their general support), you get a very powerful and violent reaction (see Prohibition). Hmm. I see your point; change happens gradually, rather than all at once. My counter-argument would be the racial integration of public schools: the US government had to force certain communities, especially in the south, to integrate public schools. Otherwise we'd still have segregated schools today. And sometimes attitudes change after people are forced to live/work/coexist together. Anyway, maybe its just my social circle, but people I know don't really react any differently towards gays. Some of my friends are gay (how cliche is that). So I can't see how allowing gays into the military, openly, would cause riots or a great deal of public outcry. ------------------ I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen
The Military is like any other place. Whether you black, white, str8, gay, male, female *should* not matter but it does. I don't think whether you gay or not is relevant to the Job . . . . QUESTION: Would you want it on a Job Appl? are you: __ HOMO ___ Bi ____ HERETO Sexual I think not. Therefore it is *inapproprate* to converse about such things in a work environ. [IT HAPPENS BUT IT IS NOT *APPROPRIATE*] I think Bill Just extended that. . . Such things are not appropriate in the military Rather than Make a Law. . . He made a precedent . . .a social control It is kinda sad that you have to make a law for everything. . . . . Esp things people should just know Rocket River ------------------
Anyway, maybe its just my social circle, but people I know don't really react any differently towards gays. Some of my friends are gay (how cliche is that). So I can't see how allowing gays into the military, openly, would cause riots or a great deal of public outcry Same here .. I don't think there would or should be a problem at all, and if that is the case, then I think "the time has come" to allow the openness that is the ultimate goal. However, everything I've seen and read seems to say differently. Based on polls within the military and such, it seems that there would be a serious problem, and there are some serious problems with the few people who do try to be open, so I've just assumed that's the case overall in the military (I don't know much about military culture). If that's not true, I take back everything I said. [This message has been edited by shanna (edited December 08, 2000).]
I think the best example of my argument comes from the "West Wing" this past week. For those of you who didn't see it, a gay Hollywood producer wanted the President to come out and say he would veto an anti-gay bill that would never have made it to him anyway -- just to make a strong statement. However, the President basically said "I agree with you, but hell no" because it was a politically bad move that would probably hurt the cause by creating a backlash. I think the philosophy behind "Dont ask, don't tell" vs "complete openness" is the same idea. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
However, the President basically said "I agree with you, but hell no" because it was a politically bad move that would probably hurt the cause by creating a backlash. I think the philosophy behind "Dont ask, don't tell" vs "complete openness" is the same idea. I can see that. Well, maybe they're right. Gotta ask whether it's worth provoking an anti-gay backlash. @#$! It sounds like everyone here agrees. Basically, nobody has a "problem" with gays or gay rights, and if we had our way everything would be copacetic. But those gay-bashers and homophobes out there (we don't know them, but read about them in the papers), we don't want to rile them up. It would help me if I understood why people are afraid of homosexuals, and yet these same people are mollified by knowing that "secret" gays are in the military while those militant "I'm here and I'm queer" gays are sent back where they came from. ------------------ I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen
