berkeley ca

[BerettaCougar]

JuanCarlos, you're 100% correct in this thread.

 

[RedneckFur]

JuanCarlos, you're 100% correct in this thread.

I'll add a +2 to that.

If youre willing to volunteer to serve your country in the military, who you love should have no affect on ability to serve. hetro couples can be just as distruptive as homosexual couples.

I dont particularly like the idea of Berkley asking the military to leave, but I will admit, that I do understand where they are coming from. There are plenty of gay and lesbian Americans who want to serve their country. I say we let them, with all the same treatement as the hetro soldiers.

 

[gc70]

The Berkeley City Council this week voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests," according to The Associated Press.

I suppose the Pentagon can put this resolution in the same file as Berkeley's declaration as a nuclear-free zone.

 

[BillCA]

I suppose the Pentagon can put this resolution in the same file as Berkeley's declaration as a nuclear-free zone.

Exactly.

The City of Bezerkely has always had an on-again/off-again love/hate relationship with the military as well as the U.S. Constitution. I'm often surprised their police force can even talk to a citizen without a warrant... unless he's actually doing something dangerous like driving an SUV.

Authorities keep warning us of a big 'quake coming that will hit the eastern side of the SF bay. Some investigation shows Bezerkley will be hit very hard and with many of their older buildings it'll be ugly. I'm sure that after a "big one" they'll be more than welcoming of military assistance to recover the injured and bring in supplies.

It's the only city I've been to where you can't smoke tobacco in a restaurant, but the city will refuse to do anything if the establishment lets a patron light up a doobie and pass it around the table.

 

[JaserST4]

Also, in garrison it's not like women aren't allowed in the male barracks at all...I had an issue with a roommate who thought it was really super-cool to bang his girlfriend while I was on the other side of the room (with nothing but wall lockers between us)...I dealt with it, mind you (as in, it never happened again) but it didn't exactly further unit cohesion if you know what I mean.

If he didn't pass her around, I know what you mean. I'm certain that was against regulations too, is that discriminatory?

And even on FOBs in Iraq, where there are rather strict rules concerning male and female quartering areas (whether CHUs or other housing conditions) there are still...issues. Or in other words heteros have plenty of problems controlling themselves as well.

Certainly, that's why there were strict rules in place. What would they do with open homosexuality? Give them separate quarters?
It's a logistics problem the military doesn't want or need.

EDIT: Really, the purpose here isn't to discuss whether or not the policy is reasonable or necessary. Merely whether it is discriminatory (I still maintain that it is). It's at least possible for a discriminatory policy to be entirely necessary, but don't expect those affected or those for whom people they care about are affected to be happy about it. If you really want to discuss the actual merits of the DADT policy, I'd say start a thread. If it's still open tomorrow, I may participate. But for heaven's sake, don't act as though only homosexual sex is disruptive to unit cohesion, because as soon as handfuls of women found themselves on small forward infantry FOBs that argument went right out the window.

It's discriminatory only if you want to call all of the other policies discriminatory. Separating men and women is discrimination if you want to look at it that way. They may prefer to sleep together but the military regards the sexes as different (for some odd reason) and separates them in order to control their behavior.

EDIT: And seriously, if two guys are sodomizing each other in the next bunk the issue isn't that they're gay, or that sodomy is involved, but rather that anybody would be disrespectful enough to have sex with you present. I see no reason that this can't be dealt with more narrowly.

I don't know anyone that thinks there's no difference between a man having sex with a woman or a man. It might surprise you that most people don't see it as the same thing, which is why you don't understand the policy. I guess you should just accept the fact that most people aren't sexually ambiguous.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Authorities keep warning us of a big 'quake coming that will hit the eastern side of the SF bay. Some investigation shows Bezerkley will be hit very hard and with many of their older buildings it'll be ugly. I'm sure that after a "big one" they'll be more than welcoming of military assistance to recover the injured and bring in supplies.

Which is quite true. But again, they pay the salaries of the National Guard just like everybody else, so I see no reason they shouldn't expect their services if needed. Also, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to be accepting of the military for actual direct defense of the nation, and for disaster relief, but not for more "aggressive" wars.

If he didn't pass her around, I know what you mean.

Yeah, and see despite being heterosexual I'm not the kind of guy who would have wanted him to pass her around. I also wasn't into the "trains" that were common in my barracks, sometimes even involving female soldiers from neighboring units (rather than townies). But I guess those were, perversely enough, good for unit "cohesion," and my refusal to participate was a bad thing...and of course I was derided for never participating in such debauchery, including (ironically enough) people suggesting that I must be gay. Because of course anybody not into casual heterosexual sex must just be holding out for dudes, m i right?

But of course only homosexuals have problems controlling their animal impulses.

It's discriminatory only if you want to call all of the other policies discriminatory. Separating men and women is discrimination if you want to look at it that way. They may prefer to sleep together but the military regards the sexes as different (for some odd reason) and separates them in order to control their behavior.

Right, because there's no difference between giving males and females separate sleeping quarters and separating people from the service if it's discovered that they have a sex life. None at all. As for the logistics issue, I'd say we could probably look to the many other countries that do allow it and see how they make it work.

And while it might surprise you, I actually don't even think a repeal of the policy is a great idea at the moment. I was never particularly arguing for that. I don't think the actual conduct of homosexuals is the issue, mind you, but rather the attitudes of far too many of the straight soldiers (not unlike yourself). And especially at a time when our military is involved in a major combat operation, tinkering wouldn't be the best plan. The most I could conceivably support is integrating them into units that are already gender-integrated, as those units would already have at least some experience in dealing with the kind of issues that might arise. Having done my time in a combat-arms line company I don't think it would work out too well there at the moment.

Of course, this is the point where on more "liberal" forums I'd be derided and parallels would be draw to racial integration and many would suggest that, as with racial integration, the attitudes of the prejudiced shouldn't be used to further discrimination. And here, of course, I'll be looked down upon (by the majority, though not all) for suggesting that it's discrimination at all and the idea that homosexuals should be treated as equal people. But the way I figure it, if both "extremes" are unhappy with me then I'm probably doing something right.

Again, the only reason this conversation continues is because you began by claiming it wasn't discrimination, and now you claim that even if it "is," it's no different than separate sleeping quarters or not allowing statutory rape. I also find the fact that you chose to compare not allowing homosexual acts to not allowing both pedophilia and incest telling of just a tiny bit of bias. For the former, I'd say you might want to look into what "consenting adults" means and as to the latter I'd say that while siblings or parent/child relationships may involve "consenting adults," the reasons that those relationships are more destructive and thus not as acceptable compared to homosexual ones is probably beyond the scope of this forum. And certainly not one I think would be fruitful if it involves somebody who draws parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I don't know anyone that thinks there's no difference between a man having sex with a woman or a man. It might surprise you that most people don't see it as the same thing, which is why you don't understand the policy. I guess you should just accept the fact that most people aren't sexually ambiguous.

Oh, there's definitely a difference. In fact, while it might take away some of my "liberal" cred, I would also be more upset at two men having sex in the same room as me compared to a heterosexual couple. There's an entire spectrum of things that I'd be pretty pissed to have people doing while I'm in the room, it's just that my initial "bar" is set pretty low and includes most heterosexual acts past about second base. Like I said, I'm a bit of a prude.

My point was simply that anybody participating in sexual acts that you're uncomfortable with while you're present should be dealt with. Harshly. And, indeed, would be dealt with under current military policy. My roommate? One complaint to the EO rep and he'd have been in a world of trouble. I simply chose to deal with it myself. And no, that's not "discriminatory."


I think I'm about done with this tangent. I think anybody with any sense can agree that the DADT policy is discriminatory (and not in the "lolz they don't allow incest either" sense), regardless of whether or not it's necessary. I suppose at some point I started trying to argue that, assuming it is still necessary (which I don't dispute), at this point it's due more to the attitudes of homophobic straight soldiers than any actual conduct that gay soldiers would engage in. A point that I think JaserST4 has proven quite handily for me to anybody without a heavy personal bias on the issue.

 

[JaserST4]

But of course only homosexuals have problems controlling their animal impulses.

Odd that you could get this far and still not understand my point. The sexes are segregated to prevent that kind of stuff, given human nature.
The fact that some soldiers disobey the rules doesn't make the case that we should throw open homosexuality into the mix. You are trying to compare the best homosexual conduct with the worst heterosexual conduct. That doesn't make sense.

I suppose at some point I started trying to argue that, assuming it is still necessary (which . I don't dispute), at this point it's due more to the attitudes of homophobic straight soldiers than any actual conduct that gay soldiers would engage in. A point that I think JaserST4 has proven quite handily for me to anybody without a heavy personal bias on the issue.

Odd. You recognize the good reason the military segregates the genders, yet the dots are too far apart to understand why they discourage same sex attractions. Add to that the fact that my view isn't the unique one here and you think I'm biased. Yep. You're a liberal.

 

[Thumper]

Of course JuanCarlos is a liberal (he's been here awhile now)...it doesn't detract from his point that the Federal Government shouldn't use funding as a stick to get it's way.

I've served in units where the soldiers weren't segregated, other than being in different rooms (same floor). There was a lotta nasty going on. Didn't detract from the unit's mission, however.

JC, I do think that there's a point here that you need to concede:

Heterosexual sex isn't normally detrimental to unit morale.
Homosexual sex always is.

You might not like it, and it might offend your sensibilities, but you do have to admit that it's true.

As you know, the UCMJ is not the Constitution.

 

[JaserST4]

I've served in units where the soldiers weren't segregated, other than being in different rooms (same floor). There was a lotta nasty going on. Didn't detract from the unit's mission, however.

Well, that is a segregation, although not very effective being that close. Must have been a desk jocky's brain storm. No females got pregnant? Or no competition amongst the men? I suspect it happened, it did when I was in but at least the gals were on the other wing of the same floor. I'm not a fan of females in regular duty for those reasons but I suppose they need them and weigh the consequences. Adding gays into the mix sure isn't going to help though.

 

[Al Norris]

JuanCarlos, you're 100% correct in this thread.

I'll add a +2 to that.

If youre willing to volunteer to serve your country in the military, who you love should have no affect on ability to serve. hetro couples can be just as distruptive as homosexual couples.

I dont particularly like the idea of Berkley asking the military to leave, but I will admit, that I do understand where they are coming from. There are plenty of gay and lesbian Americans who want to serve their country. I say we let them, with all the same treatement as the hetro soldiers.

Correct about what?

A) That it should be pretty obviously that a military recruiting station might not be welcome in the city (I gave one reason, yes there are others), and
B) The withholding of federal funding, taken from a locality's taxpayers, in order to try and influence local policy is (in general) a load of crap.

I've let this go on long enough. I'd have thought we could get away from the "Gays in the military are good/bad" type of thing and discuss this on its merits: Discrimination - City Law vs. Federal Law - Using Federal funds to hammer a city by witholding those funds, etc.

This kind of thread is exactly why we've taken the stand that there will be no threads discussing homosexuality. You folks have completely sidestepped the legal and political issues and strayed (stayed?) over in the social issue side of things.

The FiringLine has no social issues forum.

Closed.