Terminalcoffee discussion

Full disclosure: I served in the USAF and I am a huge supporter of gays serving in the Armed Forces. I have always thought those who are sucessful in the military are a different breed. Just as not everyone is cut out to be teachers or politicians, not everyone would be happy in the military. It's less of a gender/ sexuality issue as much as some people have different skill sets. Whew! With that being said, if a gay person has the drive, the skill set and the overall mind set to be a professional military member, why not let them serve? I also happen to be straight, so for me, it was a non issue, but at least I was a full member, not a WAC or a WAV. I say, let those who want to serve serve.

Yep. DADT is assinine.

Supremely assinine.

DADT may not be fair but it works. In the Army men sleep in tight quarters, sometimes 15 or 16 in one tent. Open homosexuality would quickly cause chaos in that situation.

Arminius wrote: "DADT may not be fair but it works. In the Army men sleep in tight quarters, sometimes 15 or 16 in one tent. Open homosexuality would quickly cause chaos in that situation."

Not based on fact. So lying about it is better? It changes what? Head-in-the-sand. That's all it is.

King Dinösaur wrote: "So did you really not know who was gay and who was not when you served, Arminius?"

I never had to consider it.

......

The guys who say that are the ones who can't control themselves, not the gays.

I guess women shouldn't serve either. Cause then the heteros will lose control. Which happens. Actually. But while I've heard of sexual misconduct towards women, I have never heard of any with gays.

Barb, I am not suggesting that would happen. However, open sexuality is interpreted differently by each individual.

Has an openly gay ever harmed anyone? Did you ever hear of Andrew Cunanan?

I have always felt someone who was gay (a lesbian, in my) would not hit on me, or i should say, seek me out for a romantic relationship. I just always found that it would be barking up the wrong tree. Why would I knowing pursue that with a gay man? She would not be my
type, he would not be mine. I have always found it perverse that it was assumed that every gay person would pursue EVERYONE but a heterosexual would only persue other hetros for a relatioships. It just
silly to me.

Sorry... In my case

Thanks Barb!

That comparison is ridiculous. Barb said it all. I was talking about any problems in the military about gays not controlling themselves. There would be absolutely not difference between closed or open. Except from homophobes.

Tell it, Barb.

Barb wrote: "Arminius wrote: "Has an openly gay ever harmed anyone? Did you ever hear of Andrew Cunanan?"

First of all; that was not my question. I asked if being openly gay - as opposed to being forced to ..."

Sorry I missed the "How" in "How has a person being openly gay EVER harmed anyone else?" when I read it.

I am going to stick with my point of message 5 and leave it at that.

DADT is unconstitutional. It's cruel and unfair. It will be looked back on as the work of bigoted dolts.

Unwanted sexual advances come from jerks. The jerks are not necessarily from any particular sexual orientation.

DADT was never a good policy and it is a good thing it's coming to an end.

It seems to me that there's a simple alternative to DADT. There should be a rule that no one, of any persuasion, while on duty, can display affection in any form. Displays of affection are not appropriate in the armed forces, day or night. Anyone violating this rule (no matter what their sexual orienation) gets the boot.

What you do on your own time, however, is your own business.

DADT is wrong, and pisses me off. So, these soldiers, these men and women who have signed up to protect the citizens of this country, to serve, can't be trusted to treat some of their own properly? Excuse me? That is disrespectful in so many ways.

I'm so tired of this mentality. It's like asking the women of Saudi Arabia to cover themselves with a burka because supposedly men can't control themselves around an uncovered woman. I expect better of men than that, and I expect SO much better of soldiers, who have chosen to serve, at a possible very great cost to themselves.

I believe in our service people, and I also believe that homosexuality is not something to be ashamed of, that needs to be hidden. To hell with DADT.

I had to check up on what the Australian policy was as I had no idea. Australia allows homosexuals to serve openly.

I lifted the following comment from Wikipedia.

While the lifting of the ban was not immediately followed by large numbers of personnel declaring their sexual-orientation, by the late 1990s significant numbers of officers and enlisted personnel had successfully and largely uneventfully come out to their peers. Recruitment and retention rates have not suffered as a result of the policy change. As Commodore R. W. Gates of the Royal Australian Navy states in the report, “There was no great peak...where people walked out, and there was no great dip in recruiting. It really was a non-event.”

Didn't this country use to be the progressive one? I also believe in equality, that everyone is equal no matter what their sexual orientation. Equality is not something that can be legislated away, or put to a vote. It just IS.
Come on, America, live up to your own standards.

No comment.

Message 5 has got me fuming. And then to name one fucked up person, who just happens to be gay...get out of my face with that bullshit.

Anyone that wants to go overseas to defend my freedom so I don't have to get off my ass and do it - pretty much has my vote to be, say, and do whatever the heck they want to out in the open.

I'm with Stacia. If someone wants to go get their balls or other body parts blown off in a war in a foreign land for no reason at all, by all means have at it. If they want to play grab ass in their spare time, I'm just fine with that as well. I just don't need to know the details.

DADT was bad policy to begin with.
Definitely time for it to go.

Anything that was created out of fear, ignorance, and hate generally doesn't work, Message 5.

Exactly, Bun. I think the policy is an insult to the troops, and to the military. And to the gay men and women who serve.
Heck, it's just offensive to everyone, really. As you said earlier.

I think it is an outdated prejudice better consigned to history.

I know soldiers are brave and so is being out and open about your sexuality if gay is also brave. But with regard to the hypothetical openly gay soldier trying it on in a tent full of purportedly openly straight soldiers at bed time is hysterical. That hypothetically gay soldier would have to be really, really, really, really brave or just one plain stupid dirty little slut with a death wish.

Now that the American army are scrapping this restriction I can't wait for the subsequent new wave of Hollywood army flicks. They're camp enough already at times. Soon they will be really outrageous lol

Malcolm, I hereby dub thee "LobsterBoy."

Jammies wrote: "Malcolm, I hereby dub thee "LobsterBoy.""

Jammies wrote: "Malcolm, I hereby dub thee "LobsterBoy.""

I'm afraid you'll have to explain your meaning if I am to understand and appreciate you fully

LobsterGirl likes to dig up old threads.

Cool

Thanks, janine, somehow I missed that Malcolm had asked a question. *sigh* It's not funny when you have to explain it.

Jammies wrote: "Thanks, janine, somehow I missed that Malcolm had asked a question. *sigh* It's not funny when you have to explain it."

Well, pardon me for my ignorance of your in-jokes and customs. Ignorance is not always bliss. It is cool to be enlightened for knowledge is power.

I, Sir Lobsterboy of Terminal Coffee, am honoured truly by your conferment :o)

I wasn't dinging you for ignorance, Malcolm, I was sighing for my poor attempt at humor.

I notice that Malcolm elevated himself to a full knighthood, "Sir Lobsterboy."

Jonathan wrote: "I notice that Malcolm elevated himself to a full knighthood, "Sir Lobsterboy.""

In Britain when one's monarch confers upon a subject the honour of a dubbing it is customary that one should take a title in accordance to the level of honour and dignity, be that but a humble knight or a more elevated lord - honi soit qui mal y pense, as they say :o)

I want Malcom to get an avatar.

Pwease?

Stacia ~ ran out of lette... wrote: "I want Malcom to get an avatar.

Pwease?"

But why does it bother you? If I did it wouldn't be a portrait of myself. More likely it would be a pic of a Warhol soup can or something.

What's so wonderful about an avatar anyway? :o)

Because it's what I associate with a person. I see LG's avatar and I know it's her before I even read her name.

Go for the soup can. I like soup.

Stacia ~ ran out of lette... wrote: "Reading is my new drug, but
it 's not any cheaper than the
old ones ."

Love the quote. I'm giving your desire for me to have an avatar due consideration. I'll see if I like the goodreads community enough before I make my final decision tho :o)

No pressure Malcolm. You should only do it if it feels right.

Stacia ~ ran out of lette... wrote: "Because it's what I associate with a person. I see LG's avatar and I know it's her before I even read her name.

Go for the soup can. I like soup."

The world of art is vast and some may find Warhol a tad trite (tho I love him), so I'll make no promises as regards to image :o)

Stacia ~ ran out of lette... wrote: "Because it's what I associate with a person. I see LG's avatar and I know it's her before I even read her name.

Go for the soup can. I like soup."

By the way, who is LG?

Moi.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Moi."

Oooh RockLobsterGal mwah x I do like reading your stuff when they catch my eye.

Stacia, the delightful LG looks nothing like whatever that thing is. And besides, you an always tell us apart by our names :o)

Anyway if one did get an avatar one would most likely keep changing it which some might find tiresome

I change my avatar and name frequently. Although, I never bothered to find out if anyone finds it tiresome.

Larry wrote: "No pressure Malcolm. You should only do it if it feels right."

Thanks mom.

Larry wrote: "No pressure Malcolm. You should only do it if it feels right."

Hats off to Larry :o)