Will the people next demand that the military change its laws on sexual relations? When I was in, and probably still is, strange sexual postions was a crime, no specific sexual orientation is included in this law. Which means both sides could be arrested if caught doing the worng act. (Basically mercenary position is the only legal way.)
Alot of people not in the military would say change the laws, any that need change. But the military has these laws to uphold the integrety of the forces. Watering them down, or completely changing the laws will allow the military to become more like society, and that is not a step up.
The problem with these laws: Noone in today's military thinks that what two consenting adults (at least male and female) do in their own bedroom is the business of the military. There are issues when you go outside the bounds of marriages (cheating on your wives/husbands) or disrupt the chain of authority (sleeping with subordinates), but once those problems are removed, what right does the military have to tell me what position my wife and I can perform? It's insulting and does not contribute to military discipline and in fact works against morale. Why? Because the only time these laws are enforced now a days is when they want to burn someone - they can't get him on duty performance, they don't have enough evidence for something objective, or they're prosecuting adultery and want to pile on charges. Everyone in the military knows this, and therefore they know the rules are bogus and even worse, arbitrary.
Why is this a problem? When the force knows a rule is arbitrary, then they know that it's susceptible to corruption. Why is Capt E being charged with sodomy (which by UCMJ definition includes oral) when Major B bragged last week about getting three BJ's in New Orleans the weekend before?
Frankly, on the subject of homosexuality, I can think of only one person I know in the Air Force who is opposed to letting them serve openly. Almost all of my peers have expressed the opinion "Are they doing their jobs? Good."
__________________ The judge and the dreamer stood face to face ... One stranded in time, one lost in space.
The tenderness and love of God our Savior has dawned in our lives; He saved us not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of His mercy. Titus 3:4-5 (Jerusalem Bible)
"What would the church be like if we erred from an excess of compassion rather than from a stingy and legalistic lack of it." - Brennan Manning
Good for him. Profiling people for sexuality is just wrong. Don't ask don't tell should remain firmly intact minus the part where men get expelled for their thoughts on other men.
And for the record, nowadays the Spartans would be labeled "pedophiles". Greeks actually looked down on homosexuality between grown men of the same age. But if there was a sub and dom with a nice age gap then it was all good. The Sacred Band of Thebes for instance was made up of pairs of older men and their proteges.
Sick people. Too bad the Persians were stopped at Plataea. They were so close.
No, the message here is the General has lived in the military most of his life, he knows how it works. He has an opinion, and he has offered it to Obama. He nor any other General has threatened to disobey orders. He has earned the right to respectfully disagree with his superior. Just as any military person can.(respectfully disagree) It does not mean when the order comes down, they won't follow them.
Exactly. Policies must change, and probably a refresher course in sexual harrassment, with homosexual inclusions in the policy. Either side can sexual harrass the other. Which is what verbal abuse of homosexuals is.
Currently it isn't a factor, because the "victim" can't complain, because that would "tell".(Don't ask, don't tell)
True. Like I said, things would have to be changed in the military to allow gays in the military.
No problems of another nation completely cross the divide. British people have different problems, this is due to different cultures. I am not saying it shouldn't happen(Openly gay people in the military) but it should be done slowly, and with care to prevent abuse of or hardships to the soldiers.
Will the people next demand that the military change its laws on sexual relations? When I was in, and probably still is, strange sexual postions was a crime, no specific sexual orientation is included in this law. Which means both sides could be arrested if caught doing the worng act. (Basically mercenary position is the only legal way.)
Alot of people not in the military would say change the laws, any that need change. But the military has these laws to uphold the integrety of the forces. Watering them down, or completely changing the laws will allow the military to become more like society, and that is not a step up.
Like everything else, Pres.Obama says he will "change" policy, but he doesn't know how to do it.
Gitmo closing, military out of Iran by Christmas/end of the year, etc.
Nothing in goverment is easy to change, his inexperience shows when he
states he will change the status quo, and then nothing happens, very quickly.
"Don't ask, Don't tell, change? Don't hokd your breath.
You are making a slippery slope argument.
__________________ The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
-JFK
War is God's was of teaching Americans geography.
-Unknown
The Sacred Band of Thebes for instance was made up of pairs of older men and their proteges.
Sick people. Too bad the Persians were stopped at Plataea. They were so close.
I dont think its fair or right to judge a people from the past who lived with an entirely different value system than you do. The fact that you expect everyone, even people who are no longer around, to abide by your code of conduct speaks arrogant volumes.
Besides I think you should be a little more grateful to those "sick" people. The Spartans may have kicked the crap out of their neighbors repeatedly but they did help defend Greece from Persia. Had Persia completely taken over Greece, much of what you call Western civilization would not be here. You might actually be speaking Arabic right now.
Originally Posted by BlackAndy
I think the Commandant knows whats good for morale and what isn't.
If the Commandant thinks a few guys with a lisp is going to tank morale then he probably couldnt tell his rear end from a hole in the ground.
Originally Posted by Autumnleaf
The Spartan 300 were gay? I smell a bit of revisionist history. Based on what I've read the Sacred Band from Macedonia was but the Spartans were not.
Spartan males werent gay as we think of it, however the Spartan state did strongly encourage a form of male-dependency where older males would care for and look after younger males. This relationship was very close and almost always involved sex (not forced). If it makes you feel any better, the same was encouraged for females
The Sacred Band is an excellent example. They were formidable soldiers, almost on par and as feared as the Spartans. I think they make an excellent argument for allowing gays in the military.
Beyond that, whenever a minority has been admitted to the armed service, they tend to serve with distinction. Asian and German Americans during WWII are prime examples along with blacks. During the Civil War, black soldiers served in all-black units that fought alongside their white counterparts and did as good a job and in some cases better.
__________________
Even Now In Heaven There Are Angels Carrying Savage Weapons
Fifteen men on a dead man's chest
Drink and the devil had done for the rest
We wrapped 'em all in a mains'l tight
With twice ten turns of a hawser's bight
And we heaved 'em over and out of sight,
With a Yo-Heave-Ho! and a fare-you-well
And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell
Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
I dont think its fair or right to judge a people from the past who lived with an entirely different value system than you do. The fact that you expect everyone, even people who are no longer around, to abide by your code of conduct speaks arrogant volumes.
No dude, a society that smiles on man boy love is sick. My calling it out does not make me arrogant.
Of course they had an entirely different value system, it was a sick value system.
They also practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism. I am glad that society is dead and gone and wish it had crumbled sooner.
Besides I think you should be a little more grateful to those "sick" people. The Spartans may have kicked the crap out of their neighbors repeatedly but they did help defend Greece from Persia. Had Persia completely taken over Greece, much of what you call Western civilization would not be here. You might actually be speaking Arabic right now.
Greece was conquered many times both before and after. And guess what? We still have western civilization.
Many famous Greek contributors to science and literature came from Persian ruled Greek cities.
In what way do you think that a Persian administration over the Greek mainland would have prevented western civilization from being as it is, or lead to me speaking Arabic (of all things)?
No dude, a society that smiles on man boy love is sick. My calling it out does not make me arrogant.
Of course they had an entirely different value system, it was a sick value system.
They also practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism. I am glad that society is dead and gone and wish it had crumbled sooner.
Greece was conquered many times both before and after. And guess what? We still have western civilization.
Many famous Greek contributors to science and literature came from Persian ruled Greek cities.
In what way do you think that a Persian administration over the Greek mainland would have prevented western civilization from being as it is, or lead to me speaking Arabic (of all things)?
I don't recall human sacrifice as part of Greek culture. I could answer regarding why a Persian conquest of Greece woul dlikely have prevented Western civilization as we know it, but I want to see how Steezie replies.
BTW I do understand what yuo are saying about speaking Arabic. I'm not sure if I find it (not your comment) more amusing or disturbing.
No dude, a society that smiles on man boy love is sick. My calling it out does not make me arrogant.
Of course they had an entirely different value system, it was a sick value system.
They also practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism. I am glad that society is dead and gone and wish it had crumbled sooner.
Ok, beyond the "ick" factor (which is where your objections seem to be) what is your objection to the Spartan system? I'm not saying it was the best or a paradise, but it worked for them. And dont just say "MAN + BOY = GROOOOSSSSS!" tell me actual concrete reasons why you feel it was a bad system.
And by the way, EVERY society has practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism at some point, skippy. Dont look now but thy tunic doth have a tinge of dirt, methinks.
I don't recall human sacrifice as part of Greek culture.
The Spartans did kill children they perceived to be weak or flawed. One could argue that is a form of human sacrifice.
Greece was conquered many times both before and after. And guess what? We still have western civilization.
Many famous Greek contributors to science and literature came from Persian ruled Greek cities.
In what way do you think that a Persian administration over the Greek mainland would have prevented western civilization from being as it is, or lead to me speaking Arabic (of all things)?
You need to look at history in a linear fashion. Something that happened 10,000 years ago probably effected how we as a people developed.
The key is that Greece was conquered, never destroyed. The Persians really didnt like the Greeks. The Greeks kicked the Persians in the face several times (Marathon was a blood bath and NOT in the Persian's favor). Reportedly, Xerxes had a servant who would, before every meal, bend down and whisper in his ear "Remember, my lord, the Greeks." Darius tried several times to conquer Greece but usually got his rear handed to him. The Persians did manage to invade and burn Athens, but they never managed to cement control over Greece. Thermopylae was in 480, Plataea was 479 and Plataea firmly kicked the Persians out.
Key concepts of Greek thought get preserved when the Romans come to power. They conquer Greece but they incorporate Greek ideals into their system of operation, thus cementing Greek ideas into culture that would eventually become our Western civilization.
Had Persia been able to conquer and actually hold Greece, they probably would have destroyed it and it's culture utterly out of hatred for the Greeks. Consequently, the Romans may never have come to power or indeed become as strong as they became because they would have had a regional superpower to contend with. Without Rome, we may never have gotten Christianity.
Without Christianity to help stem Islam's spread into Europe, Islam probably would have become a world-wide religion and thus spread to America with settlers.
__________________
Even Now In Heaven There Are Angels Carrying Savage Weapons
Fifteen men on a dead man's chest
Drink and the devil had done for the rest
We wrapped 'em all in a mains'l tight
With twice ten turns of a hawser's bight
And we heaved 'em over and out of sight,
With a Yo-Heave-Ho! and a fare-you-well
And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell
Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Ok, beyond the "ick" factor (which is where your objections seem to be) what is your objection to the Spartan system? I'm not saying it was the best or a paradise, but it worked for them. And dont just say "MAN + BOY = GROOOOSSSSS!" tell me actual concrete reasons why you feel it was a bad system.
Let's do this one in the History forum as I can see that this will quickly go off in another direction from even this offshoot of this thread.
You start a thread about what you admire in the spartan system of governance and I'll post all my little pet peeves. Then we can read each other's opinions and see what we think.
Originally Posted by steezie
And by the way, EVERY society has practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism at some point, skippy. Dont look now but thy tunic doth have a tinge of dirt, methinks.
My tunic is clean of the above mentioned practices, so I can freely condemn it in any society.
Or if your argument is "then why don't you condemn it in x situation" then answer is that I do.
Originally Posted by steezie
The Spartans did kill children they perceived to be weak or flawed. One could argue that is a form of human sacrifice.
I wasn't thinking about that instance, but you're right about possibly being considered a form of human sacrifice. I was thinking more along the lines of ritually slaughtering the victim and burning him on an alter, or killing and devouring infants during drunken religious ceremonies.
QUOTE=steezie]
You need to look at history in a linear fashion. Something that happened 10,000 years ago probably effected how we as a people developed.
The key is that Greece was conquered, never destroyed. The Persians really didnt like the Greeks. The Greeks kicked the Persians in the face several times (Marathon was a blood bath and NOT in the Persian's favor). Reportedly, Xerxes had a servant who would, before every meal, bend down and whisper in his ear "Remember, my lord, the Greeks." Darius tried several times to conquer Greece but usually got his rear handed to him. The Persians did manage to invade and burn Athens, but they never managed to cement control over Greece. Thermopylae was in 480, Plataea was 479 and Plataea firmly kicked the Persians out.
Key concepts of Greek thought get preserved when the Romans come to power. They conquer Greece but they incorporate Greek ideals into their system of operation, thus cementing Greek ideas into culture that would eventually become our Western civilization.
Had Persia been able to conquer and actually hold Greece, they probably would have destroyed it and it's culture utterly out of hatred for the Greeks. Consequently, the Romans may never have come to power or indeed become as strong as they became because they would have had a regional superpower to contend with. Without Rome, we may never have gotten Christianity.
Without Christianity to help stem Islam's spread into Europe, Islam probably would have become a world-wide religion and thus spread to America with settlers.[/quote]
My main contention with this reasoning is that there is no precedence of the Persians destroying Greek culture where they conquered the Greeks. Remember that much of the Greek world was under Persian rule for two hundred years, yet Greek culture flourished and as I stated before, many famous Greek minds came from those areas.
The Persian army was built around a core of Greek and Persian infantry, in fact, far more mainland Greeks fought for Persia against the Macedonians than the other way around.
I think the main thing that Persian dominance would have accomplished would have been putting an end to the incessant warfare between the Greek states. Might have actually been a very good thing seeing the way that culture and ideas seem to flourish and advance in the absence of continual violence.
And as far as Christianity goes, I believe God would have sent His Son as planned, regardless of who ruled Greece.
I could answer regarding why a Persian conquest of Greece woul dlikely have prevented Western civilization as we know it, but I want to see how Steezie replies.
It would have changed Western civilization for sure, but IMO not as drastically or negatively as some think.
Yea, who cares if homosexuals and heterosexual men live in the same room, shower in the same comon showers.
If we were truly concerted about the living condition of the armed forces…they would never be deployed or even have barracks
Wasn’t this same line of reasoning used sixty years ago when President Truman ended segregation in the military? Why should good God fearing white men be forced to live and work with their social inferiors? Same argument…different minority…both sad
The desegregation of the military was one of the primary grounds for the civil rights movement and its acceptance by mainstream America. It’s difficult to justify bigotry when one serves with, lives with, depend on, is cared for by the minority one is supposed to hate
Figure out a way to keep one sided sexual attraction out of normal every day life, and then we can talk about allowing openly gay people in the military.
Maybe we should figure out a way to keep bigotry and prejudice out of normal every day life.
We don't force women to live in the same room with men, why should we force straight men to live with homosexual men?
I had a gay friend ask why straight men think gay men would be in any way interested in them.
The military lives in close quarters, in some cases sharing open showers, changing clothes with the same people around regularly. (This is different from the dressing rooms at the gym.) You have to live with every same sex person around you, seeing you naked. Meaning the occsional stare or glance, is more then just some random encounter. Living with someone that might be looking at you sexually, is no different then men and women being forced to live, dress, or shower together.
When I was in the Marines we knew who was gay and who was bi and who was straight… and no one cared
Currently, you don't know who is or isn't gay. They aren't as open about it, and are less likely to be noticed looking. When it is opened up, then everyone will know, and won't be trying to conceal their interest.
See above
When the homosexuals start facing sexual harrasment, how many here will claim the military is weeding them out? Because the people I know and have seen, when they are "out", they behaive just like the traditional construction crew watching women going by.
Will you accuse the military of special persecution when the newly "out people" proclaim their interest in fellow soldiers to openly?
You realize that heterosexuals in the military have a strict code regarding relationships of the romantic nature…why would you pretend that gays in the military would have some different set of rules?
__________________ First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.
Mahatma Ghandi
Linear Mode
