Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2007-03-15 03:38pm

In the troops I'd worry more about the senior sharing my room than some guy no one gives a fuck to making laughable statements once in awhile. It is obvious to people who are serving. The only time someone listens to the top, top brass is when he says something and the damn shit will be passed down the Chain of Command.

Due to the nature of my society so far not much has been discussed about gays in the troops besides some trivial articles. Frankly speaking I'd support a DADT policy. After all, people of all types are serving. Senior draftees "have the right" to abuse juniors. I wouldn't like people having more excuses for shit to happen. (Not to mention...my senior was very open about himself being bi and always talking about his "attempts" to violate me with his draftmates. It was very, very uncomfortable.)

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-03-15 03:45pm

I don't know why people keep bringing the "Nobody's going to listen to him" point when it's already been addressed multiple times and nobody except the apologists seem to be talking about who is going to listen to what the guy in charge says.

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2007-03-15 04:00pm

General Zod wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing the "Nobody's going to listen to him" point when it's already been addressed multiple times and nobody except the apologists seem to be talking about who is going to listen to what the guy in charge says.

Like the way I said people shouldn't criticize General Pace's views?

Wait....

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-03-15 04:24pm

Wow. I check out for a bit and look what happens.

As one of the moderators of the Mess, I'd like to apologize to all for the display here. Some internal wrangling got spilled over, and I'm putting a stop to it in our group now.

Thanks to Sir Nit for his help and to DW and other mods for their patience in this matter.

The gays in the military issue is --obviously-- a very serious and important topic for discussion and it deserves frank and candid discussion in the public eye. Hopefully more can be said on a mature level.

"We now return to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress"

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-03-15 04:25pm

Raxmei wrote:Call me crazy, but segregating gays into separate barracks sounds like some combination of civil rights violation and hate crime waiting to happen. First, it's separate but equal all over again. The gay soldiers get kicked out of the general population and are forced to live in the gay barracks. Separating the gays into other buildings reduces the amount of interaction between gay and straight soldiers, making social integration harder. Not only that, the gay barracks is the gay barracks. All known members of a disliked minority packed into their own buildings for easy targetting.

The segregation would be a civil rights violation. All you need to do is replace the word "gay" with "black" to see the clear picture. I find it funny how some people think that just by removing the DADT policy, gays in the armed forces are going to come out and cause enough harassment and sexual policy violations that it warrants separate bunks as if DADT is the only thing that keeps homosexual men from acting like heterosexual men in the presence of women.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-03-15 04:32pm

Grand Moff Yenchin wrote:
General Zod wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing the "Nobody's going to listen to him" point when it's already been addressed multiple times and nobody except the apologists seem to be talking about who is going to listen to what the guy in charge says.
Like the way I said people shouldn't criticize General Pace's views?

Wait....

I'm not sure why you're so twitchy of something I didn't accuse you of. But maybe you could bother explaining why it should matter whether someone is going to be listened to by subordinates or not when the only things people are doing is calling him a douche and saying his very public statements don't exactly help the military's image. I don't remember people coming out of the woodworks making these kind of statements when Mel Gibson had his anti-semitic fiascos awhile back.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-03-15 04:34pm

I just got around to really reading this thread and-

-the FUCK is going on here? This sort of apologist bullshit was the last thing I was expecting, but seems like some people are just too fucking blind to any possible faults in their own sacred cows.

If our equivalent of Pace had made a statement like that, he'd be out on his ear with the collective bootprints of the Presidency, Parliament and the military itself on his ass, never mind the shit he'd get from all sorts of civil rights groups and the public in general. Instant pariah, as it should be. But looks like the US resists being dragged forward from the Dark Ages mentality at every turn.

I'm going to go cool off now before I say something more that I might regret later...

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-03-15 04:56pm

In our defense, Edi, I'd point out that there is a lot of argument and shitstorm kicked up over this-- at official levels he's been paved over by the Defense Secretary and made to clarify his comments with the caveat that it is all only his personal opinion. And, of course, here-- and I'm sure we're not the only ones.

Pace's comments are not just met with acceptance-- there is still a lot of ignorance over the issue but the fact that there's argument and disapproval is, I think, a good sign.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-03-15 04:58pm

Coyote wrote:In our defense, Edi, I'd point out that there is a lot of argument and shitstorm kicked up over this-- at official levels he's been paved over by the Defense Secretary and made to clarify his comments with the caveat that it is all only his personal opinion. And, of course, here-- and I'm sure we're not the only ones.

Pace's comments are not just met with acceptance-- there is still a lot of ignorance over the issue but the fact that there's argument and disapproval is, I think, a good sign.

This I agree on wholeheartedly. In World War 2, Alan Turing was declared 'immoral' for his homosexuality, found guilty of it, ordered to take hormone therapy or go to jail, and proceeded to suicide.

Alan Turing. The man who father computing and worked so hard on cracking Enigma.

Today, at least, there is outcry.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2007-03-15 05:10pm

General Zod wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing the "Nobody's going to listen to him" point when it's already been addressed multiple times and nobody except the apologists seem to be talking about who is going to listen to what the guy in charge says.

He's not the guy in charge! He's in almost no one's chain of command.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-03-15 05:13pm

Beowulf wrote:
General Zod wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing the "Nobody's going to listen to him" point when it's already been addressed multiple times and nobody except the apologists seem to be talking about who is going to listen to what the guy in charge says.
He's not the guy in charge! He's in almost no one's chain of command.

Methinks someone's not listening, so repost:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
General Zod wrote:You're still missing the fucking point. But perhaps you can explain why we shouldn't call someone a douchebag for being a bigoted fuckhead simply because they don't set policy. Which iirc is what started this shitstorm in the first place.
I'm not aware of any homophobic troll ever having any influence over policy of a popsicle stand, much less the largest Christian denomination in the world. Nor do they claim to represent the military of the world's biggest superpower (even if he doesn't 'set policy'). Look at Parting Shots; they've been banned, usually very swiftly, and their bones collect dust and carrion-eaters all the same.

What Zod is saying is it doesn't matter the official function of a public figure. What does matter is that the public official spouted off bigotry into a massive number of newscameras and microphones aimed directly at his face, then refused to apologize and take ownership of it like a coward!

We must take people who abuse the media to disseminate hatred to task. Every time one speaks ill of his or her fellow human, people tend to get hurt by close-minded bigots. We have a responsibility to remove bigotry from public discourse.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-03-15 05:17pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
General Zod wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing the "Nobody's going to listen to him" point when it's already been addressed multiple times and nobody except the apologists seem to be talking about who is going to listen to what the guy in charge says.
He's not the guy in charge! He's in almost no one's chain of command.
Methinks someone's not listening, so repost:

I'm pretty sure Beowulf was being sarcastic there. . .

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-03-15 05:36pm

General Zod wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Beowulf wrote:He's not the guy in charge! He's in almost no one's chain of command.
Methinks someone's not listening, so repost:
I'm pretty sure Beowulf was being sarcastic there. . .

If so, I apologize for my mistake. I saw no indicators of sarcasm in his post.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2007-03-15 05:45pm

I think there is one major thing here that the straight soldiers here don't seem to be taking into account. GAY MEN DON'T WANNA FUCK EVERYTHING THAT MOVES. The difference between a gay man and a straight man is that the gay man can get sex much much easier, just go to certain clubs and you're almost guaranteed to score. I myself am currently in the process of trying to join the TA, I'm bisexual. DO you really think I'm stupid enough to run arround the barracks hitting on anything that moves? Part of being an adult is recognising whats appropriate and where, weather you gay straight or stick your dick in fruit loops.

As for Pace's comments, he may be a nobody, but he's a nobody with rank and people with anti-gay attitudes can use his comments to justify their own prejudice, turning a blind eye to comment like this allows the prejudice to grow.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2007-03-15 07:42pm

Lord Pounder wrote:I think there is one major thing here that the straight soldiers here don't seem to be taking into account. GAY MEN DON'T WANNA FUCK EVERYTHING THAT MOVES. The difference between a gay man and a straight man is that the gay man can get sex much much easier, just go to certain clubs and you're almost guaranteed to score. I myself am currently in the process of trying to join the TA, I'm bisexual. DO you really think I'm stupid enough to run arround the barracks hitting on anything that moves? Part of being an adult is recognising whats appropriate and where, weather you gay straight or stick your dick in fruit loops.

As much as I'd love to lay into the U.S. government and military, blaming their homophobic stereotyping for this kind of policy-making, that wouldn't entirely be fair. As the rules currently standing, not providing opportunities for sexual misconduct of any sort does fit in with the paradigm that the powers that be want to enforce, however unrealistic and divorced from reality their vision might be.

A lot of the trouble starts with the unrealistic attitude towards sexual relations that the military holds in general, mainly that they don't seem to think that soldiers are going to want to get off, and actively try to make it more difficult to do so. I'd almost recommend the establishment of official 'corps whores', if I didn't think the outcry from the outspoken asshole segment of the population would far exceed that on integrating gays.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 08:36pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote: Other countries haven't asked these questions? How would you know if they wouldn't reach a different conclusion?

They probably don't care about privacy as much as people in the United States do.

And what about bisexuals? Do they get their own quarters too or do they get dumped with the gay barracks? This solution is sounding better and better already...

Well, they'd probably have to. I don't see any other way. Do you see another way that respects the privacy of individuals?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 08:38pm

brianeyci wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Obviously, other countries haven't asked these questions. If they had I'm sure they'd conclude that placing homosexual men in with heterosexual men is a violation of privacy for both.
You see the public service announcement by Sulu about Tim Hardaway?

George is obviously not sexually attracted to Tim Hardaway. In a barracks it would be inevitable that you'd have instances of sexual attraction.

I have problems with Hardaway's comments that he doesn't want gay people in the locker room, don't you. Probably because gay guys don't get boners and feel like fucking nasty sweaty smelly men while if men were in the locker room with women there'd be boners and leering everywhere. I don't see a double standard keeping women in a separate locker room and keeping gay guys in the same locker room because gay men don't work the same as straight men, why do you assume they do.

It's not about erections. It's about respecting the privacy of others...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-03-15 08:38pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Well, they'd probably have to. I don't see any other way. Do you see another way that respects the privacy of individuals?

What does segregating gay members have to do with privacy? They sure as fuck don't have any with straight members in communal showers as it is.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 08:39pm

Raxmei wrote:Call me crazy, but segregating gays into separate barracks sounds like some combination of civil rights violation and hate crime waiting to happen. First, it's separate but equal all over again. The gay soldiers get kicked out of the general population and are forced to live in the gay barracks. Separating the gays into other buildings reduces the amount of interaction between gay and straight soldiers, making social integration harder. Not only that, the gay barracks is the gay barracks. All known members of a disliked minority packed into their own buildings for easy targetting.

Such problems don't exist with men, and women why do you think these problems would exist between homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-03-15 08:41pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote: Other countries haven't asked these questions? How would you know if they wouldn't reach a different conclusion?
They probably don't care about privacy as much as people in the United States do.

I think it's more about American parents' thing about shaping the world to fit their Christian ideals (as per the Wong quote in someone's siggy) so they can expend minimum effort at parenting yet still be sure their little soldier boy's getting good clean parenting by society at large. Meeting a real live gay guy (HOLY COW!!!) in your own unit and finding him likeable is guaranteed to fuck up that paradigm of hate very nicely.

Oh, and sig test

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 08:42pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote: The segregation would be a civil rights violation. All you need to do is replace the word "gay" with "black" to see the clear picture. I find it funny how some people think that just by removing the DADT policy, gays in the armed forces are going to come out and cause enough harassment and sexual policy violations that it warrants separate bunks as if DADT is the only thing that keeps homosexual men from acting like heterosexual men in the presence of women.

Being discharged from the military is a strong motivator. I disagree that this is a civil rights violation. Not doing something about it would be a violation of individual rights to not feel like they're working in a hostile enviroment.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 08:50pm

Lord Pounder wrote:I think there is one major thing here that the straight soldiers here don't seem to be taking into account. GAY MEN DON'T WANNA FUCK EVERYTHING THAT MOVES. The difference between a gay man and a straight man is that the gay man can get sex much much easier, just go to certain clubs and you're almost guaranteed to score. I myself am currently in the process of trying to join the TA, I'm bisexual. DO you really think I'm stupid enough to run arround the barracks hitting on anything that moves? Part of being an adult is recognising whats appropriate and where, weather you gay straight or stick your dick in fruit loops.

Who is saying that? Nobody is claiming that gay men want to fuck everything that moves, but you can't deny that there would be some sexual desire directed at some individuals?

The point remains that if DADT was ever rescinded then a logistical nightmare would develop as requests mounted for new facilities to be constructed.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-03-15 08:52pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Lord Pounder wrote:I think there is one major thing here that the straight soldiers here don't seem to be taking into account. GAY MEN DON'T WANNA FUCK EVERYTHING THAT MOVES. The difference between a gay man and a straight man is that the gay man can get sex much much easier, just go to certain clubs and you're almost guaranteed to score. I myself am currently in the process of trying to join the TA, I'm bisexual. DO you really think I'm stupid enough to run arround the barracks hitting on anything that moves? Part of being an adult is recognising whats appropriate and where, weather you gay straight or stick your dick in fruit loops.
Who is saying that? Nobody is claiming that gay men want to fuck everything that moves, but you can't deny that there would be some sexual desire directed at some individuals?

The point remains that if DADT was ever rescinded then a logistical nightmare would develop as requests mounted for new facilities to be constructed.

As opposed to the logistical nightmare of discharging dozens of well qualified soldiers every month on the basis of their orientation?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-03-15 09:02pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote: Other countries haven't asked these questions? How would you know if they wouldn't reach a different conclusion?
They probably don't care about privacy as much as people in the United States do.

Holy crap. Where did you pull that shit from? Your ass?

And what about bisexuals? Do they get their own quarters too or do they get dumped with the gay barracks? This solution is sounding better and better already...
Well, they'd probably have to. I don't see any other way. Do you see another way that respects the privacy of individuals?

Oh noes! The gays are going to harass or rape the poor straight men! Better keep those uncontrollable gays separated!

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2007-03-15 09:02pm

General Zod wrote:
Grand Moff Yenchin wrote:Like the way I said people shouldn't criticize General Pace's views?
Wait....
I'm not sure why you're so twitchy of something I didn't accuse you of.

Because I'm not sure why you're posting right after my post after your point has already been addressed in yours before that[/quote]
But maybe you could bother explaining why it should matter whether someone is going to be listened to by subordinates or not when the only things people are doing is calling him a douche and saying his very public statements don't exactly help the military's image. I don't remember people coming out of the woodworks making these kind of statements when Mel Gibson had his anti-semitic fiascos awhile back.[/quote]

Because if no one gives a fuck, the humilation is already on him. No one takes him seriously, he's worse than a douchebag, moron, or whatever. He's basically nothing.

Lord Pounder wrote:
I think there is one major thing here that the straight soldiers here don't seem to be taking into account. GAY MEN DON'T WANNA FUCK EVERYTHING THAT MOVES. The difference between a gay man and a straight man is that the gay man can get sex much much easier, just go to certain clubs and you're almost guaranteed to score. I myself am currently in the process of trying to join the TA, I'm bisexual. DO you really think I'm stupid enough to run arround the barracks hitting on anything that moves? Part of being an adult is recognising whats appropriate and where, weather you gay straight or stick your dick in fruit loops.

Besides what Kamakazie Sith pointed out, it probably hasn't occured to you that most of the time military people are regulated in their bases. On one side, you don't wanna wank, you have available people to hump on. On the other side, you've got no place to hide, no place to run, your seniors are piling on your ass, your superiors don't seem to know (more likely don't care), daily life is hard with all those drills, exercises, training, and superiors barking at you with shit.

What would you think? What would you do?