View Full Version : 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repealed
PanzerJaeger
12-19-2010, 12:24
Yay. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121803502.html?wprss=rss_print) :balloon2:
'Don't ask' is repealed in historic vote
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The U.S. military will for the first time in history allow gays to serve openly after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that has required such troops to hide their sexual identity or risk being expelled from the services.
While opponents said repeal would create a battlefield distraction that could endanger troops, supporters drew parallels to the military's decision to end racial segregation in the 1950s and the admission of women to military service academies in the 1970s.
"This is the defining civil rights initiative of this decade," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "Congress has taken an extraordinary step on behalf of men and women who've been denied their rightful integrity for too long."
For decades, being gay was grounds for discharge, and tens of thousands of service members were forced out after their sexual identities were exposed. President Bill Clinton, who had hoped to end that ban, authorized "don't ask" as a compromise in 1993. More than 13,000 troops have been discharged under the policy.
The years-long legislative debate over the policy came to an end Saturday as senators voted 65 to 31 to send the repeal legislation to President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to eliminate the ban on gays serving openly. Eight Republicans joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus; four senators did not vote.
"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said later in a statement. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."
The vote came after an exhaustive Pentagon review found that allowing gays to serve openly posed a "low risk" of disruption and that a large majority of troops expected that it would have little or no effect on their units.
Top Pentagon officials - who lobbied vigorously for repeal, in part because they feared that a court-ordered lifting of the ban would be far more disruptive - said Saturday that it would take months and perhaps longer to implement the new policy.
"We will be a better military as a result," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Clinton's effort to change the Defense Department policy that deemed homosexuality incompatible with military service was upended by resistance from top military advisers, Congress and the American public. The bill he eventually signed - enacting the policy officially known as "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" - was drafted in part by lawmakers opposed to gays in the military.
Yet public sentiment toward gays in the military has since shifted: In May 1993, just 44 percent of Americans believed gays who disclosed their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military; now, 77 percent of Americans think so, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this month.
It is a shame that this came too late for the 13,500 men and women whose careers were cut short during DADT. :shame:
Go Obama. About time, must have felt really bad for gay soldiers having to hide it
HoreTore
12-19-2010, 12:46
It will take months and perhaps longer to implement the new policy
What does that mean? How long can it take to remove a policy like that? Why would it take more than a single email? Are they trying to screw things up?
Probably want to do "special shower rooms" for the homosexuals, and other such nonsense.
Probably want to do "special shower rooms" for the homosexuals, and other such nonsense.
Would women feel comfortable showering with men they did not know? Of course not, when someone is sexually attracted to you and you are not interested in them, or in this case, share no attraction, it is very uncomfortable to be exposing yourself to them and showering with them. Especially when men of the average recruiting age (and gay men in particular) have a reputation for being, shall we say, very forward, even when their attentions are not wanted.
Why then is it hard to understand why straight men would feel very uncomfortable with such arrangements, or want separate facilities?
No, contrary to what the media may say, it is not because they hate gays, or not even that they fear them (just as women don't hate or fear men, but wouldn't feel comfortable being made to shower with them), but are just uncomfortable exposing their naked bodies to people who will be attracted by them when they are not attracted to these people at all.
rory_20_uk
12-19-2010, 16:17
I am pretty sure that those wanting a career in the army and who are gay will not be there to eye up buff straight guys.
FFS, you're training to kill and with a bayonet if required. If you can't cope with a shower, perhaps a different career might be more suitable?
~:smoking:
I am pretty sure that those wanting a career in the army and who are gay will not be there to eye up buff straight guys.
FFS, you're training to kill and with a bayonet if required. If you can't cope with a shower, perhaps a different career might be more suitable?
~:smoking:
Yes, and I am sure that those straight and bi men wanting a career in the army are not there to harass women, yet harassment and rape happen all the time. Don't BS rory, people are people, and when put together, they will do what people do.
Yes, you are supposed to be training to kill with with a bayonet, and not having to worry about harassment, rape, or some 18 year old with raging hormones trying to get close to you in the shower. It is very important to have strong platonic bonds with your fellow Marines if you are going to function correctly in combat. Putting men with women, or gay men with straight men disrupts these bonds and endangers everyone. I have nothing against gay guys serving in the military, but I do think that they should be housed and showered separate from straight men.
gaelic cowboy
12-19-2010, 17:09
Yes, and I am sure that those straight and bi men wanting a career in the army are not there to harass women, yet harassment and rape happen all the time. Don't BS rory, people are people, and when put together, they will do what people do.
Yes, you are supposed to be training to kill with with a bayonet, and not having to worry about harassment, rape, or some 18 year old with raging hormones trying to get close to you in the shower. It is very important to have strong platonic bonds with your fellow Marines if you are going to function correctly in combat. Putting men with women, or gay men with straight men disrupts these bonds and endangers everyone. I have nothing against gay guys serving in the military, but I do think that they should be housed and showered separate from straight men.
Can they pass the fitness and psych tests if the do and they have the required educational qualification then they should be allowed in the Army.
Can they pass the fitness and psych tests if the do and they have the required educational qualification then they should be allowed in the Army.
I never said that they should not be allowed into the Army. I said that they should be quartered separately, just as men and women are. There is a reason for it. You cannot have soldiers developing desires for soldiers who they are training and working directly with. It really disrupts things.
CrossLOPER
12-19-2010, 17:51
I never said that they should not be allowed into the Army. I said that they should be quartered separately, just as men and women are. There is a reason for it. You cannot have soldiers developing desires for soldiers who they are training and working directly with. It really disrupts things.
What are you proposing exactly? A separate building for every gay or bi soldier?
What are you proposing exactly? A separate building for every gay or bi soldier?
Of course that must be what I am suggesting. After all, we must make new buildings for every individual female Marine as well.
HoreTore
12-19-2010, 18:43
Bollox.
Gay soldiers have showered with straight soldiers for decades. There haven't been a problem yet, there's no reason why there should be one now.
As has been said, have a little faith in your soldiers mental capacity.
rory_20_uk
12-19-2010, 18:57
Replace "gay" with "black" and that would have been gospel about 50 years ago.
As HoreTore states, those that are gay are still gay. Nothing has changed.
~:smoking:
He's a Yank dragging around some outdated cultural mores, give him some time.
Replace "gay" with "black" and that would have been gospel about 50 years ago.
As HoreTore states, those that are gay are still gay. Nothing has changed.
~:smoking:
And it took almost 10 years for full integration to happen.
As has been said, have a little faith in your soldiers mental capacity.
I don't think Vuk is a soldier, so its ok.
Of course that must be what I am suggesting. After all, we must make new buildings for every individual female Marine as well.
The female soldiers aren't attracted to one another if they're straight, the gay ones are. So a building full of gay soldiers would disrupt things according to you.
Can't put them with the women either as the women could be attracted to them and that would disrupt things, no?
Gay soldiers have showered with straight soldiers for decades.
Oh, at least as long as there have been showers, so a century or so. And gay soldiers bathed with straight soldiers for a few millennia before that.
Beside which, have you ever seen how fit young gay dudes are? We should be recruiting them, not kicking them out. Them boys are buff.
CrossLOPER
12-19-2010, 21:26
Of course that must be what I am suggesting. After all, we must make new buildings for every individual female Marine as well.
I'm inclined to believe that you did not understand me. Are you suggesting that, in order to accomodate homosexual soldiers, each individual soldier must have a building that is explicitly designed for a single individual? According to this plan, there are to be tens of thousands of micro buildings constructed. That's a bit excessive, don't you agree?
Bollox.
Gay soldiers have showered with straight soldiers for decades. There haven't been a problem yet, there's no reason why there should be one now.
As has been said, have a little faith in your soldiers mental capacity.
Are you kidding me? Most people joining the army are in a time of their life when they are almost completely controlled by hormones and their mental faculties are at their most vulnerable that they will be during any time in their lives. They have a LOT to deal with, and you should not seek to make it harder for them to be better soldiers.
Replace "gay" with "black" and that would have been gospel about 50 years ago.
As HoreTore states, those that are gay are still gay. Nothing has changed.
~:smoking:
No, not at all. Quit trying to play the race card my little commie islander friend. It has nothing to do with not liking people or thinking that they are inferior. It is a completely different issue. And yes, they are gay, BUT, guys knowing that they are gay and them acting openly like they are gay WILL make people uncomfortable. Whether that is wrong or not on the side of straight guys, it is the truth, and it will negatively effect combat performance.
The female soldiers aren't attracted to one another if they're straight, the gay ones are. So a building full of gay soldiers would disrupt things according to you.
Can't put them with the women either as the women could be attracted to them and that would disrupt things, no?
The difference is that straight guys are not attracted gay guys, and yet gay guys are to them. Guess what? That is going to create conflict. It is just like married women being hit on by young guys, it does not make them comfortable because the attraction is NOT reciprocal.
Beside which, have you ever seen how fit young gay dudes are? We should be recruiting them, not kicking them out. Them boys are buff.
Now that is just stereotyping Lemur. I know plenty of very unfit gay dudes (in fact, I only know one who is above average fitness. Most of the ones I know are either too fat, or waaay to skinny.) I also know tons of buffed straight guys.
I'm inclined to believe that you did not understand me. Are you suggesting that, in order to accomodate homosexual soldiers, each individual soldier must have a building that is explicitly designed for a single individual? According to this plan, there are to be tens of thousands of micro buildings constructed. That's a bit excessive, don't you agree?
I was making fun of your statement CrossLOPER.
Despite your claiming to know "plenty of gay dudes" I'm not sure that you actually have met many gay people. Most don't "act gay" they are just normal people with different sexual preference to straight people, they don't go around hitting on anything with three legs. You my friend are the one stereotyping here. Segregating the gays is a silly idea.
On the original topic, I don't see why it should take months to "implement" a new "policy". They simply have to stop doing something they do now, this is the exact opposite of somthing that would take time to implement.
Despite your claiming to know "plenty of gay dudes" I'm not sure that you actually have met many gay people. Most don't "act gay" they are just normal people with different sexual preference to straight people, they don't go around hitting on anything with three legs. You my friend are the one stereotyping here. Segregating the gays is a silly idea.
On the original topic, I don't see why it should take months to "implement" a new "policy". They simply have to stop doing something they do now, this is the exact opposite of somthing that would take time to implement.
Really? Then explain to me why I have seen gays hitting on straight men before, had gay guys hit on me, and why there are three guys in my Taiji class who regularly wear shirts with things like "QUEER! BITCH!" written on them? Yeah, they do 'act gay' around dudes. (ei, act like someone attracted to someone), just like straight guys act differently around pretty women (typically called "being a boy") than they do their male friends.
HoreTore
12-19-2010, 23:35
There thousands of gays already in the army vuk,they are already taking showers with their straight buddies, and your soldiers doesn't seem to have any problems with that.
PanzerJaeger
12-19-2010, 23:48
Really? Then explain to me why I have seen gays hitting on straight men before, had gay guys hit on me, and why there are three guys in my Taiji class who regularly wear shirts with things like "QUEER! BITCH!" written on them? Yeah, they do 'act gay' around dudes. (ei, act like someone attracted to someone), just like straight guys act differently around pretty women (typically called "being a boy") than they do their male friends.
This sounds made up, unless you mistakenly wandered into a gay bar one day. Even by your own account though, you have been hit on by multiple gay guys and survived the experience. What makes you think our soldiers cannot?
Anyway, being gay doesn't make one act a certain way, and the gay people you seem to be concerned with - the more effeminate ones - probably aren't going to be looking to join combat units.
This sounds made up, unless you mistakenly wandered into a gay bar one day. Even by your own account though, you have been hit on by multiple gay guys and survived the experience. What makes you think our soldiers cannot?
Anyway, being gay doesn't make one act a certain way, and the gay people you seem to be concerned with - the more effeminate ones - probably aren't going to be looking to join combat units.
No, it is not made up my NN friend. You obviously have never spent much time in Madison. Yes, of course you can survive it, but in situation in the military when people quite often have power over others, you do not think that it is a problem? Then why not have men and women bed together and shower together?
Do you know that the majority of those who express a strong dislike of homosexuals are actually ones having homosexual thoughts themselves? It is okay Vuk, you are safe here. No one here will think less of you if you wanted to be honest with yourself. we are a good natured, friendly, welcoming sort of people.
I remember a quote from a America soldier on the BBC news website about the issue, he said about some one who was known to be a homosexual in the unit, and said how he was the toughest b* word there (he said it in a complimentary fashion).
Also, I have no issue with men and women shower and bed together Starship Trooper style.
rory_20_uk
12-20-2010, 00:28
Oh, come on. Every job people have power over other people. That's no reason.
I'd be interested to see how many military personnel who had been in the Forces for years come out and have failed to mince to the range wearing a pink tutu and doing their nails instead of firing their gun.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
12-20-2010, 00:29
Men and women can't live together because it would cause sex. And officers are terrified of sex.
But as someone who isn't afraid of the sex, I have nothing against unisex showers. And just FYI, men and women share the same building in the Norwegian army, my room during my first 6 months was next to the females room, in fact... And during excercises we of course slept in the same tent.
And there's no chance of sex between a gay man and a straight man, so nothing to worry about for anyone.
Do you know that the majority of those who express a strong dislike of homosexuals are actually ones having homosexual thoughts themselves? It is okay Vuk, you are safe here. No one here will think less of you if you wanted to be honest with yourself. we are a good natured, friendly, welcoming sort of people.
I remember a quote from a America soldier on the BBC news website about the issue, he said about some one who was known to be a homosexual in the unit, and said how he was the toughest b* word there (he said it in a complimentary fashion).
Also, I have no issue with men and women shower and bed together Starship Trooper style.
lol, that is BS people say to scare people away from opposing such things as gay marriage, etc.
Of course Beskar, you are operating under the assumption that I have a strong dislike of homosexuals. That is not true at all. I have friends who are homosexual and I know people who I seriously dislike who are homosexual. It depends on the person, and not their sexual preferences.
Men and women can't live together because it would cause sex. And officers are terrified of sex.
But as someone who isn't afraid of the sex, I have nothing against unisex showers. And just FYI, men and women share the same building in the Norwegian army, my room during my first 6 months was next to the females room, in fact... And during excercises we of course slept in the same tent.
And there's no chance of sex between a gay man and a straight man, so nothing to worry about for anyone.
No chance huh? That is like saying that there is no chance for a woman to have sex with a guy she is not interested in. The fact that she is not interested in him does not stop him from hitting on her and making her uncomfortable. Also, you are forgetting rape, which happens all too often by both straight and gay men. Women are uncomfortable is military settings because if their officer is a guy, they have control over them. Why would it be different with gay and straight men? Guess what, it has happened with the amount of gay men that are in the military now. It would happen even more so if more gays were in the military.
No, that is not to say that gays are rapists, but just like straight people, they have their rapists. Men and women do not bathe and sleep together in the Marines to try to cut down on rape and people's fear, because it is essential that people can trust each other. If that is wise, why would it not be wise to do with gays?
EDIT: And rape happens in the military (to men and women) a lot more than you would think. There have been some pretty disturbing statistics about that.
I never said that they should not be allowed into the Army. I said that they should be quartered separately, just as men and women are. There is a reason for it. You cannot have soldiers developing desires for soldiers who they are training and working directly with. It really disrupts things.
Just because they are gay doesn't mean they are attracted to you, no need for that.
Why would it be different with gay and straight men? Guess what, it has happened with the amount of gay men that are in the military now. It would happen even more so if more gays were in the military.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going to happen now that sexual orientation is not an issue, more gay people wont magically start flocking to the military, it's just that the gay people who are already in the military wont have to live in constant fear of being unceremoniously kicked out.
Devastatin Dave
12-20-2010, 06:12
Thank God I'm out of the Air Force. It was hard enough competing with women and minorities for promotion when they needed to fill quotas, now you'll have to compete with the weighted "homo" index. Good luck on the social experimentation with the world's greatest modern army. Its not bad enough having to deal with the women, now you have a whole other group of sensitive humans you're going to have to deal with. Can't wait for when they'll demand base housing for them and their butt buddies. maybe they can make a Barney Frank bath house out of one. Yipee...
This is going to turn out bad. A large portion of combat troops already said that they would not reenlist after this ruling, now will have to see if recruiting from beauty salons, bath houses, and drama troops will make up those numbers.
Fisherking
12-20-2010, 08:15
Gay or straight, sexual relationships are bad for unit cohesion and discipline.
In some rear area support units it is a severe headache for the leadership, but it is manageable.
In a combat unit, however, it can be deadly. Everyone has to rely on everyone else. Perception is as important as what is actually going on. If you introduce lovers into the mix you have to worry about whether they are doing their job or doing each other. This doesn’t effect just the leaders either, everyone has something to say about it. And then think of having to depend on an ex-lover to watch your back.
There are always interpersonal difficulties that have to be handled and overcome but adding love and sex into the mix is very dangerous if you want a reliable combat unit.
It is more than just a matter of what is socially expectable.:smash:
PanzerJaeger
12-20-2010, 08:36
There are always interpersonal difficulties that have to be handled and overcome but adding love and sex into the mix is very dangerous if you want a reliable combat unit.
Who said anything about adding love and sex into the mix? This is about letting people do their day jobs - that they are already doing, by the way - without fear of discharge if their home lives are discovered.
Gay or straight, sexual relationships are bad for unit cohesion and discipline.
In some rear area support units it is a severe headache for the leadership, but it is manageable.
In a combat unit, however, it can be deadly. Everyone has to rely on everyone else. Perception is as important as what is actually going on. If you introduce lovers into the mix you have to worry about whether they are doing their job or doing each other. This doesn’t effect just the leaders either, everyone has something to say about it. And then think of having to depend on an ex-lover to watch your back.
There are always interpersonal difficulties that have to be handled and overcome but adding love and sex into the mix is very dangerous if you want a reliable combat unit.
It is more than just a matter of what is socially expectable.:smash:
:laugh4: Brilliant!
Castrate everyone who joins the Army, obvious solution, eh?
Fisherking
12-20-2010, 12:51
Who said anything about adding love and sex into the mix? This is about letting people do their day jobs - that they are already doing, by the way - without fear of discharge if their home lives are discovered.
People are people and when you add sexual attraction into a group you are going to complicate the dynamics of the group.
It is unavoidable.
In an open and peaceful society this is not a problem but a unit going into battle need to have single focus in other directions.
It is not a matter of people being unfit or not good enough to perform their duty it is a matter of group psychology and group dynamics.
It was a very ill-conceived bit of legislation in other regards also. It will seriously deplete the recruiting pool in a voluntary force.
The intent behind it may have been good and just but it will lead to some huge problems all across the board.
You change the perception of a rough and ready fighting force into that of a gay dating service.
What kind of recruits do you expect you will get for that?
rory_20_uk
12-20-2010, 12:52
Considering most US army types get 95% of their steroids from injections this wouldn't do much.
~:smoking:
In some rear area support units it is a severe headache for the leadership, but it is manageable.
I´d imagine so! :P
rory_20_uk
12-20-2010, 13:34
As long as it's just a headache....
~:smoking:
It's not the government's job to nanny-state the soldiers around and protect them from love and other distractions.
If they make a bad decision in combat, they have to bear the consequences, it's also a volunteer army after all.
What about all the straight guys who go to war with the hot blonde as the only girl in their group, is that not a distraction?
Would women feel comfortable showering with men they did not know? Of course not, when someone is sexually attracted to you and you are not interested in them, or in this case, share no attraction, it is very uncomfortable to be exposing yourself to them and showering with them. Especially when men of the average recruiting age (and gay men in particular) have a reputation for being, shall we say, very forward, even when their attentions are not wanted.
Why then is it hard to understand why straight men would feel very uncomfortable with such arrangements, or want separate facilities?
No, contrary to what the media may say, it is not because they hate gays, or not even that they fear them (just as women don't hate or fear men, but wouldn't feel comfortable being made to shower with them), but are just uncomfortable exposing their naked bodies to people who will be attracted by them when they are not attracted to these people at all.
Clearly you were never in a fraternity. Or on a sports team.
AFAIK there does not seem to be any major issues in the countries that already has allowed it, so what is the problem?
It's not the government's job to nanny-state the soldiers around and protect them from love and other distractions.
If they make a bad decision in combat, they have to bear the consequences, it's also a volunteer army after all.
What about all the straight guys who go to war with the hot blonde as the only girl in their group, is that not a distraction?
Women only drive convoys. But if a gay person choses to be in the army he choses for a disciplined enviroment, you would expect they thought that through, people should worry so much about developing relationships you can expect them to understand that they can't do that, they are professionals after all. People think too much, it never led to any trouble here.
@Tincow indeed. Two in my class were gay, never saw them having a boner in the shower or had even a hint of a pass. It's like topless women sunning, it's asexual unless intended otherwise.
Furunculus
12-20-2010, 15:54
I remember a quote from a America soldier on the BBC news website about the issue, he said about some one who was known to be a homosexual in the unit, and said how he was the toughest b* word there (he said it in a complimentary fashion).
Also, I have no issue with men and women shower and bed together Starship Trooper style.
agreed, it's the 21st century, we can get past this surely.
i'm with you brother! :cowboy:
@Tincow indeed. Two in my class were gay, never saw them having a boner in the shower or had even a hint of a pass. It's like topless women sunning, it's asexual unless intended otherwise.
:yes:
A lot of people don't seem to understand that there's a big difference between public and private nudity. Private nudity is intimate and personal and thus creates a sexual aspect to the experience. Public nudity is, by definition, not intimate or personal and that in and of itself removes almost all sexual arousal from the act. (Note that 'public' and 'private' in this sense are more in terms of the intent of the naked person, not the number of people around. There can be 'private' nudity with multiple people around (i.e. orgies) and 'public' nudity between only two people (i.e. medical examination).) It's like a person posing nude for an art class. Even if the person is very attractive, the purpose of the nudity itself makes it a very non-sexual experience. In the military, the only nudity that is forced on a person is this non-sexual 'public' nudity. While I can understand that causing a person to be self-conscious, that's a result of the individual's own feelings about themselves, not someone else's feelings about them.
Study of the effects of allowing openly gay people to serve in Australia in 1992 http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/the_effects_of_including_gay_and_lesbian_soldiers_in_the_australian_defence_forces_appraising_the_ev idence
this study finds that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members Yes I know it says may, but still...
Prior to the lifting of the ban, ADF service chief argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would jeopardize recruitment, troop cohesion, and combat effectiveness while also spreading AIDS and encouraging predatory behavior
Excluding the AIDs bit that basically sums up the arguments against it in this thread so far.
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.”
In a few months or years no one will even care.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
12-20-2010, 16:27
Yes, and I am sure that those straight and bi men wanting a career in the army are not there to harass women, yet harassment and rape happen all the time. Don't BS rory, people are people, and when put together, they will do what people do.
Yes, you are supposed to be training to kill with with a bayonet, and not having to worry about harassment, rape, or some 18 year
W old with raging hormones trying to get close to you in the shower. It is very important to have strong platonic bonds with your fellow Marines if you are going to function correctly in combat. Putting men with women, or gay men with straight men disrupts these bonds and endangers everyone. I have nothing against gay guys serving in the military, but I do think that they should be housed and showered separate from straight men.
Well, that's a really great idea to get the soldiers to fight better together and to invoke regimental unity,eh? :idea2::juggle2:
PanzerJaeger
12-20-2010, 19:13
People are people and when you add sexual attraction into a group you are going to complicate the dynamics of the group.
It is unavoidable.
It is avoidable. It is called self control. The military tends to weed out those that don't have it early on. Somehow the tens of thousands of gay soldiers serving now in every capacity in the military have been able to manage it. You are aware that this legislation does not sanction relationships between soldiers, correct? Gay people will still be required to maintain the standards of conduct every US soldier is required to adhere to.
It was a very ill-conceived bit of legislation in other regards also. It will seriously deplete the recruiting pool in a voluntary force.
Evidence suggests otherwise, both from other nations who have made the change and the US military's own research.
You change the perception of a rough and ready fighting force into that of a gay dating service.
No, you don't. :dizzy2:
Gay people already serve in the US military. Everyone knows gay people already serve in the US military. I'm not sure what you think is changing here.
What kind of recruits do you expect you will get for that?
Bright young men and women who value their country far more than their petty predjudices.
Does America really want people so socially backwards and beholden to religious doctrine that they cannot bear the thought of serving with those different from themselves conducting anti-insurgency campaigns? I can only imagine how such people treat would their host populations.
a completely inoffensive name
12-20-2010, 21:33
Bigots always will claim that allowing a greater freedom for different people to mix in social/government constructs will make things worse by mixing things up. Vuk and the Evangelicals is just history repeating itself, he goes off on unit cohesion and gays having an insatiable sex drive, hitting on straight men in a firefight, Strom Thurmond and the social Darwinist's for a hundred years before him went off about how the negro brain is scientifically smaller/less capable then the European one and how we should not mix races to create a weak breed. Remember way back when women couldn't vote because their monthly temperamental cycle disqualified them from gaining the right to vote due to an incapacity for logical thinking?
Gays serving openly hasn't destroyed the armies of pretty much every other western country and it won't destroy ours. Miotas has spoken the most truth here, "In a few months or years no one will even care".
Louis VI the Fat
12-20-2010, 22:12
PAH!
I BET ALL YOU HOMOPHOBES SECRETLY DREAM OF A SHOWER, CREAMY SOAP, AND GETTING YOUR HANDS ON SOME SLIPPERY DICK.
Can you handle my slippery dick? (http://readmore-webphemera.blogspot.com/2008/10/could-you-handle-slippery-dick.html)
Furunculus
12-21-2010, 01:09
there was a time when a more intolerant macho culture reigned in the forces, as a magnified reflection of societies intolerance.
it would indeed have damaged unit cohesion from bullying and beasting, whereas the confirmed bachelor was quietly tolerated.
it isn't the states job to use the forces as a mechanism for 'enlightened' social engineering, it was there to defend the realm, so i supported that policy.
society changed and so has the army, it's the 21st century and this is not necessary now for all that it was always an unpleasant phenomenon.
gaelic cowboy
12-21-2010, 01:44
The army is just returning to it's ancient homo leanings anyway :yes: I mean come on marching around in dress uniforms and the like the ancient greeks would be delighted.
Louis VI the Fat
12-21-2010, 01:52
The army is just returning to it's ancient homo leanings anyway :yes: I mean come on marching around in dress uniforms and the like the ancient greeks would be delighted.At last a return to normality then? :beam:
https://img545.imageshack.us/img545/6939/vaseb.jpg
gaelic cowboy
12-21-2010, 02:08
At last a return to normality then? :beam:
https://img545.imageshack.us/img545/6939/vaseb.jpg
When you dig a bit into the oldest material you get the sense that homosexuality was normal in warrior society back in the day.
Crazed Rabbit
12-21-2010, 02:37
Good for Congress (I don't say that often).
I don't buy the doubts expressed by Vuk. Considering how modern young men act in frats, sports teams, etc., and even soldiers in the army doing Lady Gaga (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haHXgFU7qNI)videos, I don't think they'll really feel uncomfortable with gays serving openly.
I've been in a gay bar and never had any of the experiences you suggest;
three guys in my Taiji class who regularly wear shirts with things like "QUEER! BITCH!" written on them? Yeah, they do 'act gay' around dudes.
Most people can deal with someone they aren't attracted to hitting on them. But that isn't even going to happen, due to the Army's rules against fraternizing.
CR
Tellos Athenaios
12-21-2010, 03:10
@Louis: the picture probably depicts a man and an (underage) boy. You can tell because the men are depicted with beards (= sign of masculine maturity).
So the picture is not about brothers in arms, it is about paiderastia: you see the erastes making advances towards the eromenos.
Worth noting that all this change does is make it impossible to dismiss a gay servicemember for being gay. Inappropriate sexual conduct is still against the rules, as is adultery (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm). Our military ain't gonna turn into a love-in, fear not.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/villagepeople.jpg
When you dig a bit into the oldest material you get the sense that homosexuality was normal in warrior society back in the day.
Exchange of loot between hunting party's I think. You see men carying things off in opposite directions.
Vladimir
12-22-2010, 22:07
So, this is what I posted elsewhere.
I'm glad because:
1. Better uniforms: Do you think any self-respecting gay man would wear the pukesuit? :no:
2. Better drill and ceremony: In amazing uniforms.
3. Cleaner barracks.
4. Fewer gay jokes and male groping.
5. Strike fear into the heart of the infidel: Our current enemy fears teh gays (but bisexuality is OK).
6. Less competition over the scarce female resource: The military caps out at a certain strength, thereby increasing my odds.
Ironically, it may result in a less gay military.
Good point Lemur.
My favorite political cartoon on the issue:
https://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2552/greenberg1.jpg (https://img696.imageshack.us/i/greenberg1.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going to happen now that sexual orientation is not an issue, more gay people wont magically start flocking to the military, it's just that the gay people who are already in the military wont have to live in constant fear of being unceremoniously kicked out.
Entirely agree. I think that gay men who wanted to join the military have already done so (and will continue to do so). The only thing that has changed is the fact that they can now openly do so. There won't be a sudden influx of gay men (and presumably women). It really is a non-issue. I have served for 12 years in the personal reserves in Switzerland and I don't recall a single time this even became an issue. Now of course, I never actually served in a war zone but I do not believe that someone being gay would be one of the priorities then.
Quid
Fisherking
12-23-2010, 12:04
If it works, then there is not reason women can not serve in combat units if they want to, either.
My objections came from a particular experience when part of the command group with a joint taskforce in the field. (Army, Air Force, & Marine Corps)
I don’t mean gay sex, just sex in general. We had examples of both, naturally.
I have no idea whither it was the high stress of operations coupled with living outdoors and in close contact with others or just the element of danger but it did impact the mission.
There were numerous incidents of unwanted sexual advances involving both rank and file and the leadership, male and female. There were incidents of sex during operations, some in very dangerous situations.
It had an effect on both moral and resources.
Of course all these things were against regulations at the time also, but it made little difference.
Most of it was covered up as much as possible but it was a real problem.
Straight sex caused the biggest commotion but gay sex had the largest impact on security.
I am certainly not anti-sex, and could care less about the sex life of others, even in tents or curled in sleeping bags, but on duty when it makes more work for others and endangers the mission and the lives of others it is a different matter.
You can say what you want about regulations. They don’t stop the behavior, they just punish those caught.
It is all very funny when you are sitting some place safe and secure but when your life depends on those supposedly walking the perimeter it is a whole different story.
I hope the change has little or no effect on the armed forces. It is just that my opinions have been colored by some negative experiences.
Strike For The South
12-23-2010, 22:16
Vuks posts in this thread have made me rethink universial sovrigenty
Louis VI the Fat
12-23-2010, 22:58
my opinions have been colored by some negative experiences.Dude I'm sorry you've had some lousy gay sex experience. With your perimeter breached, I hope you didn't get penetrated.
Don't let it undermine your morale. You know what you could do next time there are frictions in your group? You should have a sing-along together!! :cowboy: :fireman: :indian_chief: :helmet: :biker: :policeman:
Strike For The South
12-23-2010, 23:00
Dude I'm sorry you've had some lousy buttsex.
He's not the one you should be aplogizing to, mon cher
Banquo's Ghost
12-28-2010, 12:33
Dude I'm sorry you've had some lousy gay sex experience. With your perimeter breached, I hope you didn't get penetrated.
Don't let it undermine your morale. You know what you could do next time there are frictions in your group? You should have a sing-along together!! :cowboy: :fireman: :indian_chief: :helmet: :biker: :policeman:
You simply can't make that assumption about Fisherking. You don't known him well enough. Like me, you have yet to penetrate his intimate circle. :bounce:
Just thought I would say - about time and why the hell did it take a lame duck session to get it through... But nevermind, I tip my hat to The States and their continual progress on the social front - quite a remarkable transformation in the last 70 odd years.
Also, geeze PJ - I haven't been here for a while and I come back to peruse; and you are espousing arguments which can only be described as 'spot on'. What happened? ;) (I jest, I jest!)
Louis VI the Fat
01-04-2011, 02:00
America's finest have always resented discrimination. Therefore the army has not been welcome on recruit on Ivy league campuses. Now that the army has repealed DADT, the army can recruit from America's brightest minds again.
The army being welcome to recruit from America's elite again ought to more than compensate a few hicks leaving for fear of being recruited by teh gays.
Reserve Officers' Training Corps about to make a comeback at elite universities? Some top schools kicked ROTC off campuses during the Vietnam War, and have kept it off since, citing the military's policy on gays. Now that Congress has repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the Ivy League is considering participating once again. But is the military even interested?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to set up an ROTC program where few students will join up, The New York Times' Tamar Lewin and Anemona Hartocollis (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/education/22colleges.html) report. Right now, Harvard has only 19 students participating in ROTC programs at nearby schools. Columbia has six. Yale has four. Brown has just one. Yale's president said his university is interested in offering more opportunities for students interested in the military, but it's not "a foregone conclusion," the Times reports, that ROTC will come back.
One Small Step Bringing ROTC to the Ivy League, Commentary's Max Boot (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/384772) notes, "will not make much of a change in either the Ivy League or the military, but it is a small, welcome step toward bridging the chasm that separates the armed forces from society's elites."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Post-DADT-Repeal-Will-Ivy-League-and-Military-Make-Up-6294/
(Although personally I'd insist the army must stay well clear of any university I'm employed at. It can recruit, but ought not to be physically present)
a completely inoffensive name
01-04-2011, 04:18
This might be something controversial to say, but I don't want the brightest from Harvard to be recruited. I want them to be going to West Point or Annapolis where their intelligence can be used to the most capacity, not as a soldier on the ground.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-04-2011, 05:46
(Although personally I'd insist the army must stay well clear of any university I'm employed at. It can recruit, but ought not to be physically present)
Whyever not? Surely there are job fairs and the like where their presence would be appropriate? I don't know of any universitys with their own recruiting office full-time on site, but where is the harm here?
Louis VI the Fat
01-04-2011, 10:22
Whyever not? Surely there are job fairs and the like where their presence would be appropriate? I don't know of any universitys with their own recruiting office full-time on site, but where is the harm here?A job fair is fine. Permanently present information is fine too. What is not fine, is a permanent physical presence of the army, especially for a university with a campus. (As is so often the case in the US, where universities are so often located in the countryside on large campuses. In contrast to Europe, where universities are commonly located in university towns or, most to my liking, exist as part of the fabric of a city large enough to not be dominated by a university).
This is what I mean. One of those southern megacampuses, not readily distuingishable from a barracks. It is all much too protofascist for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3xrUr8i2X4
It's a military academy what do you expect, nothing fascist about. I also dislike the campus-concept though. Utrecht is a nice example of a university-town, it's spread over the entire historical-centre. And the factory that is the soulless 'Uithof' but centre is really nice, always activity.
Louis VI the Fat
01-04-2011, 12:07
It's a military academy what do you expect, nothing fascist about.No it isn't. It is Texas A&M University, the oldest and largest Texas university. It's just that it looks like a military campus to European eyes. The army is integrated into the campus life to an extent unthinkable in Western Europe, from scholarships to physical presence of training cadets.
http://www.tamu.edu/
Make your officer training part of your curriculum:
http://www.armyrotc.com/edu/txam/index.htm
No it isn't. It is Texas A&M University, the oldest and largest Texas university. It's just that it looks like a military campus to European eyes. The army is integrated into the campus life to an extent unthinkable in Western Europe, from scholarships to physical presence of training cadets.
http://www.tamu.edu/
Make your officer training part of your curriculum:
http://www.armyrotc.com/edu/txam/index.htm
I see. But just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. Don't get the appeal but I get rashes from authority, 'You aren't allowed to do that' tends to bring up my inner mule. If they want military discipline power to them. Barrack communities are also unthinkable here.
For enjoyment http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fizismile.com%2F2010%2F07%2F20%2Funusual_camp_for_girls_in_south_korea_11_pics.html&ei=aggjTZTFOMSaOun0kOUI&usg=AFQjCNHcaKPm0JoVEao4Aki6PWWlZFH6Kw&sig2=N5EmyXvvXFEWLYZnikIeVQ
Vladimir
01-05-2011, 14:28
This is what I mean. One of those southern megacampuses, not readily distuingishable from a barracks. It is all much too protofascist for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3xrUr8i2X4
Louis,
It's Texas. A couple of college kids in iniform makes you think that?
HoreTore
01-05-2011, 14:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3xrUr8i2X4
What part of that movie is NOT gayer than Freddie Mercury....?
Strike For The South
01-05-2011, 16:59
Meh, A&M is a very special case and even then the # of people enrolled in the cadets is dropping like silk underwear on prom night (much to the chargrin of the old ags, but those guys are back ass hicks)
In any case it is not the Largest Texas university, that would be UT-Austin and the UT system dwarfs A&M by about 10-1.
In any case both schools suck
A&M is one of six Senior Military Colleges in the country. The cadet corp is an integral part of the campus, but it's not exclusive like VMI and the Citadel. At other non-SMC colleges and universities, ROTC is a lot less visible (unless you are staggering home through campus early in the morning :barrel:)
Strike For The South
01-05-2011, 17:30
A&M is one of six Senior Military Colleges in the country. The cadet corp is an integral part of the campus, but it's not exclusive like VMI and the Citadel. At other non-SMC colleges and universities, ROTC is a lot less visible (unless you are staggering home through campus early in the morning :barrel:)
Yea the ROTC here at Tech is not serious at all.
Even the ags know most kids now use it as an easy way to get into the school and the non-regs on campus treat them pretty disrepectfully and they are the butt of many jokes
This thread had me reminiscence about boot camp way back when.. I had a crush on our chief petty officer Halvorsen, and so did the majority of my platoon.
Those intense and commanding eyes and Prussian bearing made men out of young boys. We were the lapdogs of a magnificent soldier with a gold band on sleeves.
I was hand picked by this dark eyed beauty to represent our platoon at the NCO training. It was hard to say no to this person, so I accepted and became eventually an acting petty officer and a few years later ensign.
Many of my contemporary soldiers sigh when thinking of chief petty officer Halvorsen and her Pocahontas looks.
Vladimir
01-06-2011, 17:51
This thread had me reminiscence about boot camp way back when.. I had a crush on our chief petty officer Halvorsen, and so did the majority of my platoon.
Those intense and commanding eyes and Prussian bearing made men out of young boys. We were the lapdogs of a magnificent soldier with a gold band on sleeves.
I was hand picked by this dark eyed beauty to represent our platoon at the NCO training. It was hard to say no to this person, so I accepted and became eventually an acting petty officer and a few years later ensign.
Many of my contemporary soldiers sigh when thinking of chief petty officer Halvorsen and her Pocahontas looks.
Given the subject of the thread, if found this amusing.
It's a pity you had to put "her" in the last sentence.
HoreTore
01-06-2011, 18:29
Given the subject of the thread, if found this amusing.
It's a pity you had to put "her" in the last sentence.
Sigurd is a married man, he isn't ready to come out yet.... Just wait a couple of years ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
01-07-2011, 04:52
No it isn't. It is Texas A&M University, the oldest and largest Texas university. It's just that it looks like a military campus to European eyes. The army is integrated into the campus life to an extent unthinkable in Western Europe, from scholarships to physical presence of training cadets.
http://www.tamu.edu/
Rather intolerant of differences, aren't you? ~;p
Seriously, this seems to be taking a difference in culture from a bad perspective.
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
01-07-2011, 04:59
Meh, A&M is a very special case and even then the # of people enrolled in the cadets is dropping like silk underwear on prom night (much to the chargrin of the old ags, but those guys are back ass hicks)
In any case it is not the Largest Texas university, that would be UT-Austin and the UT system dwarfs A&M by about 10-1.
In any case both schools suck
Where shall I send my second to call on you sir? You besmirch my alma mater and such cannot be unanswered.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.