View Full Version : 'DADT' Debate Heats Up
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Debate Heats Up - Are there enough votes to repeal the controversial policy? Congress Could Vote to Repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Policy This Week.
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/topline
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
BrainStorm
05-27-2010, 08:16
I just don't get it. Of all the challenges facing our country in general and our military in particular, why continue to irritate this politically sensitive issue? I thought there was supposed to be a report from the military by the end of the year about proposed changes. Now Congress wants to preempt the military and "just do it."
Is getting re-elected just so much more important to them than doing right by the military in particular and our Country in general? I know my answer, I just say it "out loud" it out of profound frustration.
And so it goes...:eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
House Approves Repeal Of Gay Ban In Military
The House on Thursday delivered a victory to President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation.
The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.
(cont'd) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_military
Dozer523
05-27-2010, 21:37
. . . America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.[/I] I guess I'm okay with "side by side" but I don't know about "front to rear".
Especially when they compare gays to minorities.:mad:
The Reaper
05-28-2010, 02:05
Especially when they compare gays to minorities.:mad:
Come on, Guy.
You know being black is a lifestyle choice.
You learned it growing up.
One day in Junior High, wham, you just felt different!:D
TR
So? Which side of AR 670-1 will gay guys have to follow - the Male or Female rules?
Coming to a court near you soon.
Gay couple drawing BAQ?
Coming to a court near you soon.
When you think it's over - Naw, it's just the beging.
Everything starts with a compromise.
Come on, Guy.
You know being black is a lifestyle choice.
You learned it growing up.
One day in Junior High, wham, you just felt different!
TRI told some folks over here...
Point to a black person...they did it right away. The funny thing is that a few folks actually looked for a black person even though I was standing right there. LMAO!:cool:
Now...Point right now to a homo, fag, etc.:munchin
"You can't do it!":mad:
How the hell can you even make a comparison?:confused:
Stay safe.
I'm afraid to see the changes to FM 3-21.5 (former 22-5) Drill and Ceremonies over this one. :eek:
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
05-28-2010, 05:57
Come on, Guy.
You know being black is a lifestyle choice.
You learned it growing up.
One day in Junior High, wham, you just felt different!:D TR
I remember, I DO remember!
"(Our hero, Navin, is sitting at the bottom of a staircase, looking like a bum.)
Navin Huh? I am not a bum, I'm a jerk. I once had wealth, power, and the love of a beautiful woman. Now I only have two things. My friends and... uh... my thermos. Huh? My story? O.k. It was never for easy for me. I was born a poor black child. I remember the days sitting on the porch with my family singing and dancing, down in Mississippi. . . ."
Mother Feeling different again, huh?
Navin It's like I feel different. It's like I don't belong here.
Mother It's your birthday, and it's time you knew. Navin, you're not our natural born child.
Navin I'm not?
Mother You were left on our doorstep. But we raised you like you were one of us.
Navin You mean I'm going to stay this color? (Navin cries)
Mother Navin, I'd love you if you were the color of a baboons ass. (Navin and his mom hug. Taj walks in.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Vp9fQ616k&feature=related
What exactly does the government plan to do when these Soldiers, Airmen, Seaman, and Marines who are homosexuals, decide they want military benefits to be granted to their spouses? :confused:
The fact is that as of now only eight U.S. states recognize gay marriages and of those eight only five grant same sex marriage licenses (Washington, D.C. does as well). Keeping that in mind how would spousal benefits work? The most definitive answer is that all states would be required to provide same sex marriage licenses. Would this happen? I highly doubt it, however it is possible.
Let's say that option isn't possible at all, what happens then? Now you have members of your military forces being discriminated against because his husband, or her wife cannot receive the benefits granted to a male/female relationship. Are they going to station all the gay service members in five states so that they will? Absolutely not, because if that happens then the straight service members will have a gripe.
If this is passed now it will be the never ending cycle that comes with most political decisions. There are many more questions, and infinitely more answers. I'm not against gay rights in any way but this isn't the time for a repeal. History proves that careful planning is essential for this type of scenario, and that without it failure is imminent. When our government can say 'Here's what going to happen, and here are the contingencies.' Then I'll jump on board. Until then I have no reason to.
Ian
As ‘Don’t Ask’ Fades, Military Faces Thorny Practical Issues
NYT, 28 May 2010
<snip>
Indeed, both opponents and supporters of the ban say a host of thorny practical questions will face the Pentagon if Congress gives final approval to legislation allowing the repeal of the ban, which could happen this summer.
Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines?
<snip>
(cont'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29gays.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Utah Bob
05-29-2010, 09:25
How many congressmen would it take to stuff the well pipe?
Two birds, one stone.
How many congressmen would it take to stuff the well pipe?
Two birds, one stone.
Now we're talkin'!!! :lifter
Richard :munchin
Utah Bob
09-21-2010, 13:55
Not this session:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39286687/ns/politics-capitol_hill?GT1=43001
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.
The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops....
greenberetTFS
09-21-2010, 14:13
I guess I'm okay with "side by side" but I don't know about "front to rear".
Excellent Dozer................:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops....
Yeah. And if they really wanted to do the right thing the pay raise would NOT have been tied to this legislation.
How the hell can you even make a comparison?FWIW, I've been wrestling with this comparison on and off for the better part of a year. Last month at a memorial, I observed a man in unspeakable anguish over the death of his husband. The widower, an acquaintance, and I made eye contact and an answer came to me.
IMO, the comparison is valid when one looks at the role "mainstream" American culture plays in identity construction (especially gendered identity). A person can pay myriad consequences for not falling into the broad category of "normal."
YMMV.
I told some folks over here...
Point to a black person...they did it right away. The funny thing is that a few folks actually looked for a black person even though I was standing right there. LMAO!:cool:
Now...Point right now to a homo, fag, etc.:munchin
"You can't do it!":mad:
How the hell can you even make a comparison?:confused:
Stay safe.
Today, in the commuter lounge at my college I could have pointed to a 6' 200+ lb man with breasts, lipstick, and dress giving a shoulder rub to another male. Mmmm......gay!
On a more serious note, if the "plight of the homosexual community" can be likened to the ethnic/racial oppression of black people, then I'm going to have to ask where this Gayland is on a map or globe. If it were the same, then Phil McCracken and Anita Dick would have to have originated from this mythical place called Gayland. I heard it was near France...
I also don't recall any laws forbidding the assembly of gays (rainbow parades being proof) or them being used as personal property.....the list goes on.
- Dan P
Today, in the commuter lounge at my college I could have pointed to a 6' 200+ lb man with breasts, lipstick, and dress giving a shoulder rub to another male. Mmmm......gay!
On a more serious note, if the "plight of the homosexual community" can be likened to the ethnic/racial oppression of black people, then I'm going to have to ask where this Gayland is on a map or globe. If it were the same, then Phil McCracken and Anita Dick would have to have originated from this mythical place called Gayland. I heard it was near France...
I also don't recall any laws forbidding the assembly of gays (rainbow parades being proof) or them being used as personal property.....the list goes on.
- Dan PWhat is the historical basis of your dismissal of the comparison? Are you certain that the marginalization of blacks was done only through the passage of laws depriving them of their civil liberties? Or did the oppression also take place in other spheres of American life?
blue02hd
09-21-2010, 22:30
This topic has now been added to the growing list of reasons why I am looking forward to my 25 and out. It's not enough to be the best damn military in the world when you are hobbled and marginalized by the "uninterested and over educated." I see too many of those who are the least qualified to speak on this matter shouting the loudest from their cardboard soapboxes. They compare and contrast, cherry pick their points as they like, avoid honest concerns from those who will have to live the consequences, and then retreat back to their civilian corners only to search for another hollow political point to grandstand from in order to feel like they contributed SOMETHING to society. Many tout alphabet titles such as PhD, MBA, or MTV Music Awards yet lack one single day of commitment, duty, service, or sacrifice while in uniform. Seems this will never change.
Soldiers have, do, and will always do as their told, despite the greater public's inability to grasp why. This is largely because of their ability to put the service first.
This debate does not seem to be about putting service first.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Judge To Rule On Lesbian's Return To Air Force
USAToday, 22 Sep 2010
A lawyer for a decorated flight nurse discharged for being gay urged a federal judge Tuesday to reinstate her to the Air Force Reserve, and the judge indicated he might have no other choice.
U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton said he would issue a ruling Friday in the closely watched case of former Maj. Margaret Witt. As her trial closed, he expressed strong doubts about government arguments seeking to have her dismissal upheld.
The judge's comments came a few hours after Senate Republicans blocked legislation to repeal the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law on gays serving in the military.
Gay rights advocates considered the Senate vote a setback, but it focused attention even more on legal challenges to the law — including Witt's case and a federal case in California, in which a judge found earlier this month that the law violates the free speech and due process rights of gay service members.
In 2006, Leighton rejected Witt's claims that the Air Force violated her rights when it fired her under the "don't ask, don't tell" law. An appeals court panel overruled him two years later and said the military can't fire people for being gay unless it shows their dismissal was necessary to further military goals.
The ruling left it to Leighton to determine whether her firing met that standard. At the end of a six-day trial, he suggested the ruling tied his hands.
"I made my call with regard to whether this act was constitutional," he said. "My colleagues — my friends — said, 'Ron, you got it wrong,'" Leighton said during an extensive back-and-forth with a Justice Department lawyer. "They told me what I needed to do, what I needed to ask."
Witt, of Spokane, joined the Air Force in 1987 and was suspended in 2004, just short of retirement, after her commanders learned she was in a relationship with a civilian woman. She was a flight nurse with an aeromedical evacuation squadron responsible for transporting and caring for injured soldiers.
Her attorneys, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, insisted that Witt was well respected and liked by her colleagues, that her sexuality never caused problems in the unit, and that her firing actually hurt military goals such as morale, unit cohesion and troop readiness. Several members of the squadron testified to that effect and said they would welcome Witt back to the unit.
Lawyers for the Air Force said such evidence was irrelevant. Military personnel decisions can't be run by unit referendum, they said.
Instead, Justice Department lawyer Peter Phipps asked the judge to look back at the reasons Congress cited for passing "don't ask," including the possibility that gay service members could have limited privacy during deployments, and determine whether those factors were relevant to Witt's case.
Leighton responded that such an approach would provide a nearly meaningless constitutional analysis, "a far cry" from the heightened scrutiny called for by the 9th Circuit's decision.
He said he considered two other arguments from the government unpersuasive: that Witt posed a threat to unit cohesion and integrity because she once committed adultery, and that Witt shouldn't be reinstated because the military has an overriding need for uniformity in its personnel policies. Refusing to reinstate Witt for the latter reason would require him to overrule the 9th Circuit, Leighton said.
He said he did not believe the courts were the appropriate venue for deciding whether gays can serve openly in the military, and he credited the Justice Department lawyers for doing an excellent job despite having a tough legal row to hoe.
"You are in a difficult spot, and everybody knows it," he said. "Your ability to take a licking and keep on ticking is much appreciated."
James Lobsenz, an attorney for Witt, said in his closing argument that the government presented no evidence that Witt would cause problems if returned to her unit. It was unconscionable, he said, that she had to conceal her sexuality for years even as she won awards for distinguished service in evacuating and treating wounded troops and government employees from Afghanistan and elsewhere.
"She can go back and serve, and no one will have to lie," Lobsenz said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-09-21-military-gays-trial_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News
1stindoor
09-22-2010, 06:31
Although I'll probably get stoned for the comment...
Bristol Myers has patented a new drug to combat lesbianism...
It's call Tricoxagin.
1stindoor
09-22-2010, 06:34
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Judge To Rule On Lesbian's Return To Air Force
USAToday, 22 Sep 2010
"You are in a difficult spot, and everybody knows it," he said. "Your ability to take a licking and keep on ticking is much appreciated."
Am I the only one to find that quote "ironic?"
greenberetTFS
09-22-2010, 07:24
Although I'll probably get stoned for the comment...
Bristol Myers has patented a new drug to combat lesbianism...
It's call Tricoxagin.
Very good,your starting to get up there in Dozer's class..............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
What is the historical basis of your dismissal of the comparison? Are you certain that the marginalization of blacks was done only through the passage of laws depriving them of their civil liberties? Or did the oppression also take place in other spheres of American life?
My arguments were brief, to be sure. Given your academic background in history, I'm sure you are more well-versed on the matter than I am. However, I offer the following:
1. Gays have never been enslaved in the United States. (barring illegal sexual slavery)
2. Gays haven’t been denied the right to own property.
3. Gays haven’t been denied the right to vote.
4. This Is a touchy one, but how does one define gay exactly? I would say it means you prefer to engage in erotic activity with someone of the same sex. Someone else might say it’s not preference or desire but if one actually performs a homosexual act. I once had an English teacher tell me “Just because a man has sex with another man does not make him gay.” An African American is an African American because that’s what he is. They can’t just change their ethnicity at will like gays can choose their preferences. I realize that some may not agree with me on that one. I don’t have conclusive proof of that assertion.
President Woodrow Wilson watched the “The Birth of a Nation,” and concluded that it was historically accurate. Other movies depicted blacks as some kind of dumb sex craving monster trying to capture white women. Even the show The Little Rascals featured a native looking African who was an exhibit who escapes. He simply grunts and chases the kids around before downing a huge bottle of hot sauce.
You could argue that the media often portrays gays in the same “flaming” light. Some are more “flaming” than others, but flaming gays really can be found in real life, in gay clubs/bars, parades in the streets, and in public. I know that blacks simply didn’t mumble and grunt and hunt white women.
Early 1900 (and probably earlier and definitely later) print media and newspapers contained images/cartoons depicting blacks in some sort of dehumanizing manner, sometimes with Uncle Sam. The one that stand out in my mind are a post card with a black child in a tub with a caption saying “How ink is made.” Part of the reason this is of note is because this was mainstream and acceptable.
Whites frequently got away with lynchings. Railroad companies even sold tickets so that people could attend lynchings as entertainment. The black person’s only crime was being black in the wrong place at the wrong time. Conversely, gays can choose to engage in homosexual activities or not. Blacks haven’t had the convenience of being black one day and white the next. To kill a homosexual for being a homosexual is a hate crime.
Respectfully,
- Dan P
P.S.
If we continue down this track, maybe we should go to another thread. We may be straying away from DADT.
Although I'll probably get stoned for the comment...
Bristol Myers has patented a new drug to combat lesbianism...
It's call Tricoxagin.
I thought it was hilarious! :D
Entire post.Dan P--
I think that at the core we have differing views on the extent to which sexuality is a choice any more than one's race or ethnicity or gender.
I think you and I also have differing views on the parameters of discrimination in the United States. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you define discriminatory activity within spheres such as electoral politics and the law. From your view point, one can easily ask "yes/no" questions to determine if a group is being treated equally.
My point of view is different (not better or worse, just different) in that I would also include areas such as culture, extra-institutional politics, social relations, interpersonal relations, public policy, and national security policy. My viewpoint leads to subjective questions like "Do you feel welcome in your own country?"
To me, this question is of critical importance. If we foster conditions in which more and more Americans answer "no," we are going to be in a lot of trouble unless we can offer sustainable explanations as to why the way things are (or are not) are the way things should be.
Good thing I"m not still on active duty because I would push for Coed showers for male and female soldiers due to this ruling.
I mean what's the difference between a gay guy looking at my rear end in the shower and me in the shower looking at a female's rear end?
Equal opportunity in my book for sure!
Dan P--
I think that at the core we have differing views on the extent to which sexuality is a choice any more than one's race or ethnicity or gender.
I think you and I also have differing views on the parameters of discrimination in the United States. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you define discriminatory activity within spheres such as electoral politics and the law. From your view point, one can easily ask "yes/no" questions to determine if a group is being treated equally.
My point of view is different (not better or worse, just different) in that I would also include areas such as culture, extra-institutional politics, social relations, interpersonal relations, public policy, and national security policy. My viewpoint leads to subjective questions like "Do you feel welcome in your own country?"
To me, this question is of critical importance. If we foster conditions in which more and more Americans answer "no," we are going to be in a lot of trouble unless we can offer sustainable explanations as to why the way things are (or are not) are the way things should be.
Sigaba,
That is an interesting question, “Do you feel welcome in your own country?” As a hetero male, I’d be hard pressed to come up with a credible answer from a homosexual’s point of view.
This question does bring to me another set of questions. If a homosexual responded to that question with “No, I don’t feel welcome in my own country,” then I wonder what role does the subculture that that person identifies himself with play in the framing of his response? What I mean is, perhaps it is “cool” to not fit it in your country, within that particular group of people that he identifies with. Maybe there is an allure to thinking that it’s you against the society, and “I’m not going to change or be ashamed.” Perhaps there is some sort of pleasure out of feeling like "no one understands or accepts you” except a particular group, and that now you have a cause, something to represent and live for.
These questions may sound a little out there, but I base them around the idea that people are social animals and want to be liked, but you can’t please everybody. All over the place, there are people who like to separate themselves from the norm and fit in with a subset of society where counter-cultural ideas are not only accepted but embraced.
Thank you Sigaba, I like the intellectual stimulation. My business class Power Point presentations are certainly less than engaging.
Respectfully,
- Dan P
mark46th
09-22-2010, 20:31
I realized long ago that I am, in fact a Lesbian. I like to talk to women, I like sports and I like to eat pXXXy...
Aleucard
09-23-2010, 01:41
Alright, before I say anything, 1stInTheDoor is a comedic GENIUS. Have you ever had a laugh that gave you a hacking cough right after you were finished? I just did.:D
Anyway, back on topic. While I may not be in the military (yet, if I can't think of anything better, which is gonna be hard), I think some valid points need to be made on this.
First, isn't DADT a direct violation of the first and fourteenth amendments? Something like this is FAR from a security risk, and it's jeopardizing our ability as a nation to retain brilliant people who want to be in the military, who simply cannot lie (more on this below).
Second, it enforces division of the military. Gay military personnel are forced to lie to their unit every day in order to keep wearing the uniform. This sounds about as counterproductive to unit cohesion as it gets.
Recent studies have shown that a significant portion (various studies peg the percentage from 1-10%) of the American population is gay, and it's probably a good assumption that this holds true for the military as well (PROBABLY, not talking from experience here, please correct me if wrong). How many of those would you say are people we want in the military? While repealing this will probably open up a freakishly large can of worms both for logistics and personnel (where do gays shower and how to deal with people uncomfortable with bunking with a gay person, for pulled-out-of-my-ass examples), I feel that we shouldn't risk losing potential heroes based solely on which plumbing they prefer to fiddle with.
blue02hd
09-23-2010, 02:08
While I may not be in the military , I think ,,,,valid points need to be made on this.
Recent studies have shown ,,,,, and it's probably a good assumption that (PROBABLY, not talking from experience here, please correct me if wrong). While repealing this will probably ,,,,, for pulled-out-of-my-ass examples),,,, I feel that ,,,,,we shouldn't risk losing potential heroes based solely on which plumbing they prefer to fiddle with.
Speaking from 20+ years service, I do not think you understand your own point, let alone understand the second and third order effects of the decision you are voicing your support to. Do you even understand the timing of this discussion as it relates to the political election cycle, or the motivations of what typically are voiced from those we (those of us who serve) consider hero's?
If you wish to sway my opinion, you need to come to the table with stronger points than those. My personal view is that you need to serve first, then convince me how DADT is a failure, and whom it has failed.
blue02hd
09-23-2010, 02:21
Gay military personnel are forced to lie to their unit every day in order to keep wearing the uniform. This sounds about as counterproductive to unit cohesion as it gets.
First: With respect to the 1st and 14th Amendments;
This is a volunteer military. We swear an Oath to Serve a contract to our country. We raised our hands, we signed our names. There is no violation to our Constitutional Rights if we agree to the Terms of Service and VOLUNTARILY enter into the military. The "Civil Rights" angle has no traction here, so try another angle.
Second: Service members are not "forced" to lie;
,,,unless they chose to enter under false expectations. DADT only allows them to continue to serve AND choose to conduct themselves in which ever manner they see fit as long as they do not violate the Rules of UCMJ that they agreed to in the beginning. DADT prevents witch hunts. However, if public notoriety is more important the individuals service to their country and they choose to violate DADT then they are subject to UCMJ. When you acknowledge that the policy referring to homosexuality and it's disqualification for military service has not changed in over 20 years AND there is no expectation of change from the Military Leadership, you lose the argument that "lieing" is NEED based. There is no expectation that is "forcing" anyone to lie. They did that all on their own, all by themselves.
Personal responsibility is more important a quality than personal sexual preferences if one is serving his country.
1stindoor
09-23-2010, 06:24
Alright, before I say anything, 1stInTheDoor is a comedic GENIUS. Have you ever had a laugh that gave you a hacking cough right after you were finished? I just did.:D
Thanks...but flattery will get you nowhere in this crowd. There isn't a teamroom to be found that doesn't have at least one out of work comedian, psychologist, tax accountant, financial wizard, mechanic, carpenter, etc.
To echo blue02hd's comments..."My personal view is that you need to serve first, then convince me how DADT is a failure, and whom it has failed."
This comment strikes me as interesting though, "While I may not be in the military (yet, if I can't think of anything better, which is gonna be hard)..."
Alright, before I say anything, 1stInTheDoor is a comedic GENIUS. Have you ever had a laugh that gave you a hacking cough right after you were finished? I just did.:D
Anyway, back on topic. While I may not be in the military (yet, if I can't think of anything better, which is gonna be hard), I think some valid points need to be made on this.
First, isn't DADT a direct violation of the first and fourteenth amendments? Something like this is FAR from a security risk, and it's jeopardizing our ability as a nation to retain brilliant people who want to be in the military, who simply cannot lie (more on this below).
Second, it enforces division of the military. Gay military personnel are forced to lie to their unit every day in order to keep wearing the uniform. This sounds about as counterproductive to unit cohesion as it gets.
Recent studies have shown that a significant portion (various studies peg the percentage from 1-10%) of the American population is gay, and it's probably a good assumption that this holds true for the military as well (PROBABLY, not talking from experience here, please correct me if wrong). How many of those would you say are people we want in the military? While repealing this will probably open up a freakishly large can of worms both for logistics and personnel (where do gays shower and how to deal with people uncomfortable with bunking with a gay person, for pulled-out-of-my-ass examples), I feel that we shouldn't risk losing potential heroes based solely on which plumbing they prefer to fiddle with.
Aleucard.
You may want to check out the Team Sergeant's thread on the topic, many of the issues you brought up were discussed there. It's a pretty lengthy thread but may prove to be thought-provoking.
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20606&highlight=DADT
- Dan P
Team Sergeant
09-23-2010, 08:04
Debate all you like, but think about this......
If the current, extreme left administration with a majority in both the house and senate could not reverse this issue, then, IMO, it's over.
TS
1stindoor
09-23-2010, 08:41
Debate all you like, but think about this......
If the current, extreme left administration with a majority in both the house and senate could not reverse this issue, then, IMO, it's over.
TS
I wish that were true...unfortunately I think it's just merely on the back burner for now.
blue02hd
09-23-2010, 08:44
I wish that were true...unfortunately I think it's just merely on the back burner for now.
So you think they shoved this to the REAR?
1stindoor
09-23-2010, 10:24
So you think they shoved this to the REAR?
I think after swallowing a tough pill they pushed this to the rear in front of all the other crap.
I've worked with a couple guys that liked other guys. I was lucky in that they were highspeeds and didn't want to have sex with me. As long as everyone else meets that criteria I don't care if they're out of the closet. I think a low majority of US Army personnel hold my view.
However, when you try to appeal to your voter base (Democrats) right before elections/add pork/stick to party lines (Not a single Republican feels his/her constituents want it reversed? I think not) it becomes another political game. That's all this will be until middle America as a whole takes notice. And no, Lady Gaga and her "little monsters" do not speak for middle America.
I've worked with a couple guys that liked other guys. I was lucky in that they were highspeeds and didn't want to have sex with me. As long as everyone else meets that criteria I don't care if they're out of the closet. I think a low majority of US Army personnel hold my view.
However, when you try to appeal to your voter base (Democrats) right before elections/add pork/stick to party lines (Not a single Republican feels his/her constituents want it reversed? I think not) it becomes another political game. That's all this will be until middle America as a whole takes notice. And no, Lady Gaga and her "little monsters" do not speak for middle America.
Not trying to be a wise a$$, but what do you mean by "low majority?" Do you mean minority or do you mean a majority by a small fraction like 51% agree, 49% disagree?
We will have a more definitive answer in December.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/07/08/41936-dont-ask-dont-tell-surveys-hit-servicemembers-inboxes/
- Dan P
I'd say anywhere between 50.1% and 60% Obviously not scientific. Most of the conversations I've had on the subject have ended with consensus of 'if they can perform at or above the standard and don't make any passes at hetero guys there won't be a problem.'
Aleucard
09-24-2010, 04:24
Thanks...but flattery will get you nowhere in this crowd. There isn't a teamroom to be found that doesn't have at least one out of work comedian, psychologist, tax accountant, financial wizard, mechanic, carpenter, etc.
To echo blue02hd's comments..."My personal view is that you need to serve first, then convince me how DADT is a failure, and whom it has failed."
This comment strikes me as interesting though, "While I may not be in the military (yet, if I can't think of anything better, which is gonna be hard)..."
I was making it as a bit of an aside, completely separate from this discussion. The thought of getting brownie points for it never crossed my mind. Sorry if it seemed that way.
I used that phrase because of my reasons for considering the military. Basically, I find that there are far too many monsters in human skin on this planet, and joining the military seems the best way of being proactive in cutting at that number. The fact that I'm a fairly decent shot also helps.
If the you think that I should stay away from this topic until I get past basic, then I'll oblige. This really affects only military folks, anyway. Although, I WILL post a link I found in the other topic that was referenced a couple posts above (thanks for that, by the way, how the Hell did I miss that?); http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/DADT%20and%20military%20reputation.pdf I don't think these guys are in uniform, and they definitely seem to be at least a little biased, but where it counts they look like they are honest. Take it with however much salt you will (I used a dump truck with this one, but it's something to be considered).
blue02hd
09-24-2010, 05:02
Basically, I find that there are far too many monsters in human skin on this planet, and joining the military seems the best way of being proactive in cutting at that number. The fact that I'm a fairly decent shot also helps.
You have Marine Corp written all over you. Good Luck with what you seek,,,
1stindoor
09-24-2010, 06:47
I was making it as a bit of an aside, completely separate from this discussion. The thought of getting brownie points for it never crossed my mind. Sorry if it seemed that way.
No apologies necessary...I'll get to the rest of your post as soon as I get the fire put out...
I've worked with a couple guys that liked other guys. I was lucky in that they were highspeeds and didn't want to have sex with me. As long as everyone else meets that criteria I don't care if they're out of the closet. I think a low majority of US Army personnel hold my view.
However, when you try to appeal to your voter base (Democrats) right before elections/add pork/stick to party lines (Not a single Republican feels his/her constituents want it reversed? I think not) it becomes another political game. That's all this will be until middle America as a whole takes notice. And no, Lady Gaga and her "little monsters" do not speak for middle America.
So true. No decision is for the better of the Military or Country. All decisions are politically motivated. I use to keep up with the News. I haven't watched in almost a year now. Both of our Political Parties make me equally sick.
1stindoor
09-24-2010, 09:18
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/DADT%20and%20military%20reputation.pdf
Regarding that study...this is the highlight to me...
Many leading academic experts on unit cohesion such as David and Mady Segal,
Robert MacCoun, Elizabeth Kier, and others have suggested that “don’t ask, don’t tell” does not enhance military readiness. While these experts are scholars and not military officers, their perspectives are based on extensive research and understanding. To the extent that these scholars are correct and that “don’t ask, don’t tell” does not promote readiness, then perhaps it would make sense for Congress and the Pentagon to consider whether military policy should, as Melissa Wells-Petry has argued, reflect national consensus.
It was an "interesting" read...but at the end of the day I wish those with a social engineering agenda would leave those of us with a military readiness/ U.S. security agenda alone.
1stindoor
09-24-2010, 09:25
Basically, I find that there are far too many monsters in human skin on this planet, and joining the military seems the best way of being proactive in cutting at that number. The fact that I'm a fairly decent shot also helps.
So are lots of civilians...being a "decent shot" is no indicator of success in the military...it's just as important to know when not to shot. Matter of fact, you could talk to one of several lawyers on this site and work to cut down the number of "monsters" in that arena.
1stindoor
09-24-2010, 09:32
Something like this is FAR from a security risk, and it's jeopardizing our ability as a nation to retain brilliant people who want to be in the military...
Let me start by saying I have a few in my family...and they know my knuckles still drag the ground...but how does one equate military brilliance with sexual orientation? Does having the ability to discern chartruese from yellow and sea foam from green really lead to brilliance on the battlefield?
Utah Bob
10-12-2010, 18:14
Judge orders military to stop discharging gays
Full Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39637073/ns/us_news-life)
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge Tuesday ordered the government to stop banning openly gay men and women from serving in the military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips found the policy unconstitutional in September. On Tuesday, she rejected an Obama administration request to delay an injunction and ordered enforcement of the 17-year-old policy permanently stopped.
The decision was cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Barack Obama and Washington politics could not.
ZonieDiver
10-12-2010, 18:24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleucard
Basically, I find that there are far too many monsters in human skin on this planet, and joining the military seems the best way of being proactive in cutting at that number. The fact that I'm a fairly decent shot also helps.
You have Marine Corp written all over you. Good Luck with what you seek,,,
How did I miss this???? One of the best answers ever! Thanks. :D
Stingray
10-13-2010, 00:13
Am I the only one to find that quote "ironic?"
I almost laughed coffee through my nose. I was sure I misread it, but I didn't. It has to be a double-dog-dare from a buddy he had to pay up on or something. Far too funny not to be on purpose.
It's all been said but I will re-emphasize the negative effects of quotas, sensitivity seminars (chose civility), and the reverse negations on your careers when this dominates the force.
When I was in the COARNG in '93 I found myself assigned to the NCOA as an ANCOC instructor. The damn outfit was full of sexually confused and vindictive democrats. Not good. One pole smoker decided to come out in a TQM session. His partner had perished of AIDS. :boohoo
My open insincerity brought the wrath of two lesbos, la kammandanta (latina) and the negra ess one. Estas putas took out racial, sexual harrassment charges against me! :rolleyes:
I've also had to work with them in civil trabajo. Once they know your position just remember what the Texicans last words were; "SOMOS CHINGADO". :eek:
I think it will end up like everything else wrapped up in "sensitivity training." Hurt people's 'feelings' with your words and you get EOed. Nothing will really be different. There will just be less things you can say and get away with. i.e. "pole smoker" & "lesbos." I'm pretty sure "putas" & "CHINGADO" are on that list too ;)
We'd better brace ourselves for a wave of stuff like this hitting the web...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paGa80T-nWU
...and this...
Fightin' 69th Rear Area Support Regiment
DUI (pic) and Motto: "Don't leave your buddy's behind!"
Honorary Colonel of the Regiment: Sir Elton John
...and this...
From DADT to BODT: A History of Sexual Integration of the US Armed Forces
Diane Schroer, COL (Ret), SF
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
ZonieDiver
10-14-2010, 10:57
There is coffee on my monitor, spewed from my choking throat. Thanks, Richard... this will be spread around the globe!!!!!