View Full Version : DADT only the first step
As others have stated, welcome to the slippery slope:
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20110921843498.html
Hey sinjefe that's a .mil file. Is this the story you were talking about?
Gay rights group pushes for more military changes
Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/rights-125271-gay-group.html#ixzz1YaujGKTA
"............."Gay, lesbian and bisexual service men and women can walk a little taller today and that's a great thing, but there's still so much to do," said Beth Brooker, Get Equal's Virginia leader. "Same sex couples can't live on base together, they don't have medical benefits, they don't have travel allowances, they don't have housing allowances. They don't even have the right to be notified if their partner dies in battle."........................."
I didn't think SGLI and NOK notification was that strict.
We are unable to verify that your computer is in the military network (.mil) domain. Please see the assistance page if your computer is actually in the .mil domain.
If you are an active-duty U.S. servicemember or DoD civilian employee, you may access the Early Bird regardless of your location or network domain (for example, from home) by providing your Social Security number and Date of Birth at the Early Bird login page located at DMDC.
Richard :munchin
Sorry. I forget not to use the early bird.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20110921_Panetta_aims_to_end_all_barriers.html?c=0 .9668080788319564&posted=n
Intel Cop
09-21-2011, 11:59
Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights as straight couples? Especially gay citizens who choose to fight for our freedom.
Eagle5US
09-21-2011, 12:06
DOMA for one.
Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights as straight couples? Especially gay citizens who choose to fight for our freedom.
You obviously didn't read the article. Next time, read before you comment.
Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights as straight couples? Especially gay citizens who choose to fight for our freedom.
Everybody agrees to draw a line.
The argument is over where to draw the line.
Why should an 18 year old in the Military not be allowed to drink? Society says "NO".
Eagle5US
09-21-2011, 12:11
And as was ACCURATELY forecast when all this shit was brought out by the current administration....
It had absolutely ZERO to do with their "simply wanting to serve" and everything to do with pushing their agenda.
Damn sheeple....:mad:
69harley
09-21-2011, 12:35
How long till there is an openly gay team sergeant or SGM?
How long till there is an openly gay team sergeant or SGM?If you had ever spent time on an ODA you'd know! As I was taught:
"You'll never see an I in the word TEAM!"
Stay safe.
Eagle5US
09-21-2011, 12:54
How long till there is an openly gay team sergeant or SGM?
I fail to see the point of your question...:munchin
I fail to see the point of your question...:munchin
What, you've never seen a bullfight, where those peons come out and stick darts in the bull to piss him off?
Intel Cop
09-21-2011, 15:11
You obviously didn't read the article. Next time, read before you comment.
I was referring to your "slippery slope" comment; the article wasn't really necessary. Although I did read it, and just re-read it now to see if I could understand how my statement was indicative of having a lack of information regarding what it contained. I'm missing something I guess. Maybe you didn't mean that the repeal of DODT is a bad thing as I originally assumed.
Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights as straight couples? Especially gay citizens who choose to fight for our freedom.
I guess that depends on whether the thought of deploying with a gay bastard makes you want to puke blood, like it does me.
I can see where it could lead to problems for some.
For example, Private Dufflebag's Airborne unit is in the midst of battle and his foxhole buddy is gay. The Taliban start to break through their lines and his PSG yells, "Somebody shoot that c***sucker!"
Who does he shoot? :confused: :eek:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I can see where it could lead to problems for some.
For example, Private Dufflebag's Airborne unit is in the midst of battle and his foxhole buddy is gay. The Taliban start to break through their lines and his PSG yells, "Somebody shoot that c***sucker!"
Who does he shoot? :confused: :eek:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
:D LOLOL!
Gets my vote for post of the year.
nousdefions
09-21-2011, 15:54
One day, in the not too distant future....
............... I'm missing something I guess. Maybe you didn't mean that the repeal of DODT is a bad thing as I originally assumed.
Maybe you need to read a little more and get to know some of the other posters before you assume too much.
Also review the use of pink font in case you wish to use sarcasm - so others don't assume you meant something else.
One day, in the not too distant future....
That was just absolutely fabulous!
.
.
.
Seriously, that was pretty damn funny :D
How long till there is an openly gay team sergeant or SGM?
A new meaning for AN - "COC".
The "first" soon to be openly gay Team Sergeant is probably already on an ODA.
The last "Sage" class just left the field on Saturday, let's ask one of them who's on the radar screen.
I was referring to your "slippery slope" comment; the article wasn't really necessary. Although I did read it, and just re-read it now to see if I could understand how my statement was indicative of having a lack of information regarding what it contained. I'm missing something I guess. Maybe you didn't mean that the repeal of DODT is a bad thing as I originally assumed.
Headline, paragraph two and three. Now they'll want women to serve in Ranger Battalions and on Sf Teams. Openly transgender after that. Military's are for breaking things and killing people, not for social engineering.
http://www.aclu.org/2008/08/20/america-in-transition-a-transgender-special-forces-colonel-vs-the-library-of-congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEPsK_axRqo
David/Diane Schroer: SPECIAL FORCES COLONEL. What a mess this one is.
[url]
David/Diane Schroer: SPECIAL FORCES COLONEL. What a mess this one is.
That dude was in 7th SFGA. Some people on here will remember all that.
PedOncoDoc
09-22-2011, 09:33
I think all of these "equality" groups would shut up and go sit in the corner after all women's sporting leagues, PT standards, etc. were dropped and the women were told they should try out for the league formerly known as the men's league, and held to the historical (read: men's) standards (PT or otherwise).
Women's basketball league? Gone - see how you compete with the men. Professional women's golf? You're playing with the men - tee off from the blue tees like the rest of the pro's.
Female combat troops? You have to meet men's PT standards and be expected to perform equally in all tasks. Any personal hygiene items you require will be your responsibility.
Either open up all scholarships reserved for those of a specific gender, orientation and/or race to everyone and award based solely on merit/need, or get rid of all of the gender/minority/whatever scholarships al together.
Separate does not mean equal. All held to the highest standard/level of accountability (physical, moral or otherwise) regardless of gender, orientation, etc., IMVHO means equal. Give them what they want and see how they respond.
Rant off....
I think all of these "equality" groups would shut up and go sit in the corner after all women's sporting leagues, PT standards, etc. were dropped and the women were told they should try out for the league formerly known as the men's league, and held to the historical (read: men's) standards (PT or otherwise).
Women's basketball league? Gone - see how you compete with the men. Professional women's golf? You're playing with the men - tee off from the blue tees like the rest of the pro's.
Female combat troops? You have to meet men's PT standards and be expected to perform equally in all tasks. Any personal hygiene items you require will be your responsibility.
Either open up all scholarships reserved for those of a specific gender, orientation and/or race to everyone and award based solely on merit/need, or get rid of all of the gender/minority/whatever scholarships al together.
Separate does not mean equal. All held to the highest standard/level of accountability (physical, moral or otherwise) regardless of gender, orientation, etc., IMVHO means equal. Give them what they want and see how they respond.
Rant off....
Your comments would all be correct....if we lived in an alternate universe. We cannot commit to maintaining standards. All it takes is one to fail and bring a suit and the standards change. Always been that way and always will be.
I think all of these "equality" groups would shut up and go sit in the corner after all women's sporting leagues, PT standards, etc. were dropped and the women were told they should try out for the league formerly known as the men's league, and held to the historical (read: men's) standards (PT or otherwise).
<<SNIP>>
Separate does not mean equal. All held to the highest standard/level of accountability (physical, moral or otherwise) regardless of gender, orientation, etc., IMVHO means equal. Give them what they want and see how they respond.
Rant off....Why do you place physical abilities centered around male standards as the foundation for all competition and equality?
69harley
09-22-2011, 09:39
That dude was in 7th SFGA. Some people on here will remember all that.
I thought he was a former BN commander in 3rd Group.
PedOncoDoc
09-22-2011, 09:51
Why do you place physical abilities centered around male standards as the foundation for all competition and equality?
I did so by convention. Compare the average height, weight, and physical performance abilities of male and female professional athletes in the same sport (track & field and basketball are good examples) - look at items such as 1-rep max bench press and squat weights, 40-yard dash and 2-mile run times - and tell me which will set the standard for competition if both men and women are to compete together.
Regarding PT standards, the men's standard is the current bar for combat troops.
Why do you place physical abilities centered around male standards as the foundation for all competition and equality?
Your have to be able to tote your share of the team gear.
In addition to your basic load and personal stuff there is equipment that belongs to the element. When dismounted everyone is expected to carry their fair share - regardless of weight.
By SF standards the 12 mile ruck requirement is pretty low. How low should it go so that the proper % of females can pass?
But Doc's point would be that in sports - there would be no standards - the best player - male or female - wins.
I thought he was a former BN commander in 3rd Group.
You may be right. I should have said Ft Bragg
I did so by convention. To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?
Are the long term interests of this country best served when it holds to conventions that can never be re-appraised, reconsidered, and, potentially, reformulated?
You have to be able to tote your share of the team gear.
In addition to your basic load and personal stuff there is equipment that belongs to the element. When dismounted everyone is expected to carry their fair share - regardless of weight.
By SF standards the 12 mile ruck requirement is pretty low. How low should it go so that the proper % of females can pass?
But Doc's point would be that in sports - there would be no standards - the best player - male or female - wins.QP Pete--
I was pointing to the overall construction of the concept of competition in Doc's post. He placed physical prowess as the first criteria of evaluation more than once even though in some cases--such as in the competition for academic scholarships--physical ability might not be of primary importance.
Team Sergeant
09-22-2011, 10:10
To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?
Are the long term interests of this country best served when it holds to conventions that can never be re-appraised, reconsidered, and, potentially, reformulated?
QP Pete--
I was pointing to the overall construction of the concept of competition in Doc's post. He placed physical prowess as the first criteria of evaluation more than once even though in some cases--such as in the competition for academic scholarships--physical ability might not be of primary importance.
To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?
Yeah baby, finally the quote of the year.... and maybe the longest sentence of the year.
Dusty please translate the historian's comment..... (where's Megamind when you need him?)
TS
PedOncoDoc
09-22-2011, 10:19
To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?
Are the long term interests of this country best served when it holds to conventions that can never be re-appraised, reconsidered, and, potentially, reformulated?
I'll let you expound on this to yourself, as I'm sure you are much more fascinated in this area of research than I am (and I suspect many others on here are). I'm not saying that I feel all should have equal standards, but if "they" want to preach equality "they" should understand what it truly means.
I was pointing to the overall construction of the concept of competition in Doc's post. He placed physical prowess as the first criteria of evaluation more than once even though in some cases--such as in the competition for academic scholarships--physical ability might not be of primary importance.
Physical prowess is the major criteria for sports/athletic competition, as I had stated in the original rant.
When discussing the academic scholarships, I intended to state (regardless of execution) that all scholarshpis should be given solely on merit/need without consideration of gender, race, orientation, etc. if true equality was applied.
If this was done, I have a feeling that some scholarships for which white males were not previously eligible may end up being awarded to them based solely on merit (I'm sure you'll argue, "How do you know this would happen?" To that, I say, law of averages and many of the scholarships will also go to those who aren't white males, but who were deserving based upon merit.)
If you go back and look at my first post, I never stated that physical prowess should be the standard for whch to award academic scholarship, nor did I imply it. The sports/physicality and scholarship comments were intended to be seperate concepts revolving around the same theme of true equality.
Are you arguing for the sake of argument, or do you have an alternative position and evidence/concepts to back it up?
.........I was pointing to the overall construction of the concept of competition in Doc's post. He placed physical prowess as the first criteria of evaluation more than once even though in some cases--such as in the competition for academic scholarships--physical ability might not be of primary importance................
Point One - he started with athletic subjects. In addition to the required skill for the activity there is a level of physical prowess that is required. Because physical prowess is required you don't see too many female linepersons in the NFL. I think he proved his point one.
Point Two - he went on to everything else. If everybody wants to be equal why do we have targeted scholarships?
See, lots of folks don't want to be equal. They want special treatment. They just don't want it to be called "special treatment".
Hey, I'm up for doing away with male and female sport programs and just have "sport program" with no quotas - everything is based on ability. But that wouldn't "be fair".
Edit - I need to learn to type faster or wait until Doc has had plenty of time.
To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?
Yeah baby, finally the quote of the year.... and maybe the longest sentence of the year.
Dusty please translate the historian's comment..... (where's Megamind when you need him?)
TS
I think what Sig was trying to say was, "WTF? BS!"
PedOncoDoc
09-22-2011, 10:39
I think what Sig was trying to say was, "WTF? BS!"
My translation was, "Is your argument in parallel with long-held American ideals, or more along the lines of an "Old Boys Club" looking out for their own?"
But I like yours better. :cool:
Or as Tim Allen used to say on "Home Improvement"....."UUUEEGGHH?!?!"
greenberetTFS
09-22-2011, 12:03
:D LOLOL!
Gets my vote for post of the year.
I second that motion..........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
I'll let you expound on this to yourself, as I'm sure you are much more fascinated in this area of research than I am (and I suspect many others on here are). I'm not saying that I feel all should have equal standards, but if "they" want to preach equality "they" should understand what it truly means.
Physical prowess is the major criteria for sports/athletic competition, as I had stated in the original rant.
When discussing the academic scholarships, I intended to state (regardless of execution) that all [scholarships] should be given solely on merit/need without consideration of gender, race, orientation, etc. if true equality [were] applied.
If this [were] done, I have a feeling that some scholarships for which white males were not previously eligible may end up being awarded to them based solely on merit (I'm sure you'll argue, "How do you know this would happen?" To that, I say, law of averages and many of the scholarships will also go to those who aren't white males, but who were deserving based upon merit.)
If you go back and look at my first post, I never stated that physical prowess should be the standard for [which] to award academic scholarship, nor did I imply it. The sports/physicality and [scholarship] comments were intended to be [separate concepts] revolving around the same theme of true equality.
Are you arguing for the sake of argument, or do you have an alternative position and evidence/concepts to back it up?Doc--
First, your efforts to dismiss my questions by making the issue one of popularity does not change the fact that you still have not answered my central questions: Who decides what defines "equality"? Is the process used to define concepts like "equality" and "fairness" based upon disinterest or self interest? How can dissenting views be addressed in a way that best advance the nation's values and the effectiveness of its institutions?
Second, if one believes that all scholarships should have the same basic criteria, then how does one square that view with the notion that people should be allowed to spend their money as they see fit? If a donor wants to endow a scholarship slanted towards a specific group, should notions of "fairness" and "equality" justify the application of socialism to that donor's contributions?
Third, your statement that physical prowess is the major criterion for athletic competition is overly broad. On many basketball teams, one can find that the strongest, quickest, and fastest players rarely get on the court. (As Pete Carril says, "In this life, the strong take from the weak and the smart take from the strong.") Moreover, in some sports, such as American football, the least athletic players (place kickers) are often pivotal to a team's fortunes.
Fourth, thank you for clarifying your rant.
Two additional points. First, I don't think you should put words in my mouth. As I've frequently demonstrated, I am quite capable of butchering American English without your assistance.:p
Second, to answer your question, my position is this. Throughout America's history, the definitions of key principles such as equality, fairness, and freedom have always been hotly contested. For better and for worse, these debates have reflected an ever shifting matrix of idealism, consensus-building pragmatism, and self-interest.
These debates have informed the policies of the armed services. While one can sustainably argue that these debates have not always increased the effectiveness of our military institutions, accusations of "social engineering" and political advantage have often backfired upon those who have made such claims.
It is my growing concern that the current debates over the places of women and the LGBT community in the armed forces is heading in this direction.
I think what Sig was trying to say was, "WTF? BS!"
My translation was, "Is your argument in parallel with long-held American ideals, or more along the lines of an "Old Boys Club" looking out for their own?"
But I like yours better. :cool:
FWIW, my question was closer to QP Dusty's interpretation (but without the "BS") than to yours.
Doc--
FWIW, my question was closer to QP Dusty's interpretation (but without the "BS") than to yours.
I was hoping for a 3/3, gosh! :D
PedOncoDoc
09-22-2011, 12:45
First, your efforts to dismiss my questions by making the issue one of popularity does not change the fact that you still have not answered my central questions: Who decides what defines "equality"? Is the process used to define concepts like "equality" and "fairness" based upon disinterest or self interest? How can dissenting views be addressed in a way that best advance the nation's values and the effectiveness of its institutions?
I never said anything about "fairness" - you introduced that word into this conversation. I do not believe that equality = fairness. And life ain't fair - come stop by my children's cancer ward some time to argue on that one with me.
I have yet to see a dissenting view from you - I've only seen questions that suggest disagreement. I'm still waiting for an alternative position with backing.
Second, if one believes that all scholarships should have the same basic criteria, then how does one square that view with the notion that people should be allowed to spend their money as they see fit? If a donor wants to endow a scholarship slanted towards a specific group, should notions of "fairness" and "equality" justify the application of socialism to that donor's contributions?
When did I bring up freedom (or fairness)? You keep adding stipulations and additional conditions? What if someone wanted to fund a scholarship to put monkeys through college, but only to study inconsistencies in Shakespearean grammar? Do you think that he/she should?
Here's a (very slightly) less ridiculous question: How warmly do you think a privately-funded scholarship at Howard University (or any other historically black university) exclusively available to KKK and Neo-Nazi members be received?
The discussion was on equality, plain and simple. You keep bringing up fairness (and now freedom) - not me. Stop changing the subject. :D
Third, your statement that physical prowess is the major criterion for athletic competition is overly broad. On many basketball teams, one can find that the strongest, quickest, and fastest players rarely get on the court. (As Pete Carril says, "In this life, the strong take from the weak and the smart take from the strong.") Moreover, in some sports, such as American football, the least athletic players (place kickers) are often pivotal to a team's fortunes.
Your definition of prowess apparently does not include skill (and only includes strength and speed). Mine does.
Fourth, thank you for clarifying your rant.
Your welcome. The color font you used for that particular comment was, "lemon chiffon." Is this a throwback to the original DADT conversation? ;)
To answer your question, my position is this. Throughout America's history, the definitions of key principles such as equality, fairness, and freedom have always been hotly contested. For better and for worse, these debates have reflected an ever shifting matrix of idealism, consensus-building pragmatism, and self-interest.
I never mentioned fairness or freedom in my arguments - these are things you're adding to the mix. All the big fancy, words you provide in support of your position are only after adding interpretations and conditions onto my position.
FWIW, my question was closer to QP Dusty's interpretation (but without the "BS") than to yours.
Duly noted.
Badger52
09-22-2011, 14:33
To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?
Yeah baby, finally the quote of the year.... and maybe the longest sentence of the year.
TS+1 That is some elegant question. It seems almost self-answering even in the current context if the underlined element above is defined. I'm probably one of those who define it with such terms as "accomplishing the mission." Does that count still, as an influence to the self-reinforcing construct?
Heading up river for big smallies. Don't ask 'cause I won't tell.
Entire post.I think we have different goals.
I want the debates over LGBT and women in the armed services to center primarily around military effectiveness.
To the extent possible, I want to separate temporarily those debates from similar discussions over LGBTs and women in American society.
Here's why. "Equality" is a construct that means different things to cohorts of Americans. (Such as equality before the law and equality of opportunity.) To some, equality is inexorably intertwined with the issue of fairness. That is, America is unfair because certain groups have been systematically denied various types of equality. In this sprawling debate, cultural sensibilities, collective memory, political ideology, and personal beliefs are going to push the margins of the conversation. If you throw American military history into the mix, the boundaries extend even further (i.e. to the Seven Years' War).
By contrast, "military effectiveness" can be narrowed down to the here and now. This winnowing, if left where it belongs--in the hands of armed service professionals and a small handful of civilian experts, can focus this debate. From this discussion, America's political leadership will be able to make informed choices. Yes, domestic political considerations are going to influence the choices, but in my view, these considerations will less likely to be the driving force in the debate. By "keeping it professional," America will have the opportunity to balance what is politically desirable with what is necessary in a geostrategic sense.
IMO, when a civilian rants about military policy and makes linkages to sports and other forms of social activity, the rant changes the focus of the conversation. Trying out for a sports team, competing for an academic scholarship, and serving in the American armed forces are three different activities. Conflating different activities to make a broader point about "them" has two negative consequences. First and foremost, it detracts from the ongoing efforts of professionals to focus our attention on the potential short, medium, and long term consequences of having openly gay Americans serving in the armed forces.
Second, conflating and ranting is exactly what "they" want you to do. They want you to back yourself into a corner so they can say to each other with a knowing nod, "See, this is exactly what I'm talking about." The name of the game these days is "Gotcha!" For those of us who want to advance a specific vision of twenty first century America, we must, at all times, avoid falling into the "Gotcha!" trap.
One last comment. When you point out that I'm asking questions and not articulating a specific position on the issue of DADT, you're right. I'm of the view that, as a civilian, I need to balance my own policy preferences when it comes to issues of manpower with the received wisdom of those who have been there and done that. As this wisdom is still being transmitted, it seems prudent to hold my views as provisional, and to hold those views in silence.
My $0.02.
PedOncoDoc
09-22-2011, 17:38
entire post
You did not address the issue of equality as put forth in the discussion you decided to initiate by way of response to my rant. This last post changed course to basically state, "You and I are civilians, so our opinions on DADT don't matter. That's why I'm not going to asnwer your questions." If this was your position, why bother chiming in on this thread at all?
I will definetly agree that my opinion on the matter should have much less weight with those making policy than the opinions of those whose careers and safety are being directly affected by it.
I think I've developed a deeper appreciation of RL's stance on your posts/presence. (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=405534) :p
PedOncoDoc,
Good points in this thread and well stated. As a side note, those civilians in congress and the WH - who felt a need to push repeal of DADT - now - probably want those who serve in uniform to unionize, too. Well, at least before November 6, 2012. ;)
As a civilian, I suspect that w/r/t DADT the professionals in our military will do what they have always done - without footnotes or fanfare - complete the mission.
Go Devil
09-22-2011, 18:06
This bull shit is simply an attempt to weaken our military culture.
African-American, Pakistani-American, Irish-American, German-American, Spanish-American, and now Gay-American is fragmenting.
highspeedmdd
09-22-2011, 20:19
How long till there is an openly gay team sergeant or SGM?
When I was in the 18E Course in 88 I seem to rememebr the Tng BN CSM liked having little boys around (yeah, that means YOU Chris!, if you are reading this...) and we heard he was ejected from Panama PNG for liking young men...so that seems to qualify I think...CSM Gutierez I think it was...right Chris?
I think we have different goals.
I want the debates over LGBT and women in the armed services to center primarily around military effectiveness.
To the extent possible, I want to separate temporarily those debates from similar discussions over LGBTs and women in American society.
Here's why. "Equality" is a construct that means different things to cohorts of Americans. (Such as equality before the law and equality of opportunity.) To some, equality is inexorably intertwined with the issue of fairness. That is, America is unfair because certain groups have been systematically denied various types of equality. In this sprawling debate, cultural sensibilities, collective memory, political ideology, and personal beliefs are going to push the margins of the conversation. If you throw American military history into the mix, the boundaries extend even further (i.e. to the Seven Years' War).
By contrast, "military effectiveness" can be narrowed down to the here and now. This winnowing, if left where it belongs--in the hands of armed service professionals and a small handful of civilian experts, can focus this debate. From this discussion, America's political leadership will be able to make informed choices. Yes, domestic political considerations are going to influence the choices, but in my view, these considerations will less likely to be the driving force in the debate. By "keeping it professional," America will have the opportunity to balance what is politically desirable with what is necessary in a geostrategic sense.
IMO, when a civilian rants about military policy and makes linkages to sports and other forms of social activity, the rant changes the focus of the conversation. Trying out for a sports team, competing for an academic scholarship, and serving in the American armed forces are three different activities. Conflating different activities to make a broader point about "them" has two negative consequences. First and foremost, it detracts from the ongoing efforts of professionals to focus our attention on the potential short, medium, and long term consequences of having openly gay Americans serving in the armed forces.
Second, conflating and ranting is exactly what "they" want you to do. They want you to back yourself into a corner so they can say to each other with a knowing nod, "See, this is exactly what I'm talking about." The name of the game these days is "Gotcha!" For those of us who want to advance a specific vision of twenty first century America, we must, at all times, avoid falling into the "Gotcha!" trap.
One last comment. When you point out that I'm asking questions and not articulating a specific position on the issue of DADT, you're right. I'm of the view that, as a civilian, I need to balance my own policy preferences when it comes to issues of manpower with the received wisdom of those who have been there and done that. As this wisdom is still being transmitted, it seems prudent to hold my views as provisional, and to hold those views in silence.
My $0.02.
Sigaba:
I think that keeping your provisional views to yourself is admirable. However, perhaps I can cajole you to consider my provisional view... ;)
This board does not put up with BS, and I'm confident someone will put me in my place and I'll adjust fire as necessary if I'm out of line. But it appears that the professionals who will be reading our opinions (the QP's and combat arms service members on this board) have not been opposed to hearing intelligent posts on the subject from civilians. And I know your posts would certainly be intelligent. As for me....
My civilian speculation with regards to military effectiveness and equality of women:
If, for whatever reason, I were placed in a position to delineate the most rudimentary, basic components for male-only, combat positions, it would look something like this:
Strength
Endurance
Ability
Team Player
Durability
Intelligence
Homogeneity
I would then ask myself “What kind of people have these qualities, assuming they are willing to fight for the United States, and assuming that these are in fact the correct qualities for a militarily effective person/unit in combat arms?”
I’d immediately disqualify those with certain kinds of afflictions and disabilities, as I’m sure many would not contend.
Then, perhaps in my much under-qualified opinion, I’d say that men and women, based on the group of Americans in question (people willing and able to volunteer for military service), can (not necessarily will) more or less compete on the same level on 4 of the 7 components. Those components, IMVHO, would be Homogeneity, Intelligence, Team Player, and Endurance.
Homogeneity – an all women’s unit. IMO, introducing men and women together into life and death situations and close quarters would sooner or later lead to some kind of romantic interest instead of a brotherly sort of affection. I also doubt the husbands and wives at home would be happy about their significant other spending more time and having such a strong bond with someone of another sex. IMVVHO, integration of women could diminish combat effectiveness.
Team Player- women can be team players just like men.
Endurance- men tend to have better muscular endurance, but I’m sure as far as runs and cardio go, women can meet the military running standard (~6-6:30 mile pace for two mile runs, and if I’m not mistaken a sub 8 minute mile in Ranger School) with some prep. At least well enough to match many men, even they don’t have perfect scores.
Intelligence- men and women are of comparable intelligence.
As for the other 3 components, I think that men have a distinct advantage that could make all the difference in a bad situation especially.
Strength- men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women on average. I may be off the mark, but the women who can match a man’s strength will likely be too heavyset to have endurance and ruckmarching capabilities. Those who are fast enough to meet standard, probably too weak. No scientific evidence on hand, just intuition and anecdotal evidence/observations.
Ability/Durability- so assuming that there are women in our pool of military enlistees and officer candidates who can max the men’s run and pushups – how do they stack up when weight is involved? Can a woman keep pace with an ODA with 125 lbs of gear plus machine gun? I would speculate that a woman fit enough to run fast and do 70 or 80 pushups is small. A 110 lb. girl probably just can’t keep up with a ton of gear on her back. Can she pull or carry a 200 lb. grown man to safety? Even another woman to safety? Then there are sanitary issues. If I’m not mistaken, women do not do as well if they haven’t cleaned up after several weeks in the wilderness, they can become ill/get infections more easily.
As alluded to by other posters, there are also cultural factors. A woman may be capable in many respects. But in another country, is she effective when she gets dismissed by the people in other nations? Are men in parts of the Middle East going to want to listen to a woman train them or keep them in line? When push comes to shove, can she push and shove harder (literally) than the men who question her abilities and leadership? Unlikely. If an SF or Infantry soldier is doing these kinds of things, they are likely to command much more respect. Especially considering if push comes to shove, an American male soldier, in most circumstances, will fare better than a woman in a confrontation in addition to dissuading the confrontation in the first place.
Additionally, there are other factors that haven’t been accounted for such as people skills, individual talents and so on. However, would it be militarily effective to create an Infantry Battalion or SF ODA’s composed exclusively of women? It will cost more, it will be mocked, and I bet it would not prove to be as effective as an all male outfit. All for the sake of making people feel equal? What about joining up for the sake of serving? There are plenty of men willing to take these jobs; I speculate that they are flat out better suited for these jobs, and there are plenty of other options aside from combat arms for women who want to serve. Whatever individual talents that may be brought to the table, based on the number of volunteers for military service, I bet there will be an equally or better qualified male to bring that talent to a combat MOS.
I bet there are more things to consider, but I have taken enough time from my homework to get this far. I’ll go back to my lane if I’m off the mark.
-Dan’s .00001 cents (adjusted for inflation)
Let's create a Woman only, Combat Arms 11B fighting test Battalion. Train up, select a single physical standard matrix, send them down range, see how they do.
Team Sergeant
09-23-2011, 09:34
I was hoping for a 3/3, gosh! :D
LOLOLOL
I think I've developed a deeper appreciation of RL's stance on your posts/presence. (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=405534) :pPedOncoDoc--
This is the third or fourth time you've referenced RL's comments towards me in an ill conceived, poorly executed attempt at a one person dog pile.
One guest to another, I think you should do both of us two favors. First, rather than dovetailing your views of my posts with the criticisms of a moderator, have the temerity to stand alone on your views.
Second, I strongly recommend that you think thrice about attempting to draw me into a snipe fest. If the reasons for my disinterest are not immediately apparent to you, I recommend that you use the search function.
In regards to the substantive points of your posts in this thread, the reason why I chimed in on this thread was to ask questions about your rant. Some of these questions were directed at you, others were offered rhetorically to inspire thought and reflection by members of this BB. Some of which you've answered directly, others you have not.
As far as equality goes, your argument is that equality is a stand alone concept that is objectively defined. By contrast, it is my view that equality is a construct that is defined subjectively, that its definitions are constantly contested, and that the concept is, to many, intertwined with other constructs such as fairness.
It is my view that before we can develop a national consensus on what "equality" should mean, we have to acknowledge, to tease out, and to discuss the varied meanings of the concept. By contrast, it is your view that we should test the commitment of various groups to equality by establishing competitive norms.
In response to your points about equality in academics, specifically when it comes to competing for scholarships, my response is as follows. Private institutions and donors to those institutions have the right to stipulate how funds will be used. If a student doesn't want to compete for such a scholarship, he or she has the choice not to apply. If the recipients of such awards are undeserving, their subsequent performance will testify to the poor judgement of the selection committee.
If people want to question the legitimacy of such scholarships, it is my opinion that such criticism center around substantive arguments that are supported by evidence rather than anecdotes and hypotheticals. Moreover, I believe that such criticisms should demonstrate an understanding of the history and mission of the institutions and foundations that issue such scholarships. Further, it is my view that the criticisms should extend beyond scholarships purposed to certain racial and ethnic groups to include all scholarships where merit alone is not the primary criterion.
In short, I believe that there's a difference between a polemical debate and an informed discussion and that the controversial issues that we face today merit the latter.
YMMV.
Since this thread had evolved from a poof-boy on the team to females in combat arms, some interesting view points have emerged. My personal opinion, I don't think it is so much an issue of females in combat arms as American females in combat arms. In WWII, many countries had females as combatants and they were quite successful, especially the Red Army. Some of their female snipers were excellent.
Since this thread had evolved from a poof-boy on the team to females in combat arms, some interesting view points have emerged. My personal opinion, I don't think it is so much an issue of females in combat arms as American females in combat arms. In WWII, many countries had females as combatants and they were quite successful, especially the Red Army. Some of their female snipers were excellent.
Agree. It is about our culture.
1stindoor
09-23-2011, 13:25
Since this thread had evolved from a poof-boy on the team to females in combat arms, some interesting view points have emerged. My personal opinion, I don't think it is so much an issue of females in combat arms as American females in combat arms. In WWII, many countries had females as combatants and they were quite successful, especially the Red Army. Some of their female snipers were excellent.
You're right...this thread evolved from those with an agenda to physical differences between men and women...why life's not fair, women in combat arms.
My own opinion, until there's one standard for recruits to enter the Armed Forces, and until women can be "drafted" into the Combat Arms against their will...it's all moot points. Everyone knows women that can meet/exceed the standards; and everyone knows men that can't. Personally, I think it's "unfair" that only women can join the Cultural Support Teams...surely there's men out there that are just as sensative (thenthative?) to the current plight of their burkha'd sisters.
greenberetTFS
09-23-2011, 15:50
Let's create a Woman only, Combat Arms 11B fighting test Battalion. Train up, select a single physical standard matrix, send them down range, see how they do.
Excellent idea,I think it could prove a lot!.....;) I would also think having them Airborne qualified would help......:) The proof will be in the pudding!....:D
Big Teddy :munchin
also think having them Airborne qualified would help......:)
Big Teddy :munchin
In camo Jump Skirts! ;)
Pat
I would also think having them Airborne qualified would help...
"Band of Biatches" - I can see the book and HBO movie trailer now. :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
"Band of Biatches" - I can see the book and HBO movie trailer now. :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
:D With vignettes about their husbands interspersed throughout the episodes.
The Reaper
09-23-2011, 16:56
Since this thread had evolved from a poof-boy on the team to females in combat arms, some interesting view points have emerged. My personal opinion, I don't think it is so much an issue of females in combat arms as American females in combat arms. In WWII, many countries had females as combatants and they were quite successful, especially the Red Army. Some of their female snipers were excellent.
You do realize that the Soviets had a propoganda ministry to rival the one of the Nazis, do you not?
They had a vested interest in headlining heroes of both genders.
Don't recall too many covering gay, lesbian, or transgender Soviet icons though.
TR
Let's create a Woman only, Combat Arms 11B fighting test Battalion. Train up, select a single physical standard matrix, send them down range, see how they do.
They would probably do well, except for the bears.
A new NSN or GSA Advantage product called the "D Bag" could contain tampons, midal, pads, wiipes, douches, pee trays, etc... a true D Bag of sorts. How fun would it be to tell your kid(s) you kicked pallets full of fem products.
The more i think about it, what an experiment. Would they be a force to reckon with if they were all PMS'ing? Would they escalate force quicker if they were chemically imbalanced? Would they all sob and wallow around in emotional distress at the sight of wounded/dead or if they were told to maintain their sectors of fire or to turn down their music?
It would be an interesting study.
alright4u
09-24-2011, 15:24
Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights as straight couples? Especially gay citizens who choose to fight for our freedom.
Let me try to answer
How many gays would sign up to cross the English Channel and hit Normandy Beach?
The End,.
alright4u
09-24-2011, 15:31
I can see where it could lead to problems for some.
For example, Private Dufflebag's Airborne unit is in the midst of battle and his foxhole buddy is gay. The Taliban start to break through their lines and his PSG yells, "Somebody shoot that c***sucker!"
Who does he shoot? :confused: :eek:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Clever.
greenberetTFS
09-24-2011, 16:15
Let me try to answer
How many gays would sign up to cross the English Channel and hit Normandy Beach?
The End,.
Agreed, enough said.......;)
Big Teddy :munchin
The more i think about it, what an experiment. Would they be a force to reckon with if they were all PMS'ing? Would they escalate force quicker if they were chemically imbalanced? Would they all sob and wallow around in emotional distress at the sight of wounded/dead or if they were told to maintain their sectors of fire or to turn down their music?
:rolleyes: I hope that was supposed to be in pink.
S. (who's not PMSing, but feeling a little b*tchy today anyway. :D)
Intel Cop
09-25-2011, 16:42
Let me try to answer
How many gays would sign up to cross the English Channel and hit Normandy Beach?
The End,.
How do you propose to answer your "clever" question to prove me wrong? Especially considering we will never know how many "gays" actually DID cross the English Channel to hit Normandy Beach.
The only "The End" in this discussion is "The End" to DADT.
......The only "The End" in this discussion is "The End" to DADT.
It ain't "The End" for the GLBT lobby it's only the first step.
It ain't "The End" for the GLBT lobby it's only the first step.
And that's the point.
How do you propose to answer your "clever" question to prove me wrong? Especially considering we will never know how many "gays" actually DID cross the English Channel to hit Normandy Beach.
The only "The End" in this discussion is "The End" to DADT.
'Nother couple of "clever" questions; are you a future QP? Are you planning to get vetted, here?
Intel Cop
09-25-2011, 19:29
I posted my info, I believe I even posted my name, in my introduction. I apologize that my defense of individual liberties is something that causes ire. As a libertarian, I strongly believe in Liberty and individual rights.
My name is Gregory Faljean. I served as an intel analyst in 2/10 SPT from 98-01. Deployed 4 times, twice with C co and once each with A and B. There's certainly someone who can vet me. I'm cool with that. I only know of one person not liking me, but that was over something stupid and I doubt it would even be remembered. I joined the site because I was looking for info on my cousin's graduation from the Q course, and check in from time to time because I saw quite a few names I recognize, unfortunately, mostly on the RIP pages. MSG Ferguson was my supervisor and Buck Reitkirk was a VERY good friend.
EDIT: I just checked my introduction post. I used my nickname, Sonny, which honestly is what most who remember me would know anyway. Gregory is my real name.
AngelsSix
09-25-2011, 20:58
They would probably do well, except for the bears.
A new NSN or GSA Advantage product called the "D Bag" could contain tampons, midal, pads, wiipes, douches, pee trays, etc... a true D Bag of sorts. How fun would it be to tell your kid(s) you kicked pallets full of fem products.
The more i think about it, what an experiment. Would they be a force to reckon with if they were all PMS'ing? Would they escalate force quicker if they were chemically imbalanced? Would they all sob and wallow around in emotional distress at the sight of wounded/dead or if they were told to maintain their sectors of fire or to turn down their music?
It would be an interesting study.
This shit isn't even funny. I have seen GROWN men act this way. You need to stop watching t.v.
AngelsSix
09-25-2011, 20:59
You're right...this thread evolved from those with an agenda to physical differences between men and women...why life's not fair, women in combat arms.
My own opinion, until there's one standard for recruits to enter the Armed Forces, and until women can be "drafted" into the Combat Arms against their will...it's all moot points. Everyone knows women that can meet/exceed the standards; and everyone knows men that can't. Personally, I think it's "unfair" that only women can join the Cultural Support Teams...surely there's men out there that are just as sensative (thenthative?) to the current plight of their burkha'd sisters.
When was the last time a male was "drafted" into Combat Arms?
alright4u
09-25-2011, 22:47
Can you lead a rifle company, a battalion, or even a platoon in combat?
This is not the place or time to play games. We have folks who want to weaken our armed forces. We have enemies who love these social experiments.
God knows I love women.
Unfortunately ,you see things from your past experiences. You never had a WWII father and a WWI 1SGT grandfather. You are/were not a rifle company commander. Any SF NCO can be one if he tries . We had SF NCO's as platoon leaders and company CO's in RVN. Try that on. You and the liberterian cop would be be my point man/woman to just check out the enemy queers or straight up types to bring back the INTEL COP 's answers to me.
Thanks,
...The proof will be in the pudding!....:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Rather than have women inter-mixed amongst combat units, combat assignments, social testing.
I think it would be less distractive to others and cheaper if they simply made a woman only unit. Unless of course they were billeted next door.
------BT--------
With Dallas and Romo doing so well, I've been watching more football lately.
http://www.lflus.com/
It never has been.
Woman," I have the same rights as a man. I expect to be treated equally. But when I slap you for calling me a b%&ch, you can't hit me back, because I'm a woman."
Homosexual," I went to job interview today. I was dressed in hot pink and blue tights. I told the lawyer at that firm, when I first opened my mouth that I was gay. He must be discriminating against me, it couldn't be that I showed up to the interview dressed inappropriately."
Transsexual." I applied for a job, that requires a certain type of individual. THe company actually puts these people out to train other individuals. So I just wanted to let them know I was going to become a woman. The chose to give the job to someone else. I'm being discriminated against. Because I don't fit what they or their customers are looking for."
"I didn't get that job because I'm of a certain skin color."
It's all crap. It's never about being treated equal. It's about being treated better than everyone else, and feeling entitled to it. Sorry. That's the straight and skinny of it. DADT, gives homosexuals the opportunity to do just that. Be treated just like everyone else. " THe drill SGT. was especially mean to me, because I told him I was gay. SO therefore I will sue the military." Really? WHy did you feel it was important for him to know? SO you could get special treatment? Well you got it, now live with it.
That's my $0.02 cents. I think it holds true for 98% of these types of individuals. It has been true in my experience.
I posted my info, I believe I even posted my name, in my introduction. I apologize that my defense of individual liberties is something that causes ire. As a libertarian, I strongly believe in Liberty and individual rights.
My name is Gregory Faljean. I served as an intel analyst in 2/10 SPT from 98-01. Deployed 4 times, twice with C co and once each with A and B. There's certainly someone who can vet me. I'm cool with that. I only know of one person not liking me, but that was over something stupid and I doubt it would even be remembered. I joined the site because I was looking for info on my cousin's graduation from the Q course, and check in from time to time because I saw quite a few names I recognize, unfortunately, mostly on the RIP pages. MSG Ferguson was my supervisor and Buck Reitkirk was a VERY good friend.
EDIT: I just checked my introduction post. I used my nickname, Sonny, which honestly is what most who remember me would know anyway. Gregory is my real name.
Sonny;
I'm not sure whether this post is in response to my questions, but it does answer them. You're not SF.
You evidently don't understand what I mean by "vet" in this case. I asked the questions because you posted in your profile that you were in 10th Group.
I suggest you refrain from posting personal info on this BB in the open, whether it pertains to yourself or anybody else without their permission.
No need to apologize to me, Sonny...
blue02hd
09-26-2011, 06:18
I apologize that my defense of individual liberties is something that causes ire. As a libertarian, I strongly believe in Liberty and individual rights.
Well Sir, you exercise your rights to advocate for what you like. In this case you are wrong, because you have not assessed the audience you are speaking to. In our world where the rubber meets the road and lives are lost when things go wrong the team is the one over arching mechanism that will bring you and yours home. Individuality is not a component that contributes to success. If you feel 007 can be flaming, then perhaps you would make a point, as he is an individual who does not rely on, or is relied on in the darkest of hours. Everyone of us in here had sacrificed a large amount of ourselves to reach an ODA and do everything we can to make it a successful one. Even in the best of times we add names of our friends on a wall in KAF that most people will never hear about and far fewer will ever see. And now you advocate for the support of those who put their own personal interests ahead of the team? Not very good assessment of your surroundings, Intel guy.
Intel Cop
09-26-2011, 06:35
Individual rights and individuality are two totally seperate ideas. I'm not advocating idividuality anymore than you are.
Our right to bear firearms is an individual liberty.
Furthermore, just to be clear, I never mentioned women in regards to any change in current policies either. There is a big difference between setting physical standards and enforcing moral standards that some people hold due to religious beliefs.
Individual rights and individuality are two totally seperate ideas. I'm not advocating idividuality anymore than you are.
You're demonstrating individuality.
If it was about Individual Rights I would have no problem with the repeal of DADT.
But it is not about Individual Rights but of Group Rights (the GLBT group).
It all begins with "counting" which the Military said it would not do. Once they are counted then those numbers are applied against other numbers in MOSs and promotions.
Not up to average? It will be fixed. Hence special rights for people who outwardly don't look any different from regular folks.
What about gay marriage in the Military? Remember the push to repeal DADT? The Military swore Gay Marriage was not in the offering. But now? Well, hey........
Once they start counting it would be in every straight person's best interest to check the "gay" box. Why not? They can't make you prove it and you'll get a leg up on centralized promotions.
Intel Cop
09-26-2011, 07:03
Everyone should be against the lessening, or separation, of standards, I agree with you 100%.
Everyone should be against the lessening, or separation, of standards, I agree with you 100%.
But you disagree with many QPs on this thread.
Compared to the Army - SF has a low number of blacks. For anyone in SF you can look around and see that. But for others they see numbers of "counted" people and those numbers lead to percents they don't like.
And the first thing looked at is the swim test. Gee, why do we need a swim test anyway? Lets do away with it and look at the number of blacks who will now be able to serve in SF. All the blacks in SF now passed the same standards everyone else did - white, black, hispanic, asian whatever.
Gee, just think of the number of folks we could get if we did away with land nav. What, with GPS systems we don't need it anyway, we'll just Tom Tom our way to the next village.
1stindoor
09-26-2011, 13:57
When was the last time a male was "drafted" into Combat Arms?
Viet Nam I reckon. But I guess women were less capable back then.
When was the last time a male was "drafted" into Combat Arms?
1973 - if you don't count the couple of RIFs since in which enlisted personnel who were in an 'overage' CS/CSS MOS were given the opportunity to switch to a combat arms MOS or ETS.
Richard :munchin
blue02hd
09-26-2011, 16:11
Individual rights and individuality are two totally seperate ideas. I'm not advocating idividuality anymore than you are.
Our right to bear firearms is an individual liberty.
Furthermore, just to be clear, I never mentioned women in regards to any change in current policies either. There is a big difference between setting physical standards and enforcing moral standards that some people hold due to religious beliefs.
This would be a good time to put the shovel down.
Our right to bear firearms is an individual liberty.
Right(n): the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled [1]
Liberty(n): a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant [2]
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty
Intel Cop
09-26-2011, 18:34
But you disagree with many QPs on this thread.
I am tossing the shovel, as mentioned in another post, I just want to clarify whether the above is something not allowed as a rule, or if I crossed the line in some other apparent way? I meant, and still don't mean, any disrespect. I merely offered an opinion that is apparently extremely unpopular here. I certainly will keep my political views to myself in the future.
No disrespect intended, but I feel my opinion may have been mistaken for something it was not. With my shovel apparently being too efficient of a tool right now, I'll leave it at that.
The Reaper
09-26-2011, 18:56
When was the last time a male was "drafted" into Combat Arms?
I believe that would be CSM Jeff Mellinger, possibly still on Active Duty.
TR
I believe that would be CSM Jeff Mellinger, possibly still on Active Duty.
TR
That windchime he has hanging in his office still gives me chills today. I was able to serve under him twice and he's one of the best CSM's I ever had the privilege to know.
Anybody read this issue of the Marine Corps Times?
"Gay Officers & NCO's on roommates, showers, & dates at the Birthday Ball"
Richard :munchin
Anybody read this issue of the Marine Corps Times?
"Gay Officers & NCO's on roommates, showers, & dates at the Birthday Ball"
Richard :munchin
It is kind of ironic that so much emphasis is being placed on MARINES that are gay, considering the image that Marines have fostered for the last 236 years. I saw something about it in the news yesterday but couldn't find the video. Let's see what kind of pics come out of this one in November.
Paragrouper
09-27-2011, 17:13
Anybody read this issue of the Marine Corps Times?
"Gay Officers & NCO's on roommates, showers, & dates at the Birthday Ball"
Richard :munchin
Thanks for the photo. I just emailed it to my son-in-law and asked him "all of you?":eek:
Like I said when I initiated this thread, only the first step:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/after-demise-of-dont-ask-activists-call-for-end-to/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
The United States became the 23rd of 26 NATO countries to allow military service by openly gay people last week. An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are serving in the U.S. military, according to a recent study by UCLA’s Williams Institute. Many are still afraid to come out.
The Struggles Of A Gay Military Family
Reuters, 26 Sep 2011
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2011/09/26/the-struggles-of-a-gay-military-family/
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Like I said when I initiated this thread, only the first step:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/after-demise-of-dont-ask-activists-call-for-end-to/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
I am thinking that will be a step TOO far. For now at least.
The United States became the 23rd of 26 NATO countries to allow military service by openly gay people last week. An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are serving in the U.S. military, according to a recent study by UCLA’s Williams Institute. Many are still afraid to come out.
The Struggles Of A Gay Military Family
Reuters, 26 Sep 2011
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2011/09/26/the-struggles-of-a-gay-military-family/
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I was irate when I read this a couple of days ago. Does this couple actually believe they are the only ones that go through this, and just because they are gay? I would like to introduce them to my family. Dual military families go through this every day. You all know I didn't mind tbis decision, but things like this piss me off to no end.
I was irate when I read this a couple of days ago. Does this couple actually believe they are the only ones that go through this, and just because they are gay? I would like to introduce them to my family. Dual military families go through this every day. You all know I didn't mind tbis decision, but things like this piss me off to no end.
Meh...we all know that and realize this is typical of the 24/7 news cycle and its market of wristwatch staring hogs and hogettes (wenches to Dusty) - personally, I prefer to do my boot camp workout, read, fish, travel, sip wine, grill, shoot fur-coated tree rats out of my live oak and walnut trees to feed to my dog, and spend time doing things which don't artificially raise my BP and threaten my longevity.
AFC - you really need to get that blue ID card - you'd sleep much better. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Intel Cop
09-29-2011, 19:02
...personally, I prefer to do my boot camp workout, read, fish, travel, sip wine, grill, shoot fur-coated tree rats out of my live oak and walnut trees to feed to my dog, and spend time doing things which don't artificially raise my BP and threaten my longevity.
That's the best sounding retirement plan I have ever heard! Enjoy it for many years!
I prefer to do my boot camp workout, read, fish, travel, sip wine, grill, shoot fur-coated tree rats out of my live oak and walnut trees to feed to my dog,
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
What a waste of gourmet meat! :eek::boohoo:(
What a waste of gourmet meat!
Maybe in Arkansas... ;)
Richard :munchin
Maybe in Arkansas... ;)
Richard :munchin
Everbody always pokes fun at Arkansas just because Rick Perry's our Governor...:boohoo
Everbody always pokes fun at Arkansas just because Rick Perry's our Governor...:boohoo
If he was, he'd just add to the long list of things people use to poke fun at Arkansas (attchd pics)...but he's our Gov because we've gotta have something that people can poke fun at over here, too...besides the Aggie cheerleaders, of course (attchd pic...but I heard she was an out-of-state honor student from Arkansas majoring in Animal Husbandry). :D
Richard :munchin
Step two - the baby is starting to walk
US: military chaplains may perform same-sex unions
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_GAYS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-08-46
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon has decided that military chaplains may perform same-sex unions, whether on or off a military installation........"
Now if the military decides the chaplains can perform same-sex unions why not recognize them - step three is coming.
US: military chaplains may perform same-sex unions
Then "may" being replaced by "will"
Then "may" being replaced by "will"
Perhaps 'may' remains the operative word at this point. AFAIK - the US Govt (e.g., DOD) doesn't issue a marriage license, just has Chaplains who are ordained within a recognized faith and who 'may' officiate such a ceremony within the tenets of their faith and the laws of the state where the marriage is to take place. My wife and I were married by the 7th SFGA Chaplain (a Methodist) in the JFK Chapel on Fort Bragg and our marriage license and certificate were from the State of North Carolina.
But there's always Tara...
Richard :munchin
Ex-Fort Bragg company leader Bornhoft part of gay marriage suit
Told ya' so
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/10/28/1133238?sac=Mil
"..........The lawsuit, filed on behalf of eight couples, asks that the court grant them the same benefits as straight military couples, arguing it's a matter of national security.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court says the government's Defense of Marriage Act violates their constitutional rights and asks the military to recognize their marriages and provide spousal benefits such as medical coverage and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries..................."
greenberetTFS
10-28-2011, 10:57
Ex-Fort Bragg company leader Bornhoft part of gay marriage suit
Told ya' so
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/10/28/1133238?sac=Mil
"..........The lawsuit, filed on behalf of eight couples, asks that the court grant them the same benefits as straight military couples, arguing it's a matter of national security.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court says the government's Defense of Marriage Act violates their constitutional rights and asks the military to recognize their marriages and provide spousal benefits such as medical coverage and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries..................."
It's just starting,it will be interesting on where it will go.........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
:munchin
Senate Poised to Legalize Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military
By Pete Winn
December 1, 2011
(CNSNews.com) – The Senate this evening is poised to vote on a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.
On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the effort to remove sodomy from military law stems from liberal Senate Democrats' and President Obama’s support for removing the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”
Perkins said removing the bestiality provision may have been intentional--or just “collateral damage”
“Well, whether it was inadvertent or not, they have also taken out the provision against bestiality,” he said. “So now, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), there’s nothing there to prosecute bestiality."
Former Army Col. Bob Maginnis said some military lawyers have indicated that bestiality may be prosecutable under another section of the military code of justice – the “catch-all” Article 134 for offenses against “good military order and discipline.”
But don't count on that, he said.
“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis told CNSNews.com.
“When the reader stops laughing, the reader needs to ask the question whether or not this is in the best interests of the government, in the best interests of the military and the best interests of the country? I think not.”
He added: “Soldiers, unfortunately, like it or not, have engaged in this type of behavior in the past. Will they in the future, if they remove this statute? I don’t know.”
The Senate will vote Thursday evening on the bill. Perkins said there has been no attempt to remove the UCMJ repeal provision from the bill, which Perkins expects to pass the Senate.
Once passed, however, the Senate version will have to go to a conference committee, and Perkins predicts there will be several sticking points with the House.
“The House in their version of the defense authorization, reinforced the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that there is a military DOMA as well, prohibiting same-sex marriage on military bases – something the Department of Defense is pushing for,” he said.
“And now this is an added concern, that sodomy has been removed, and as we have discovered, that bestiality--the prohibition against it--has been removed from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So yes, the House will have problems with this bill.”
greenberetTFS
12-02-2011, 06:41
Well from my previous post where I stated it will be interesting to see where else it may go,I've got my answer..........:mad: WTF is wrong on where this country is headed........:mad: In some ways I'm glad I'm an old walrus who most likely won't be around to see the complete demise of our morals......:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Well from my previous post where I stated it will be interesting to see where else it may go,I've got my answer..........:mad: WTF is wrong on where this country is headed........:mad: In some ways I'm glad I'm an old walrus who most likely won't be around to see the complete demise of our morals......:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
The headline is sensationalized, it does draw your attention but I feel it kind of draws attention away from the real story.
The real story isn't legalizing sodomy or sex with animals, the real story is the legal can of worms that has been opened and how changing one thing requires a change in other areas. And with each and every change you compromise yourself in other areas.
And in this case to make homosexuality legal in the UCMJ, it will require legalizing sodomy. But in doing so they will may have to redefine what is considered legal sodomy so people can't legally screw the pooch.
Regardless it is another compromise and another desensitizing redefinition of what is acceptable and what is not.
The Trojan Couch (http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf)
1stindoor
12-02-2011, 09:09
We call those things second and third order effects.
Obama will not fight suit for same-sex benefits
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-obama-will-not-fight-same-sex-couples-lawsuit-022012w/
"The Obama administration will not oppose a lawsuit seeking military benefits for same-sex military couples because government lawyers believe the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits benefits for gay couples, is unconstitutional............"
Figured as much.
Obama will not fight suit for same-sex benefits
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-obama-will-not-fight-same-sex-couples-lawsuit-022012w/
"The Obama administration will not oppose a lawsuit seeking military benefits for same-sex military couples because government lawyers believe the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits benefits for gay couples, is unconstitutional............"
Figured as much.
But logistically, how would that work? You have couples that live in states that approve same sex marriage, and states that don't. So those that are "married" can recieve benefits if they are stationed in that state. But if you are stationed in a state that doesn't recognize it, you don't get benefits???
What exactly is he going to mandate, that if you are gay and have a "significant" other you are able to recieve benefits, regardless if you are married or not? So what about heterosexuals who aren't married, but have "significant" others, will they be allowed to claim these benefits as well?
I am sorry, but we are at a crucial financial point where we are starting to talk about making retirees up their TRICARE costs, we are looking at shrinking the force, VA benefits are through the roof, and we are thinking about changing our retirement benefits because they are too expensive, but we are going to open ourselves up to this kind of financial largesse???
Until there is a Federal Law that approves same sex marriage across the board., this will never be logisiticaly feasible. And I don't think it is going to happen without an ammendment to the Constitution.
You all know that I don't have a problem with gays serving in the military in general, but isn't this a bridge too far, at this point in time?
.......Until there is a Federal Law that approves same sex marriage across the board., this will never be logisiticaly feasible. And I don't think it is going to happen without an ammendment to the Constitution......
This has been only one of the agenda's all along. Federal trumps state in this case. The person/people/couples will be applying for federal benefits and they will get them.
So if the military will be getting federal benefits in a state why shouldn't everyone else who could apply for other federal benefits be excluded?
OK, now that we've gone there - now how about state programs that use federal money?
Hang on. It ain't nowhere near to being done.
Hang on. It ain't nowhere near to being done.
So, in other words, this is a graphic illustration of "The Slippery Slope".
Badger52
02-22-2012, 11:34
This has been only one of the agenda's all along. Federal trumps state in this case. The person/people/couples will be applying for federal benefits and they will get them.
So if the military will be getting federal benefits in a state why shouldn't everyone else who could apply for other federal benefits be excluded?
OK, now that we've gone there - now how about state programs that use federal money?
Hang on. It ain't nowhere near to being done.Good job sir, exploring the next few chambers of the rabbit hole.
If one is a litigator it could be called $lippery $lope.
:rolleyes:
This has been only one of the agenda's all along. Federal trumps state in this case. The person/people/couples will be applying for federal benefits and they will get them.
So if the military will be getting federal benefits in a state why shouldn't everyone else who could apply for other federal benefits be excluded?
OK, now that we've gone there - now how about state programs that use federal money?
Hang on. It ain't nowhere near to being done.
But you can only be "married" in certain states. So I don't see how federal benefits (unless and until the Supreme Court rules on the right of the Federal Government to approve/disapprove same-sex marriage) will be allocated to only some same-sex couples and not others.
I personally think we are a long way off from the Federal Government recognizing same-sex marriage. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the Supreme Court upheld decisions that back the State's right to choose to recognize same-sex marriage at the same time as upholding decisions that don't recognize it? It is still a State's right issue because States, not the Federal Government issue marriage licenses. Until that bridge is either crossed or burned, I don't see how same-sex couples will be able to obtain benefits that have a marriage requirement, if indeed their marriage is not recognized by the State they live in. Maybe I am just being hard-headed, or blonde, or both:D
But you can only be "married" in certain states. .......
Does not matter. You are not applying for a license. You are only applying for benefits - and you are applying to the federal government.
One step at a time. This is just the next one.
But if they approve some kind of required stsement that this is your better half - then how can they hold straight folks to a different standard - since gays can be married in some states.
But you can only be "married" in certain states. So I don't see how federal benefits (unless and until the Supreme Court rules on the right of the Federal Government to approve/disapprove same-sex marriage) will be allocated to only some same-sex couples and not others.
I personally think we are a long way off from the Federal Government recognizing same-sex marriage. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the Supreme Court upheld decisions that back the State's right to choose to recognize same-sex marriage at the same time as upholding decisions that don't recognize it? It is still a State's right issue because States, not the Federal Government issue marriage licenses. Until that bridge is either crossed or burned, I don't see how same-sex couples will be able to obtain benefits that have a marriage requirement, if indeed their marriage is not recognized by the State they live in. Maybe I am just being hard-headed, or blonde, or both:D
Maybe the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution will help illustrate some potential exposure.
Full Faith and Credit, n. the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution which states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Maybe the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution will help illustrate some potential exposure.
Full Faith and Credit, n. the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution which states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Hell we can't even do that for CCW, how are we going to do it for marriage?:(
Hell we can't even do that for CCW, how are we going to do it for marriage?:(
Historically, IIRC this specific clause has been used to recognize otherwise valid traditional marriages among the states. IMO, that creates exposure.
I said exposure - not certainty - but IIRC even Heller was a 5-4 decision.
I submit that we are potentially but one Supreme Court Justice nominee or so away from loosing some rights and gaining others.
This November really matters.
Edited to add link below which might add to this discussion - Obama administration will not defend DOMA - Holder's comments in this CBS article are interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035398-503544.html
Adam Smith's bill redefines ‘spouse’ for military service members
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/06/28/2197242/bill-redefines-spouse-for-military.html#storylink=cpy
I told ya' so. Didn't even take a year.
"Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Tacoma introduced a bill Wednesday that would grant the spouses of gay men and lesbians serving in the military the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.
Smith, the House Armed Services Committee ranking member, said that while the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a good start, there is more that can be done to ensure the rights of service members and their spouses......................."
the squid
07-06-2012, 14:55
Adam Smith's bill redefines ‘spouse’ for military service members
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/06/28/2197242/bill-redefines-spouse-for-military.html#storylink=cpy
I told ya' so. Didn't even take a year.
"Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Tacoma introduced a bill Wednesday that would grant the spouses of gay men and lesbians serving in the military the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.
Smith, the House Armed Services Committee ranking member, said that while the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a good start, there is more that can be done to ensure the rights of service members and their spouses......................."
If any good comes of this, it will mean that Joe won't have to marry a stripper anymore to get BAH and get the heck out of the barracks.
He can just enter into a domestic partnership with his BFF in the platoon and they can get the hell out of the barracks that way.
:D
greenberetTFS
07-06-2012, 17:48
There is not a lot I thank GOD for in my prayers every night,but this one I can reveal and that I'm glad I am no longer in the service because at my age this is just too much to be able to put up with...............:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Military recruiters at gay community center
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/military-recruiters-at-gay-community-center-1.3863453
Well, we had the memo about uniforms in parades - and now recruiting at gay community centers. Oh, well.
"For the first time, military recruiters made an appearance Thursday at a gay community center on Long Island -- and even though the turnout was sparse, organizers hailed the significance of the event.
Theresa McCormick, 17, took advantage of the presence of Navy and Marine recruiters at the GLBT center in Garden City to weigh her options.
The daughter of Navy veterans, McCormick, a lesbian interning at the center, is considering a military career........................."
Looks like not much bang for the buck at the center though.
1stindoor
07-27-2012, 07:01
...a lesbian interning at the center, is considering a military career........................."
Looks like not much bang for the buck at the center though.
Am I the only one that found those two sentences funny?
Pentagon expected to announce some same-sex spouse benefits
We knew they were fibbing every time they opened their mouths.
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013/02/06/1235362?sac=fo.local
"The military this week could announce plans to extend some benefits to same-sex spouses, according to reports.
The Washington Post has reported that Department of Defense officials have decided to extend certain benefits but did not specify which ones.
The Post said the Pentagon will announce its decision this week, but a Department of Defense spokesman declined to confirm that information.
In recent weeks, same-sex spouses on Fort Bragg and elsewhere in the military have spoken out about what they perceive as unfair treatment that makes them "second-class" soldiers.
Same-sex spouses of soldiers are not allowed to shop at post stores and do not qualify for housing benefits, survivor benefits and other programs.
Military officials have previously said their hands are tied by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and woman.
But same-sex advocates, including OutServe-SLDN, have said the Department of Defense could work around that law to extend many benefits......................"
Looks like they are working.
You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson...
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
May you live in interesting times...and not stand meek and mute against the rising tide
1stindoor
02-11-2013, 13:59
Pentagon expected to announce some same-sex spouse benefits
As an update....put on your surprise face
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568719/pentagon-announces-extension-of-benefits-to-same-sex-partners/
As an update....put on your surprise face
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568719/pentagon-announces-extension-of-benefits-to-same-sex-partners/
WTF What happened to the Federal Law that precludes this from happening?
WTF What happened to the Federal Law that precludes this from happening?
The Law is what "we" say it is.
What Laws get enforced are the Laws "we" say get enforced.
On your knees dog and beg forgiveness for having such thoughts.
WTF What happened to the Federal Law that precludes this from happening?
Same sex benefits...safe, check...politic, check...popular (with liberals), check...
Time to take a stand...
Utah Bob
02-11-2013, 18:39
The Law is what "we" say it is.
What Laws get enforced are the Laws "we" say get enforced.
On your knees dog and beg forgiveness for having such thoughts.
Exactly.
Note the legalization of pot in WA and CO in violation of federal law. And yet, no action. And there won't be any. Holder and O are mum on the subject. :rolleyes:
Magnolia
02-13-2013, 10:42
WTF What happened to the Federal Law that precludes this from happening?
Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[n 1] The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in one of those cases, United States v. Windsor, and scheduled oral arguments for March 27, 2013.
It's sort of a dead man walking. Everyone's waiting for the SCOTUS to kill it this spring.