Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 168 of 168

Thread: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

  1. #161
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Racine View Post
    I don't know about that 20% figure bUT if YOU are correct then We are worse off than most realize. Let me clue you into something here. Post 9/11 We needed an expansion of Men in uniform. Let me restate that .........MEN.......... Instead we called up Reservists and NG's including guys in their 50's just so GWB was not further jeopardized concerning 2004. I Voted for him , but I admit it BECAUSE it's obvious..

    Social Security used to be the 3rd Rail of US Politics but has been overtaken by the subject of Conscription. It's poison and is reeking of Hypocrisy from both sides of the spectrum. Too Many are just Too comfortable and that possibly is WHY We are headed South as a Nation.
    I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    First of all, I am one of those women that filled a vital role in the military, since before 9/11. Since women aren't in combat units, they fill the spaces in other units, some of which will always be needed. I happened to have been in the most highly undermanned field in the Navy, nuclear power. Secondly, now there are a lot of men and women who want to join the military but can't because they don't meet the qualifications to enter the most undermanned fields and the military doesn't have the money to employ the rest. And, trust me when I say some of those qualifications are there for very good reasons and should not be waived just to meet manning requirements. So if the only personnel who are actually meeting those qualifications are women or gay men, then they should be getting those jobs. The best people in the right jobs is the best way to run things, no matter what gender or sexuality those people may be.

    Now, I personally believe in having a strong military during peacetime so that they are ready to go in times of war. Having a volunteer military is definitely preferable to a draft, but that doesn't mean that the military must be made up of all men. Women can do many of the jobs within the military just as well as men can, and better than some. I have no problem with keeping women out of jobs where they physically cannot do the job, but that is not the case for many support jobs and almost any job in the Navy or even the Air Force. Neither of these branches actually provide much in the way of direct combat, with the exception being special units.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #162
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Awesome! was suggesting that allowing gays to serve openly would be devastating to the American military, I was merely asking if he thought our army would be less capable of doing their job than other militaries if we allowed gays to serve openly.
    I never said it would be devastating. Only, that comparing any other army in the world to the United States is a flawed comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-04-10 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    588

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    First of all, I am one of those women that filled a vital role in the military, since before 9/11. Since women aren't in combat units, they fill the spaces in other units, some of which will always be needed. I happened to have been in the most highly undermanned field in the Navy, nuclear power. Secondly, now there are a lot of men and women who want to join the military but can't because they don't meet the qualifications to enter the most undermanned fields and the military doesn't have the money to employ the rest. And, trust me when I say some of those qualifications are there for very good reasons and should not be waived just to meet manning requirements. So if the only personnel who are actually meeting those qualifications are women or gay men, then they should be getting those jobs. The best people in the right jobs is the best way to run things, no matter what gender or sexuality those people may be.

    Now, I personally believe in having a strong military during peacetime so that they are ready to go in times of war. Having a volunteer military is definitely preferable to a draft, but that doesn't mean that the military must be made up of all men. Women can do many of the jobs within the military just as well as men can, and better than some. I have no problem with keeping women out of jobs where they physically cannot do the job, but that is not the case for many support jobs and almost any job in the Navy or even the Air Force. Neither of these branches actually provide much in the way of direct combat, with the exception being special units.

    You are probably not old enough to remember a broader range of people entering the Military though I admit that 2S deferment system caused problems in the 60's . Okay.

    My point was and IS that post 9/11 We needed a larger force period. Men/not Women. Comprende(???) Possibly my point of view comes from seeing too many Ground Pounders c 1967/68 from the lesser tiers of our society but in a quirky way then they served an additional purpose. They got a slightly higher caliber of types to enter te Air Force and Navy - Fact.

    I'm Glad you had your time in and I'm sure you qualified above the level of many Men, but there are times when the techno aspects don't 100% cut it and Falluhah not quite 6 years ago does kind of stand out.

  4. #164
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Racine View Post
    You are probably not old enough to remember a broader range of people entering the Military though I admit that 2S deferment system caused problems in the 60's . Okay.

    My point was and IS that post 9/11 We needed a larger force period. Men/not Women. Comprende(???) Possibly my point of view comes from seeing too many Ground Pounders c 1967/68 from the lesser tiers of our society but in a quirky way then they served an additional purpose. They got a slightly higher caliber of types to enter te Air Force and Navy - Fact.

    I'm Glad you had your time in and I'm sure you qualified above the level of many Men, but there are times when the techno aspects don't 100% cut it and Falluhah not quite 6 years ago does kind of stand out.
    If we need more men in, then allowing gay men who are willing to join but not lie/hide their sexuality will be a good thing. And considering the highest levels of discharges for gays under DADT were from '97-'01, then we would have had more men in when 9/11 occurred had they not been discharged for being gay, whether they voluntarily disclosed the info or not.

    I have no problem with saying that men are needed on the front lines. I realize the issues with allowing women on the front lines in our culture. If some of our cultural beliefs changed enough, then it might be probable to allow women to serve alongside men in combat units who are physically able to do so.

    Openly gay men are not going to cause the same issues that allowing women to serve in combat units will cause. There is no cultural trend for most men to learn to protect gay men. Gay men are still physically men, and therefore not bound by the physical limitations that women face. Gay men cannot get pregnant, and therefore leave an opening in a critical position due to an unplanned pregnancy.

    And the lack of being able to recruit more people is mainly to be blamed on our cultural views of certain wars and war in general, and the military as a career. Allowing gay men and women to serve openly will have a negligible affect on recruitment, especially compared to the economy or patriotic interests.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #165
    Educator Compatibilist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bunkered in 5 klicks from city hall
    Last Seen
    04-23-15 @ 10:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    775

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    OK as a veteran I've thought a lot about this and am converted. Gay men are only about plus/minus 1% of the polulation so if the're stupid or poor enough to want to serve in the military... let them do it and do it openly. At least this way they won't get a free pass when they get buyers remorse. Which is a major problem for many young men who find themselves in Basic Training.

    I'm proud of my military service [now that it's history] but there were a few times in the heat of war... I might have taken a free pass out via claiming to be homosexual, If I'd seriously thought about it and knew it would work. BTW, most of the guys in my platoon were drafted so we weren't there because we chose the military. And in Vietnam, we had a couple of gay men in our support unit and the CO knew it. But there was no way they were getting out unless they did something really outrageous like making a pass at an officer or something.

    Anybody remember Corporal Klinger in MASH?

  6. #166
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    How do you know that there are no openly gay men serving in combat units? Do you have connections in every combat unit in the US military? I highly doubt it. There are very likely openly gay men in at least some combat units in the US. I guarantee that there are currently no women in those combat units. And, whether they are openly gay or not, there are still gay men serving in almost all combat units (I won't say absolutely all, because there are most likely not that many gay men in the military, but they are still able to serve in all). What should matter to you is whether or not they can do their job, not who they are attracted to.
    I spent 12 years in the infantry and never saw one.



    Why does it matter? I have enough intelligence to know the difference between a gay man and a woman. And I have known plenty of men who have served in combat units, including my husband. I know that he knew of at least one guy who served with him that was gay. Didn't affect his performance, the performance of the guys with him, nor his unit's operational ability to have a gay man in their unit. And the only difference between an openly gay soldier and a gay soldier that everyone knows is gay, but who he himself hasn't publicly admitted is the lack of concrete evidence.
    What kind of unit was your hubby in?

    I'll keep repeating this as often as you need it, there are already rules in place to deal with any relationships that may occur that could be harmful to good order and discipline, fraternization and sexual harassment along with no sex rules while in combat zones. Considering we have so many people that are worried about the harm that the gay soldiers may cause, I highly doubt that very many of those people would let the gay soldiers slide on any rule breaking if they found out about it, unlike many of those same soldiers who may just let their buddy slide for sleeping with a girl in combat zone bases.
    Currently, there are no fraternization problems within combat arms units, because there's no one to fraternize with.





    What makes you think that gay soldiers would refuse to billet with straight soldiers? They are living with them now. And it isn't the gay soldiers who are even suggesting separate billeting assignments, it is some of the straight soldiers who are wanting/demanding/expecting this. The straight soldiers are the ones who are afraid that the gay soldiers might be checking them out or try to sexually assault them if they live together.
    It'll happen, just like straight soldiers will refuse to billet with gay soldiers, both male and female. It's gonna happen. It's inevitable. When it does, the military will have no choice but to create seperate billets for those soldiers.

    And we are talking about reasonable arguments for why something would be necessary. Gay rights are walking a very close path to black integration, especially in the military. I guarantee that there were people asking the same question that you are back when they decided to finally integrate the military completely. I bet you that there were some people who asked, "Well what about when blacks/whites refuse to billet with the other?". So the question is, why would it be necessary to separate gay men/women from straight men/women, when they already currently share the same living spaces? What kind of problems exactly, do you see coming from such an arrangement that wouldn't already currently exist? Afterall, they do currently share living spaces. The only rule that would actually be changed is that the gay svc member can't be kicked out for declaring themself as gay, the other rules concerning sexual harassment are still in place.
    The whole racial argument is gets weaker, everytime someone brings it up.




    I understand that I left out "with men" in the last sentence. My bad. That last part should have read "Women, whether straight or gay do not serve in all of the same units, and certainly don't share living spaces with men, and never have."

    However, when you are talking about combat units, you are only referring to gay men in reference to all women, whether gay or straight. Women, of any sexuality, are not allowed in combat units because all women are physically women. Which is also a good point. If the main reason that women weren't allowed in combat units was the potential for unwanted relationships, then wouldn't it be okay for gay women to be in combat units? Afterall, the gay women wouldn't want to sleep with the straight guys, so then the only problems would come from straight guys who were willing to rape those women. And if there are guys who would be willing to rape fellow soldiers, then those are guys who shouldn't be in the military anyways.

    Also, there are very few females that care if they have to share living spaces with women who aren't of the same sexuality as themselves. I shared berthing spaces with at least 3 women who were openly gay and a couple more who were bi, no one in my berthing cared. In fact, when we all were accused of being gay, we considered it hilarious and joked around about it. I'd be willing to bet that most of the complaints about sharing spaces are coming from straight men, not straight women nor gay men or women.
    Women aren't barred from combat arms units, strictly because of ability. There are hygene reasons that prevent females from serving in combat arms, along with frternization, sexual harassment, discipline, unit cohesion.

    It's just like a hunting camp I was in. We all got along and everything was fine, until the first woman started hanging out, regularly. All of sudden, we couldn't cus, couldn't spit, couldn't tell dirty jokes, couldn't get too drunk, couldn't get too loud, couldn't stay up too late, couldn't piss where we wanted. We disbanded a year later. Can't have that in an infantry unit, where a lack of unit integrity can cost lives.

    Again, it's not just about ability. Some of the toughest units that the Soviets had, during WW2 were all female units.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #167
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    01-04-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,432

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    DADT was supposed to be the trial period. The only thing it showed was that there are a lot of people willing to put gays out for simply admitting that they are gay, whether they are actually doing any harm to order or discipline or not. In fact, it also showed that there are a lot of people willing to sign paperwork saying they are gay to get out of the military.

    And if you truly want a information from a "trial unit" just talk to many of the personnel who have worked with openly gay personnel within their own units/divisions/departments, such as myself, we can tell you that there was no problem from those that are openly gay. In fact, in my particular case, even my own chain of command fought to keep a couple of personnel from being put out under DADT, despite their personal misconduct being the reason that they were "found out". There are many undermanned jobs throughout the service where they could care less what sexuality a person is, as long as they do their job. Having more liberty for everyone is way more important than worrying about if someone is checking you out in the shower.
    Again, the military isn't perfect and I don't think it's a place to go to in order to "have more liberty" based on your sexual orientation. Gays being open in the military is a miniscule issue that shouldn't be at the forefront like it is. I agree that gays should have the right to serve openly but not openly with hetero personnel. Major distraction doing this across the board and should be done on a limited basis to collect more data to make a more educated decision whether or not it's right for the military across the board... I like the idea of a segregated gay unit that could be openly gay, but not mixed with hetero's.
    Caitlyn Strong...

  8. #168
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    01-04-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,432

    Re: Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Gays serving openly would not be devastating to the military, as seen by other militaries in the world. Are you saying that there militaries are better able to operate than ours?
    I don't know if our country is ready and I don't think you can use another country with a different culture and system to use as a reason to justify making this huge change knowing with 100 certainty that there will not be devastating consequences. There is not enough data for such a large change in our military policy...
    Caitlyn Strong...

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •