• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

apdst said:
That's why the military should handle this, vice having it shoved down their throats.
Click to expand...

When did the military become full of pansies?

Oh no! The civilians might make us work with teh gays! Whatever shall we do?
 
Redress said:
Because the military is not separate from the country. Those who serve are a part of this country, and still bound by, and protected by, our laws.
Click to expand...



Well, What is more Precious to All of Us (Civilians) than Freedom of Speech (??) Therefore why can't a Pfc. tell a Brigadier General to "Go Get Fuc**d" and say "Have Fun Today- I'm Going into Town"

In the Civilian sector one can of course lose even a Sound solid good position in Industry by telling for example a CEO or equivilent the same thing. Someone at IBM,B of A, US Steel, Ford, MicroSoft, Quallcom, AIG, etc can do it any lose out totally - be even escorted off the premises - BUT - They don't get Locked up. In the Military YOU DO.

Anybody have a problem seeing it this way and WHY it's necessary??

Also, being that so many here are so full of advice on how the US Military should rearrange itself - I do wonder IF they've ever served .
 
Ned Racine said:
Well, What is more Precious to All of Us (Civilians) than Freedom of Speech (??) Therefore why can't a Pfc. tell a Brigadier General to "Go Get Fuc**d" and say "Have Fun Today- I'm Going into Town"

In the Civilian sector one can of course lose even a Sound solid good position in Industry by telling for example a CEO or equivilent the same thing. Someone at IBM,B of A, US Steel, Ford, MicroSoft, Quallcom, AIG, etc can do it any lose out totally - be even escorted off the premises - BUT - They don't get Locked up. In the Military YOU DO.

Anybody have a problem seeing it this way and WHY it's necessary??

Also, being that so many here are so full of advice on how the US Military should rearrange itself - I do wonder IF they've ever served .
Click to expand...

You seem confused. Freedom of speak is not freedom from responsibility for that speech. Further, the odds of getting locked up for cussing out any officer are about nil. There are limitations to your freedom of speech as well.

By the way, I and many others who advocate for the repeal of DADT have in fact served. In fact, we have at least one active duty person here who advocates for it's repeal.
 
Speaking of authority, I wonder what Obama could do as Commander and Chief? Could he ignore the judges opinion and set the policy?
 
Ned Racine said:
Well, What is more Precious to All of Us (Civilians) than Freedom of Speech (??) Therefore why can't a Pfc. tell a Brigadier General to "Go Get Fuc**d" and say "Have Fun Today- I'm Going into Town"

In the Civilian sector one can of course lose even a Sound solid good position in Industry by telling for example a CEO or equivilent the same thing. Someone at IBM,B of A, US Steel, Ford, MicroSoft, Quallcom, AIG, etc can do it any lose out totally - be even escorted off the premises - BUT - They don't get Locked up. In the Military YOU DO.

Anybody have a problem seeing it this way and WHY it's necessary??

Also, being that so many here are so full of advice on how the US Military should rearrange itself - I do wonder IF they've ever served .
Click to expand...

Many of us, including myself, have served. There are some rules that have good reason to be in place such as insubordination and fraternization. In the civilian world, fraternization might get you fired or reprimanded, but it depends on the job and usually only applies in cases where the two involved are a boss and underling or teacher and student, but this is because it just gives the impression of favoritism, but really doesn't put anyone's life at risk. In the military, fraternization could put people's lives at risk or, in some cases, severely hurt retention or reflect badly on the military. The reasons for such steep punishment for insubordination should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about military life. If a servicemember is not going to follow the orders of their seniors, then they could put their unit or at least themselves or someone else at risk.

Being gay is no more detrimental to military service, in itself, than being heterosexual. There are some heterosexual relationships that some in the military would not approve of, such as mixed race or mixed religion. I've worked with a guy whose wife actually divorced him and married a guy who worked with us, but there isn't a rule to cover this. I see this type of relationship to have the potential to being much more detrimental to morale than someone who is just gay.
 
jambalaya said:
Speaking of authority, I wonder what Obama could do as Commander and Chief? Could he ignore the judges opinion and set the policy?
Click to expand...

Actually no, he cannot.
 
Councilman said:
As for the Gay ruling when and if it proves to be a mistake that leads to death them the Judge who made the decision should face prison for manslaughter.
Click to expand...

How would this lead to death?
 
Deuce said:
How would this lead to death?
Click to expand...

Don't you know anything Deuce?

If we let gays serve openly, they'll be playing dance music all night in their foxhole, giving away their position, ultimately leading to the deaths of their squadmates.

(Or so I'm sure some on the right are deathly afraid of, you know, the same people that believe after everyones gone to bed, Obama has a secret room in the white house where he gives away American Secrets to Kenyans over the internet)
 
Redress said:
So the next question is whether the DoJ can get a stay on this I would think. DADT's days are numbered, and this is just another step in the process.
Click to expand...
The bigoted homophobes that brought DADT into law are embarassments to our country.
 
Redress said:
Actually no, he cannot.
Click to expand...
He -could- if DADT was created under one of the powers of the CinC that are not subject to review.
But, DADT was created by legislation, and so -is- subject to review.
 
Deuce said:
How would this lead to death?
Click to expand...

homophobe beating a gay dude to death the first time he looked at him funny when he dropped the soap in the shower? :lamo
 
OscarB63 said:
homophobe beating a gay dude to death the first time he looked at him funny when he dropped the soap in the shower? :lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure why you find that situation so amusing. :2razz:

Of course, seeing as there are already gay dudes in those shower rooms...
 
Deuce said:
I'm not really sure why you find that situation so amusing. :2razz:

Of course, seeing as there are already gay dudes in those shower rooms...
Click to expand...

I'm really not so sure why you take everything so seriously.
 
Deuce said:
I'm not really sure why you find that situation so amusing. :2razz:

Of course, seeing as there are already gay dudes in those shower rooms...
Click to expand...

Speaking of showering in the military...Gay guys/gals can shower together... why can't straight guys/gals shower together?? It seems like discrimination and unfair to allow gays to check out each others "complete package" in a semi-public forum and not let straights do the same. Forget the gender part... It's a double standard and sexual discrimination against straights. Why can't the military simply have unisex showers, foxholes, barracks... etc. makes sense to me... I'm a gonna rite my congressman. :lol:
 
Obamanator said:
Speaking of showering in the military...Gay guys/gals can shower together... why can't straight guys/gals shower together?? It seems like discrimination and unfair to allow gays to check out each others "complete package" in a semi-public forum and not let straights do the same. Forget the gender part... It's a double standard and sexual discrimination against straights. Why can't the military simply have unisex showers, foxholes, barracks... etc. makes sense to me... I'm a gonna rite my congressman. :lol:
Click to expand...

I've been saying that for years. If you want "equality" then by god let it be equal.

try being in the field for two weeks with two shower trailers and 100 guys having to share one and 5 females getting the other all to themselves.

try living for months in a tent with the guys crammed in 8 per tent and the females living 2 per tent.

in order to pass my PT test, I have to do more pushups and run faster than a female that is half my age.

and then there are females who still bitch about not getting treated "fairly". they'd **** themselves if they actually got treated "fairly"
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
I've been saying that for years. If you want "equality" then by god let it be equal.

try being in the field for two weeks with two shower trailers and 100 guys having to share one and 5 females getting the other all to themselves.

try living for months in a tent with the guys crammed in 8 per tent and the females living 2 per tent.

in order to pass my PT test, I have to do more pushups and run faster than a female that is half my age.

and then there are females who still bitch about not getting treated "fairly". they'd **** themselves if they actually got treated "fairly"
Click to expand...

OMG, how many times does it take to explain that PFTs are based on a measure of overall fitness, not what is the minimum needed of each exercise for someone to do the job. There are basic physiological differences between men and women, including balance, strength, hormone levels that affect muscle growth, fat and muscle distribution, and center of gravity. All these things affect the effort it takes men and women to do certain excercises. It is much harder for a woman to do a full pushup than it is for a man at the same level of physical fitness because a woman has a different center of gravity than a man does. This is a major reason why during those fitness tests while in school, girls did pushups on their knees and boys did full pushups. Did you know that a woman's waist is above her bellybutton, while a man's waist is below? And did you ever wonder if those breasts that many women have wouldn't act as sort of counterweights in the effort of trying to do a pushup? It's not about lowering standards, it is about recognizing that men and women are not built the same.

Honestly, I wouldn't care one bit if men and women share living/showering spaces, but I do understand why this isn't done. I have shared a changing space with guys while I was active duty (our chief said it was okay as long as no one had problems with it). The majority of men and women in the military, and at a lesser degree, spouses, are not completely comfortable with sharing those spaces, mainly because it is not normal in our society to do so. It is quite common to see male and female bathrooms in the civilian world, not as normal to see gay and straight bathrooms. It is quite normal to see girls and boys separated in gym changing rooms/showers, not normal to see gays and straights separated. And, it really isn't just the "sexual attraction" part that makes it less comfortable, many men have no desire to hear about women's periods or much else that women might talk about while in groups of just women and vice versa. If it were more acceptable in society as a whole, then eventually men and women could share berthings and/or heads/showers, but it most likely won't happen for a long time, if ever, in the US military.
 
Obamanator said:
Speaking of showering in the military...Gay guys/gals can shower together... why can't straight guys/gals shower together?? It seems like discrimination and unfair to allow gays to check out each others "complete package" in a semi-public forum and not let straights do the same. Forget the gender part... It's a double standard and sexual discrimination against straights. Why can't the military simply have unisex showers, foxholes, barracks... etc. makes sense to me... I'm a gonna rite my congressman. :lol:
Click to expand...

Starship Troopers was the utopian future we've been waiting for!

Would you like to know more?
 
roguenuke said:
OMG, how many times does it take to explain that PFTs are based on a measure of overall fitness, not what is the minimum needed of each exercise for someone to do the job. There are basic physiological differences between men and women, including balance, strength, hormone levels that affect muscle growth, fat and muscle distribution, and center of gravity. All these things affect the effort it takes men and women to do certain excercises. It is much harder for a woman to do a full pushup than it is for a man at the same level of physical fitness because a woman has a different center of gravity than a man does. This is a major reason why during those fitness tests while in school, girls did pushups on their knees and boys did full pushups. Did you know that a woman's waist is above her bellybutton, while a man's waist is below? And did you ever wonder if those breasts that many women have wouldn't act as sort of counterweights in the effort of trying to do a pushup? It's not about lowering standards, it is about recognizing that men and women are not built the same.
Click to expand...

yeah, I 've heard all that before...it still doesn't make sense that a 47 y/o, 200 lb man has to do more pushups and run faster than a 120 lb 20 y/o female.

it's the age thing. I concede the validity in your arguement if you were comparing men and women of the same general age. but when you compare a 40+ guy to a 20s girl, that arguement just doesn't hold water.

Honestly, I wouldn't care one bit if men and women share living/showering spaces, but I do understand why this isn't done. I have shared a changing space with guys while I was active duty (our chief said it was okay as long as no one had problems with it). The majority of men and women in the military, and at a lesser degree, spouses, are not completely comfortable with sharing those spaces, mainly because it is not normal in our society to do so. It is quite common to see male and female bathrooms in the civilian world, not as normal to see gay and straight bathrooms. It is quite normal to see girls and boys separated in gym changing rooms/showers, not normal to see gays and straights separated. And, it really isn't just the "sexual attraction" part that makes it less comfortable, many men have no desire to hear about women's periods or much else that women might talk about while in groups of just women and vice versa. If it were more acceptable in society as a whole, then eventually men and women could share berthings and/or heads/showers, but it most likely won't happen for a long time, if ever, in the US military.
Click to expand...

/rant on

this last deployment we had ~80 male officers and senior NCOs in our living area we had to share one shower trailer with 5 showers and one latrine trailer with 6 stalls. there were 6 female officers and senior NCOs that shared the other set of trailers. and they were constantly bitching about the conditions in the trailers. really? they could've almost each had a designated shower for themselves that no one else used and they could have had a designated toilet each.

women get promoted faster, females don't get put on near as many of the "**** details" as the guys do. there are all kinds of deferrences made towards females because they are females, which they gladly take advantage of...but the first time something doesn't go their way...it's because SGT whoever is a sexist.

bah.. /rant off
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
yeah, I 've heard all that before...it still doesn't make sense that a 47 y/o, 200 lb man has to do more pushups and run faster than a 120 lb 20 y/o female.
Click to expand...

Nope, it sure doesn't. And that's something I went round and round with them about in ROTC. They were essentially setting us up for failure. When our men in uniform complained that the enlisted women couldn't "carry their weight", they had a legit reason for complaint: Because the ****ing powers that be dumbed down the training and allowed women in to do the same jobs as men but without the same level of physical ability. It endangers the women, and it endangers everyone who has to work with them. There should NOT be two different sets of tests. If I am expected to do the same job as someone else, then we both should have passed the SAME training and fitness tests. Handicapping the women only handicaps the unit they're assigned to.
 
roguenuke said:
And did you ever wonder if those breasts that many women have wouldn't act as sort of counterweights in the effort of trying to do a pushup? It's not about lowering standards, it is about recognizing that men and women are not built the same.
Click to expand...

And FWIW...if that were a legitimate arguement they would have different standards for females based on cup size. last time I checked SPC Daisy Duke with her DDs had to do the same number of pushups as PFC Plain Jane with her AAs.
 
rivrrat said:
There should NOT be two different sets of tests. If I am expected to do the same job as someone else, then we both should have passed the SAME training and fitness tests. Handicapping the women only handicaps the unit they're assigned to.
Click to expand...

correct and if they are going to insist on two different sets of standards, then the feminists have no room to complain when the military makes decisions that there are certain fields in which females can't serve.

if it is logical to have different standards because men and women are built differently, then it is logical to have job restrictions because men and women are built differently.
 
OscarB63 said:
correct and if they are going to insist on two different sets of standards, then the feminists have no room to complain when the military makes decisions that there are certain fields in which females can't serve.

if it is logical to have different standards because men and women are built differently, then it is logical to have job restrictions because men and women are built differently.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Redress said:
You seem confused. Freedom of speak is not freedom from responsibility for that speech. Further, the odds of getting locked up for cussing out any officer are about nil. There are limitations to your freedom of speech as well.

By the way, I and many others who advocate for the repeal of DADT have in fact served. In fact, we have at least one active duty person here who advocates for it's repeal.
Click to expand...



Why not just go with the scenario I outlined. Tell me the individual does not either get locked up or put under almost immediate restriction.
 
OscarB63 said:
correct and if they are going to insist on two different sets of standards, then the feminists have no room to complain when the military makes decisions that there are certain fields in which females can't serve.

if it is logical to have different standards because men and women are built differently, then it is logical to have job restrictions because men and women are built differently.
Click to expand...

I actually have little problem with job restrictions based on physical abilities. If a woman can't physically do the job, then she shouldn't be in the job. I am not one to claim that women should be allowed to be in combat positions if they can't actually physically do what is required to be in that position. In fact there are plenty of other good reasons to keep women from combat positions right now anyway.

I'm not a feminist, I'm a realist. I find out why things are the way they are. It may be time to reevaluate fitness standards, but they should never be the same between men and women for each exercise (except maybe the sit n reach, don't know if Army has that, but it is sort of lame, I've never seen/heard of a person failing it). In fact, from what I have seen, it may even be a good idea to raise the required number for women's situps and/or lower the required number for men, but I am no expert. I am simply going off of the fact that it seems that women find situps, in general, easier than men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom