You can ask and you can tell

[Classact]

Will Obama change military policy of don't ask don't tell? What is the worst thing that could happen? (my guess a draft) What is the best thing that could happen?(my guess celebration by gay groups/universities and the far left) Will he gamble?

Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/

It has worked out so well for the British
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_iH1GhM2j8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_iH1GhM2j8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sitarro]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Hull]

Not having served myself, was kicked by a cow while milking in an old stantion barn when I was younger and it messed up my hip bad, so I don't have first hand military experience. Even though, I just can't see how it would work. I think it would be a bad idea. On the other hand, I think we need every able bodied person willing to serve nowadays. The military is pretty short handed.

[PostmodernProphet]

What is the worst thing that could happen? (my guess a draft)
a draft would be impossible unless you eliminated the ban on drug use.....can you imagine anyone involuntarily passing a drug test?......

[Hull]

a draft would be impossible unless you eliminated the ban on drug use.....can you imagine anyone involuntarily passing a drug test?......

The draft worked during the Vietnam War without lifting a ban on drug use. What has changed that makes that different now?

[Classact]

a draft would be impossible unless you eliminated the ban on drug use.....can you imagine anyone involuntarily passing a drug test?......It's simple, if you don't meet military draft qualifications your debt of service to the government is doubled... draft 2 years, don't qualify then do 4 years in hard core community service... that don't work increase it to 6 years of any kind of service that would control your life in a time out, low compensation situation... alternative jail.

[PostmodernProphet]

The draft worked during the Vietnam War without lifting a ban on drug use. What has changed that makes that different now?

??....they didn't test us for drug use back in the 60s.....

[Des]

I think it's a lot more complicated that "homosexuals have rights and should be allowed to serve openly". Just like it's more complicated than "women are equal and should be allowed to serve in the infanty."

The military is traditionally a "macho" organization. Since going into combat or supporting it is a fairly "unnatural" thing, I don't see how we can expect them to have the same mindset as the rest of society. As much as I am for gay rights, I don't know if allowing gays to serve openly would translate to requiring it, and homosexuality and the machoism of the military just don't seem to blend in. I don't think you can just go into such a traditional organization and change it...but I don't think a person should be denied the same privledge to serve based purely on their sexual orientation. So...I'm not sure.

To me, the issue is similar to the issue of having women in combat. It seems obvious to me that women who choose to serve in the military and undergo the training aren't "average" women. However, it's not a natural thing for a man to send a woman into harms way, it's natural for a man not to instinctively want to protect a woman. You can't fight instincts, and you can't fight some things...women have to prove themselves on an individual basis and that's the way it will probably be for a long time. I don't see why we can't give homosexuals the same chance to try and overcome social boundaries, but I'm not sure it should be at their expense, if that makes sense. My 2c'ts

[darin]

Well, Des...Gays are already serving in Combat so nobody is denied the privledge to serve. I've served with two known-by-me to be Gay men. Both of whom i'd have no problems dying for, if need be.

Women are already serving in combat. Your "obivious" conclusion is silly, really. Those daughters and wives serving ARE the Average American Woman. They are the woman next door. The ONLY difference between them and, say, Liberals is - They are willing to serve. They are simply Willing.

The lines between what is or is not a Combat Soldier have been blurred many times over throughout the last 50 years. Women have been proving themselves for a long time; As long as a woman can do the SAME (not modyfied) job/meet the same (not modyfied) requirements as a 11M/B, etc...I have no problem with her being there. Unfortuantely testing is NOT the same for males and females in service.

Also - it's not so much up to Military leaders anyway. See - the American public doesn't much like the thought of it's daughters and wives and sisters being captured or killed. Politicians are slaves to Public Opinion (when it's positive - when it's negative (see Congress Approval Rating) they blame George Bush).

And I disagree about the instincts thing. We can and DO fight our instincts EVERY DAY of our lives - those of us with more character than others. Instincts tell us to RUN away from danger. CHARACTER forces us to run TOWARDS Danger to see if we can help somebody. Instincts tell us to KEEP the money the chashier inadvertently gave over what she owed. CHARACTER forces us to stop and point out her error. And so on...

[Des]

Well, Des...Gays are already serving in Combat so nobody is denied the privledge to serve. I've served with two known-by-me to be Gay men. Both of whom i'd have no problems dying for, if need be.

Women are already serving in combat. Your "obivious" conclusion is silly, really. Those daughters and wives serving ARE the Average American Woman. They are the woman next door. The ONLY difference between them and, say, Liberals is - They are willing to serve. They are simply Willing.

The lines between what is or is not a Combat Soldier have been blurred many times over throughout the last 50 years. Women have been proving themselves for a long time; As long as a woman can do the SAME (not modyfied) job/meet the same (not modyfied) requirements as a 11M/B, etc...I have no problem with her being there. Unfortuantely testing is NOT the same for males and females in service.

Also - it's not so much up to Military leaders anyway. See - the American public doesn't much like the thought of it's daughters and wives and sisters being captured or killed. Politicians are slaves to Public Opinion (when it's positive - when it's negative (see Congress Approval Rating) they blame George Bush).

And I disagree about the instincts thing. We can and DO fight our instincts EVERY DAY of our lives - those of us with more character than others. Instincts tell us to RUN away from danger. CHARACTER forces us to run TOWARDS Danger to see if we can help somebody. Instincts tell us to KEEP the money the chashier inadvertently gave over what she owed. CHARACTER forces us to stop and point out her error. And so on...


I never implied that it's wrong for people to fight their instincts. No, women are not sent into combat and aren't allowed to serve in the infantry, and it's my understanding that even if they fight in combat, they do not receive the award for it. I never implied anyone would have an issue fighting with gay people, I said I don't know if repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy would translate to requiring gays to serve openly...it's no lie to say that many people in the military aren't "gay-friendly".

Until you can start addressing my actual words and points instead of using me as a springboard for your anger against some extreme liberal person who has made you mad in the past, I don't think answering you is going to fall in line with the positive experience I try to have debating/discussing with people on the internet.

[darin]

I never implied that it's wrong for people to fight their instincts.

You wrote we 'can't' fight our instincts. I showed you how we do that very thing every day.


No, women are not sent into combat and aren't allowed to serve in the infantry, and it's my understanding that even if they fight in combat, they do not receive the award for it.

Combat is often sent to WOMEN. I'd argue any female leaving the wire in Iraq are 'sent into combat'. I've known and served with MANY female Military Police who were true Warriors. Your understanding on the awards thing is off, too, as both men and women are eligable for the Combat Action Badge. Since that is the case, any specific awards (for Commendation or Bravery, etc) would likely be available. Also - there is the Combat Patch - awarded to entire units. Men and Women (and homos) alike.



I never implied anyone would have an issue fighting with gay people, I said I don't know if repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy would translate to requiring gays to serve openly...it's no lie to say that many people in the military aren't "gay-friendly".


I know what you implied because I read what you wrote. You IMPLIED gays are PREVENTED from service. I gave you an example, and lesson, showing gays are NOT PREVENTED from serving in the Military.


Until you can start addressing my actual words and points instead of using me as a springboard for your anger against some extreme liberal person who has made you mad in the past, I don't think answering you is going to fall in line with the positive experience I try to have debating/discussing with people on the internet.


And until you stop changing the meaning of words we'll get nowhere. You write "Apple" I say "that's not an apple" you come back with "But I never said Pizza! Stop changing what I said!"

Go slow. Read what you write after you post it. Read the replies of others - who either add to what you said, or call you on it. THEN, in your follow-up try to use ANYTHING but "I didn't say that!"

[Des]

You wrote we 'can't' fight our instincts. I showed you how we do that very thing every day.



Combat is often sent to WOMEN. I'd argue any female leaving the wire in Iraq are 'sent into combat'. I've known and served with MANY female Military Police who were true Warriors. Your understanding on the awards thing is off, too, as both men and women are eligable for the Combat Action Badge. Since that is the case, any specific awards (for Commendation or Bravery, etc) would likely be available. Also - there is the Combat Patch - awarded to entire units. Men and Women (and homos) alike.



I know what you implied because I read what you wrote. You IMPLIED gays are PREVENTED from service. I gave you an example, and lesson, showing gays are NOT PREVENTED from serving in the Military.




And until you stop changing the meaning of words we'll get nowhere. You write "Apple" I say "that's not an apple" you come back with "But I never said Pizza! Stop changing what I said!"

Go slow. Read what you write after you post it. Read the replies of others - who either add to what you said, or call you on it. THEN, in your follow-up try to use ANYTHING but "I didn't say that!"

Stop taking what I have said out of context, and their won't be an issue. Yes, I did say "You can't fight instincts", in the context that it's instinctive for men to want to protect women, and making a policy against it wouldn't do away with the instinct...not that it's impossible to fight that instinct. It's pretty simple.

The nature of the war is that anyone in the military could possibly see combat, but women who serve in it are playing supportive roles and haven't intentionally been sent into a firefight, for instance. That's the militarys policy. My understanding comes from two women my dh works with who have seen combat and were denied the same award as rest of their unit because "women don't serve in combat"...it does happen. You are the one confusing the "way things should be" and the "way they are" here, not me. The policy is, no women in the infantry.

No, I never implied anything about gays being prevented from service. I tried to explain my viewpoint using women as an example. The don't ask, don't tell policy makes it pretty clear gays can serve in the military...why would you even say I implied otherwise when it's that very policy I was discussing? It makes absolutely no sense. Go back and read without putting words in my mouth to suit your purpose and making snide remarks about what you assume I "implied".

Again, the issue here is taking my points completely out of context. Read what is written, not who you assume it's coming from.

[Binky]

Will Obama change military policy of don't ask don't tell? What is the worst thing that could happen? (my guess a draft) What is the best thing that could happen?(my guess celebration by gay groups/universities and the far left) Will he gamble?

Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/

It has worked out so well for the British
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_iH1GhM2j8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_iH1GhM2j8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



Since gays and lesbians love to flaunt their sexuality, it should be kept out in the open. Keeping it "out there" for all to share is what they do. So, let's let them share as well while in the military. I guess the military doesn't want to look like a bunch of pansies to the world. I suppose that's why they've had that rule to begin with. Better to look like John Wayne than to appear as "Tiny Tim" and tip toe through the tulips. (for those that don't know who he was, Tiny Tim was a shitty singer that came off as a gay)

[Sitarro]

Since gays and lesbians love to flaunt their sexuality, it should be kept out in the open. Keeping it "out there" for all to share is what they do. So, let's let them share as well while in the military. I guess the military doesn't want to look like a bunch of pansies to the world. I suppose that's why they've had that rule to begin with. Better to look like John Wayne than to appear as "Tiny Tim" and tip toe through the tulips. (for those that don't know who he was, Tiny Tim was a shitty singer that came off as a gay)

They could create an all gay brigade whose job would be to work on military musicals, reworking uniform designs, applying camo makeup, repainting hummers with a more designer look, interior design of barracks and NCO clubs, landscape work, customizing bullets and missles(they would no doubt have great interest in the phallic qualities)....... etc. They could be a real asset to an Army that is in a real need of a "designer" makeover.:laugh2::cool:

[darin]

Stop taking what I have said out of context, and their won't be an issue. Yes, I did say "You can't fight instincts", in the context that it's instinctive for men to want to protect women, and making a policy against it wouldn't do away with the instinct...not that it's impossible to fight that instinct. It's pretty simple.

I use your entire context. You are fighting for the sake of fighting.

Instinct are not controlling. Just as my charater grows my actions-based-on-instinct changes. I provided examples of why you are wrong. Just as instincts to lie and steal can be over-come, so can the idea of women needing men to protect them.



The nature of the war is that anyone in the military could possibly see combat, but women who serve in it are playing supportive roles and haven't intentionally been sent into a firefight, for instance. That's the militarys policy.

That's different than what you wrote earlier - and honestly it's still not 100% right, as women have been flying Fighter aircraft for years.


My understanding comes from two women my dh works with who have seen combat and were denied the same award as rest of their unit because "women don't serve in combat"...it does happen. You are the one confusing the "way things should be" and the "way they are" here, not me. The policy is, no women in the infantry.

Their command is failing them, if that's the case. They need to take their claims for their recognition to "higher". What you've seen is likely a limited case and not the Standard.

While there are no women infantry - infantry do not corner the market on combat operations.



No, I never implied anything about gays being prevented from service.

Sure you did - when you wrote:


but I don't think a person should be denied the same privledge to serve based purely on their sexual orientation. So...I'm not sure.

That implies you believe folk ARE denied service entry based on their orientation.



I tried to explain my viewpoint using women as an example. The don't ask, don't tell policy makes it pretty clear gays can serve in the military...why would you even say I implied otherwise when it's that very policy I was discussing? It makes absolutely no sense. Go back and read without putting words in my mouth to suit your purpose and making snide remarks about what you assume I "implied".

How about using the words you really mean, instead of shot-gunning your replies, just to get your voice heard...like a woman in an argument who just wants to yap about godknowswhat.

:)




Again, the issue here is taking my points completely out of context. Read what is written, not who you assume it's coming from.

No - the issue is you seeing me taking your point of view or opinion and explaining why it's wrong. Most folk who are frequently wrong insist others are 'taking their words out of context' - becuase it's just not possible they are jacked up.

[retiredman]

gays have served in the military as long as there has been a military. Like dmp, I certainly was aware of the gay sexual orientation of several active duty sailors and it never stopped them from being totally professional at all times. I think the UCMJ covers "conduct" and that is all that should matter.

[Hull]

??....they didn't test us for drug use back in the 60s.....

Wow. Didn't know that. What would have happened if you were caught doing drugs once you were in?

[darin]

gays have served in the military as long as there has been a military. Like dmp, I certainly was aware of the gay sexual orientation of several active duty sailors and it never stopped them from being totally professional at all times. I think the UCMJ covers "conduct" and that is all that should matter.

The problem is - if "Open Homo" were announced recruiting stations would get flooded by militant Gays set on proving a POINT rather than selfless service. The gay professionals you and I in our +/- decade of active duty saw would be replaced by a bunch of idiots trying to cause trouble.

[hjmick]

gays have served in the military as long as there has been a military. Like dmp, I certainly was aware of the gay sexual orientation of several active duty sailors and it never stopped them from being totally professional at all times. I think the UCMJ covers "conduct" and that is all that should matter.

I can't disagree with this sentiment.

[Yurt]

for those that support and open gay policy for the military, do you also support seperate dorms/showers? mfm i know doesn't, i can't imagine why...

if not why? girls and guys have seperate facilities, wouldn't this be similar?

[Yurt]

I can't disagree with this sentiment.

sure you can, just try harder :coffee:

j/k

[Des]

I use your entire context. You are fighting for the sake of fighting.

Instinct are not controlling. Just as my charater grows my actions-based-on-instinct changes. I provided examples of why you are wrong. Just as instincts to lie and steal can be over-come, so can the idea of women needing men to protect them.



That's different than what you wrote earlier - and honestly it's still not 100% right, as women have been flying Fighter aircraft for years.



Their command is failing them, if that's the case. They need to take their claims for their recognition to "higher". What you've seen is likely a limited case and not the Standard.

While there are no women infantry - infantry do not corner the market on combat operations.




Sure you did - when you wrote:



That implies you believe folk ARE denied service entry based on their orientation.



How about using the words you really mean, instead of shot-gunning your replies, just to get your voice heard...like a woman in an argument who just wants to yap about godknowswhat.

:)




No - the issue is you seeing me taking your point of view or opinion and explaining why it's wrong. Most folk who are frequently wrong insist others are 'taking their words out of context' - becuase it's just not possible they are jacked up.

There is nothing "jacked up" about what I wrote, the only thing "jacked up" is the idea that taking a single sentence out of context of the entire post is somehow intelligent. Obivously, the don't ask, don't tell policy allows gay people to serve in the military. They cannot, under this policy, serve openly. The discussion was about them serving OPENLY as it pertains to the policy, so repealing the policy without implementing one that allowed them to could create a situation where gays were not allowed to serve in the military.

Women are not sent into combat. They cannot serve in many positions because they are women. They can be pilots or patriot missile operators, and that is all. I said it's the militarys policy, why do you insist on talking up completely unrelated subjects in an attempt to make me look stupid? It's clear the idea is already in your head, so why even bother replying?

Policies cannot automatically change instinct or the traditional way things work. If you still don't understand that, asking for clarification rather than calling me a woman who just wants to yap might serve as a positive thing.

I'm arguing with you because I was invited to this forum and find it interesting, and I'd like to get to the source of the reason you've found it neccesary to pick on everything I've said and take it completely out of context.

[Des]

for those that support and open gay policy for the military, do you also support seperate dorms/showers? mfm i know doesn't, i can't imagine why...

if not why? girls and guys have seperate facilities, wouldn't this be similar?

I don't know. What are other jobs policies where people might be showing/rooming together?...

[retiredman]

for those that support and open gay policy for the military, do you also support seperate dorms/showers? mfm i know doesn't, i can't imagine why...

if not why? girls and guys have seperate facilities, wouldn't this be similar?

gays have been showering with straight folks for as long as there have been communal showers. there have not been many - if any - problems.

[retiredman]

The problem is - if "Open Homo" were announced recruiting stations would get flooded by militant Gays set on proving a POINT rather than selfless service. The gay professionals you and I in our +/- decade of active duty saw would be replaced by a bunch of idiots trying to cause trouble.

if gay activists wanted to make a point, they could be quickly cashiered out of the service with a BCD which would hurt them for the rest of their lives. It wouldn't take too long, IMHO, for that to lose its attractiveness. Recruiters would need to stress that point as well.

[Yurt]

I don't know. What are other jobs policies where people might be showing/rooming together?...

what do you mean?


gays have been showering with straight folks for as long as there have been communal showers. there have not been many - if any - problems.

not under an open policy. an open policy would undoubtedly create a significantly different environment.

why do women and men share different dorms/showers? what is the reason?

[retiredman]

what do you mean?



not under an open policy. an open policy would undoubtedly create a significantly different environment.

why do women and men share different dorms/showers? what is the reason?

I disagree. the UCMJ, as I SAID, covers behavior. That would not change.

In answer to your last question: because society calls for it.

[retiredman]

Wow. Didn't know that. What would have happened if you were caught doing drugs once you were in?


you were discharged.

[Des]

Yurt-

What are fire departments policies? Colleges, even? What works for companies who might require people to shower together, and could it work for the military? In high school, we didn't have separate showers, and there was no don't ask, don't tell policy. The military "revamped" stuff for women, why not just provide some rolling curtains or something to those who may feel uncomfortable?

I wonder if a man/woman would have as much of an issue if someone of the opposite sex was watching them shower :).

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow. Didn't know that. What would have happened if you were caught doing drugs once you were in?

things were simpler in those days....if you were into drugs you likely either were a heroin addict (which would have become obvious real quick) or you smoked pot.....then there were the LSD users....they just made them lieutenants....

[darin]

There is nothing "jacked up" about what I wrote, the only thing "jacked up" is the idea that taking a single sentence out of context of the entire post is somehow intelligent. Obivously, the don't ask, don't tell policy allows gay people to serve in the military. They cannot, under this policy, serve openly. The discussion was about them serving OPENLY as it pertains to the policy, so repealing the policy without implementing one that allowed them to could create a situation where gays were not allowed to serve in the military.

Then why the hell would you imply they are being "denied the privledge of serving..."???



Women are not sent into combat. They cannot serve in many positions because they are women. They can be pilots or patriot missile operators, and that is all. I said it's the militarys policy, why do you insist on talking up completely unrelated subjects in an attempt to make me look stupid? It's clear the idea is already in your head, so why even bother replying?

Because your understanding of the policy is flawed. REGARDLESS of the positions to which they are assigned, women have been and are currently IN COMBAT. What don't you understand? Every thing I say is absolutely related to the garbage you post here. You can't just post CRAP then come back and say you didn't say what you said. It's silly. Are you saying Pilots are NOT combat positions? What's wrong with you?



Policies cannot automatically change instinct or the traditional way things work. If you still don't understand that, asking for clarification rather than calling me a woman who just wants to yap might serve as a positive thing.

You wrote people cannot change their instincts - not me. I wrote the opposite is true and gave examples.



I'm arguing with you because I was invited to this forum and find it interesting, and I'd like to get to the source of the reason you've found it neccesary to pick on everything I've said and take it completely out of context.

You're arguing because you have ot be right. Yap-yap-yap-away Friend.

[hjmick]

for those that support and open gay policy for the military, do you also support seperate dorms/showers? mfm i know doesn't, i can't imagine why...

if not why? girls and guys have seperate facilities, wouldn't this be similar?

This is an interesting question.

The reality is, gays have been serving in the military, playing professional sports, going to gyms, tennis clubs, et cetera, sharing showers all the while with nary a complaint from their heterosexual counterparts. Obviously, in a time of don't ask/don't tell, the awareness of their sexual orientation may not be known. My point is, it's not as if gay men automatically sport wood just because they are around naked men. They do not, with possibly the rare exception, act on their sexual urges or desires without an invitation. It seems to me that the likelihood of this happening while being around groups of men trained to kill would be unlikely. I have had gay friends and not one of them has ever attempted to hit on me or anyone they knew was heterosexual. Ultimately I think that separate showers may be the only way gays serving openly will find acceptance, though it strikes me as being a logistical nightmare. But it will only take one misinterpreted glance by a gay soldier towards a hetero soldier to create a disaster.

In the end, I see no reason that whatever code that covers the interaction between men and women in the military can not be applied to homosexuals as well.

[namvet]

when I served they got discharged. or thrown over the side in mid ocean. which ever came 1st

[retiredman]

when I served they got discharged. or thrown over the side in mid ocean. which ever came 1st

that's a lie.

[Little-Acorn]

that's a lie.

MFm is right. Even when they were discharged, they were thrown over the side anyway.

[Yurt]

Yurt-

What are fire departments policies? Colleges, even? What works for companies who might require people to shower together, and could it work for the military? In high school, we didn't have separate showers, and there was no don't ask, don't tell policy. The military "revamped" stuff for women, why not just provide some rolling curtains or something to those who may feel uncomfortable?

I wonder if a man/woman would have as much of an issue if someone of the opposite sex was watching them shower :).

i am not aware that colleges and/or fire departments have coed showers or time...

[Yurt]

This is an interesting question.

The reality is, gays have been serving in the military, playing professional sports, going to gyms, tennis clubs, et cetera, sharing showers all the while with nary a complaint from their heterosexual counterparts. Obviously, in a time of don't ask/don't tell, the awareness of their sexual orientation may not be known. My point is, it's not as if gay men automatically sport wood just because they are around naked men. They do not, with possibly the rare exception, act on their sexual urges or desires without an invitation. It seems to me that the likelihood of this happening while being around groups of men trained to kill would be unlikely. I have had gay friends and not one of them has ever attempted to hit on me or anyone they knew was heterosexual. Ultimately I think that separate showers may be the only way gays serving openly will find acceptance, though it strikes me as being a logistical nightmare. But it will only take one misinterpreted glance by a gay soldier towards a hetero soldier to create a disaster.

In the end, I see no reason that whatever code that covers the interaction between men and women in the military can not be applied to homosexuals as well.

i agree about the wood, i have showered with a guy i knew was gay, but i did not care as i he knew where i stood and i am pretty sure he wasn't into me, never made a pass, just a good friend. but that is me, in an open environment, there is the possibility that alot of people would have a problem with it.

i agree with the interaction btwn men and women, but i understand they have seperate showers/dorms.

as to this society calls for it...i do not believe in forcing our military to conform to every whim of society. they are military we are civilians. if the military does not want an open policy, why are the civilians pushing it? would these same civilians accept the military pushing their morals onto to us?

[darin]

...i do not believe in forcing our military to conform to every whim of society. they are military we are civilians. if the military does not want an open policy, why are the civilians pushing it? would these same civilians accept the military pushing their morals onto to us?



Very VERY WELL SAID.

[hjmick]

as to this society calls for it...i do not believe in forcing our military to conform to every whim of society. they are military we are civilians. if the military does not want an open policy, why are the civilians pushing it? would these same civilians accept the military pushing their morals onto to us?

Excellent point. Hadn't really thought about it that way.

[Yurt]

Very VERY WELL SAID.

what, you didn't like my shower scene :laugh2:

truth be told...i did it because we surfed together for years and i did not know he was gay until a few years later and i felt like i would be an ass if i suddenly said dude, aint' showering in a gym with you no more

[retiredman]

ii do not believe in forcing our military to conform to every whim of society. they are military we are civilians. if the military does not want an open policy, why are the civilians pushing it? would these same civilians accept the military pushing their morals onto to us?

did you READ the OP?

and in answer to your question: the military works for civilian society, not the other way around. The civilian society gives the military their marching orders. Military professionals understand that.

[Yurt]

obama is only thinking so due to societal pressure...and just because the military is there for us civilians does not give us the right to dictate their ways. the rules for protesting on military property are different for starters...the military has their own code seperate from societal code...military justice is not civilian justice

i am not surprised you of all people would not see that and think that societal norms should be pushed on the military.

i am interested though in others responses to my thoughts.

[namvet]

and the military no longer has any desire nor need to protect a socialists country. and we work everyday to encourage them to drop their weapons and go home.

[retiredman]

obama is only thinking so due to societal pressure...and just because the military is there for us civilians does not give us the right to dictate their ways. the rules for protesting on military property are different for starters...the military has their own code seperate from societal code...military justice is not civilian justice

i am not surprised you of all people would not see that and think that societal norms should be pushed on the military.

i am interested though in others responses to my thoughts.

did you READ the fucking OP or not?????

and of course societal norms should be pushed on the military. the military is not something separate from society.

and I LOVE it how a squirrelly little lawyer with ZERO military experience wants to tell ME about the military's "own separate code". How the fuck do YOU know? By watching fucking movies?????/

[Yurt]

if all you have are gratitutous insults, best to keep quiet and stay out of the thread

thanks

[retiredman]

if all you have are gratitutous insults, best to keep quiet and stay out of the thread

thanks
again..did you read the OP or not? if you did, then why are you asking "why are the civilians pushing it?"

do you have an answer to that question?

a simple yes or no will suffice.

[Kathianne]

Don't derail thread. Feel free to post your thoughts, but no one may dictate another's. Disagreement is expected, but stick to the topic and not your opinion of another poster. Thanks.

[Binky]

They could create an all gay brigade whose job would be to work on military musicals, reworking uniform designs, applying camo makeup, repainting hummers with a more designer look, interior design of barracks and NCO clubs, landscape work, customizing bullets and missles(they would no doubt have great interest in the phallic qualities)....... etc. They could be a real asset to an Army that is in a real need of a "designer" makeover.:laugh2::cool:


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[emmett]

did you READ the fucking OP or not?????

and of course societal norms should be pushed on the military. the military is not something separate from society.

and I LOVE it how a squirrelly little lawyer with ZERO military experience wants to tell ME about the military's "own separate code". How the fuck do YOU know? By watching fucking movies?????/


:laugh2:


What a coward!

[5stringJeff]

REGARDLESS of the positions to which they are assigned, women have been and are currently IN COMBAT.

Indeed. My squad leader from cadet basic training was one of the first women to get commissioned in the field artillery, and later became the first female combat diver (can't remember the exact name of the unit) in the Army. Just because someone is in the infantry doesn't mean they aren't participating directly in combat.

[Classact]

did you READ the OP?

and in answer to your question: the military works for civilian society, not the other way around. The civilian society gives the military their marching orders. Military professionals understand that.The military works at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, Congress writes the rules for the military, it's in the constitution.

Imagine if everyone demanded to join the military... not all can qualify, some are too fat, some too short, some too tall, some have sight limitations, hearing limitations... well there must be hundreds of reasons why a citizen may be rejected from serving in the military but it seems the gays are the only group with a lobby.

Military professionals will follow orders of the Comander in Chief and thos of congress but they have the right to walk away upon completion of contract. A large protion of volunteers are patriotic Christians that were reared to believe homosexuals are morally wrong, or their actions are morally wrong. Others may find their sexual behavior repugnant and simply not desire to associate with such persons. The military, unlike civilian life is "up or out", in other words you must progress to leadership ranks or exit the military... because of this gays, openly serving gays would hold leadership positions over strait soldiers. Out of every 100 people there are a percentage that would not work subordinate to an openly gay leader, I'm one of them. Imagine a platoon with a gay platoon sergeant and three gay subordinates within the thirty man/woman platoon... it is a bomb waiting to explode.

[manu1959]

They could create an all gay brigade whose job would be to work on military musicals, reworking uniform designs, applying camo makeup, repainting hummers with a more designer look, interior design of barracks and NCO clubs, landscape work, customizing bullets and missles(they would no doubt have great interest in the phallic qualities)....... etc. They could be a real asset to an Army that is in a real need of a "designer" makeover.:laugh2::cool:

queer eye forthe military guy......i like it.....:laugh2:

[retiredman]

The military works at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, Congress writes the rules for the military, it's in the constitution.

Imagine if everyone demanded to join the military... not all can qualify, some are too fat, some too short, some too tall, some have sight limitations, hearing limitations... well there must be hundreds of reasons why a citizen may be rejected from serving in the military but it seems the gays are the only group with a lobby.

Military professionals will follow orders of the Comander in Chief and thos of congress but they have the right to walk away upon completion of contract. A large protion of volunteers are patriotic Christians that were reared to believe homosexuals are morally wrong, or their actions are morally wrong. Others may find their sexual behavior repugnant and simply not desire to associate with such persons. The military, unlike civilian life is "up or out", in other words you must progress to leadership ranks or exit the military... because of this gays, openly serving gays would hold leadership positions over strait soldiers. Out of every 100 people there are a percentage that would not work subordinate to an openly gay leader, I'm one of them. Imagine a platoon with a gay platoon sergeant and three gay subordinates within the thirty man/woman platoon... it is a bomb waiting to explode.

apparently, the generals and admirals discussed in the OP would tend to disagree with you.

And up or out is generally the rule for officers under the rank of O4, but enlisted personnel are not required to continually advance. I had many many career E5's work for me over the years.

[Classact]

apparently, the generals and admirals discussed in the OP would tend to disagree with you.

And up or out is generally the rule for officers under the rank of O4, but enlisted personnel are not required to continually advance. I had many many career E5's work for me over the years.You can always find a thousand generals and admirals with oposing points of view... McCain had hundreds and, of course Obama had some too... that means there are some f~ed up liberals in the military.


I was in the Army from 67 to 88 and the last 15 years of that period had an up or out standard. It may be different in the national guard or Army Reserve but I don't think so? Regardless, an E-5 is a leader and usually supervises 10 or 12 soldiers so if he is gay and has gay subordinates there is a problem. Gays hang out together, they go to gay clubs not strait clubs and strait soldiers would have no idea if the gay leader was humping one of their squad members off duty since they don't go to the gay clubs. Would you follow a gay leader into combat? Would you question his/her orders if he/she assigned you duties that you think belong to one of the gay soldiers in the squad? I would get the hell out so fast the commanders head would spin.

[retiredman]

You can always find a thousand generals and admirals with oposing points of view... McCain had hundreds and, of course Obama had some too... that means there are some f~ed up liberals in the military.
we should agree to disagree on that point

Would you follow a gay leader into combat? absolutely

Would you question his/her orders if he/she assigned you duties that you think belong to one of the gay soldiers in the squad? nope.

I would get the hell out so fast the commanders head would spin.

and I am sure that there are some folks like you, who would get out. But I am also sure that there are other professional military personnel who would not care...and I am certain that there would be many gay soldiers and sailors who would be more than capable of filling the boots of the homophobes like you who DID depart.

[Yurt]

see, you disagree with the left's lifestyle and you are (insert something) phobe. pathetic.

[retiredman]

see, you disagree with the left's lifestyle and you are (insert something) phobe. pathetic.


it seems to me that he feared being placed under the command of a homosexual. What would YOU call someone like that?

[Yurt]

it seems to me that he feared being placed under the command of a homosexual. What would YOU call someone like that?

would you place yourself under my command?

[retiredman]

would you place yourself under my command?

The people in the military don't place themselves anywhere. They get orders to a duty station and their chain of command appoints their commanders. If I were placed under your command by a set of orders, I would assume that you were qualifed and would obey any and all of your lawful orders.

[Yurt]

The people in the military don't place themselves anywhere. They get orders to a duty station and their chain of command appoints their commanders. If I were placed under your command by a set of orders, I would assume that you were qualifed and would obey any and all of your lawful orders.

fair enough.

[retiredman]

fair enough.


and if I found out you were gay, and that we were headed into battle, and I were afraid of following you, and went AWOL because of that fear, that would make me a homophobe....because there is nothing about being gay that makes anyone less capable of leading people in battle.

[Yurt]

and if I found out you were gay, and that we were headed into battle, and I were afraid of following you, and went AWOL because of that fear, that would make me a homophobe....because there is nothing about being gay that makes anyone less capable of leading people in battle.

i am not surprised you think about me being gay....it is gross, but i can't stop your thoughts.

i find it ironic you ask me a question that you mock me for. i have not served in the military, and you mock me for it. pathetic really. and now you ask me......IF..........

make up your mind.

as to your hypo:

you loaded your hypo with bullshit. if you want to ask me about a neutral situation, fine, but i am not going to answer your bullshit scenarios.

simple.

[Classact]

and I am sure that there are some folks like you, who would get out. But I am also sure that there are other professional military personnel who would not care...and I am certain that there would be many gay soldiers and sailors who would be more than capable of filling the boots of the homophobes like you who DID depart.I'm not a phobe, I don't fear homosexuals! I don't like freaks and I think gays are freaks of nature, they serve no purpose and there too damned big to use as door stops. I don't want to be associated with homosexuals because I think the company you keep says a lot about you. The military for most men is a macho job and the macho is the prime reason many recruits join the military, I wouldn't want to serve with the Village People because they are freaks. I wouldn't want to be part of a freak show. There are at least 5% of military folks that think like me and that's why Clinton bit his bottom lip and signed don't ask - don't tell...He understood that if he forced congress to approve gays serving openly in the military he would be responsible for a draft and the end of the all volunteer army.

Let's say Obama and the far left congress creates law that gays can serve openly and 5% leave the military and only 2 or 3% of gays fill their boot... and then recruiters have a hard time filling the ranks because young men don't want to be part of a PC freak show... How would you feel if you were an openly serving gay when the president started a draft? What if a serious conflict broke out that required a larger force and no volunteers? Every freak homosexual outside of San Francisco would go in the closet and shut their fucking mouths about their rights because it would be faggot season America wide as young men were forced into the military. Maybe you could fill one of the vacancies and work under a homo? I'd tell my sons to move to Canada or join in on the hunt.

[retiredman]

i am not surprised you think about me being gay....it is gross, but i can't stop your thoughts.

i find it ironic you ask me a question that you mock me for. i have not served in the military, and you mock me for it. pathetic really. and now you ask me......IF..........

make up your mind.

as to your hypo:

you loaded your hypo with bullshit. if you want to ask me about a neutral situation, fine, but i am not going to answer your bullshit scenarios.

simple.

my point is unassailable. There is nothing about being gay that makes anyone less capable of leading people in battle.

And if you are "afraid" of being led into battle by a homosexual, you are a homophobe. period

[emmett]

The military is no place for the average homosexual.








What! You looking for more?

[retiredman]

The military is no place for the average homosexual.








What! You looking for more?

I might agree...I would also say that the military is no place for the AVERAGE heterosexual either.

[Sitarro]

queer eye forthe military guy......i like it.....:laugh2:

The imagination runs rampant when you consider the changes they would make to uniforms, etc. They would also have to change every year to keep up with "style" changes.:laugh2: