Obama and the Gay Military...

[Bill Thompson]

Excuse me, what? I got my information from the military report commissioned in 1965, which interviewed many of the people directly involved in the decision making process, and which was signed off on by several Generals.

You got your information, by your own admission, at least 3 decades out of date, what, fifth hand?

Something you just googled? Come on, give me a break.

Besides, what are you saying. The military conducted a different test than the one I am saying they conducted. They used a different study then the one I am saying?

The fact remains that they had to be shown that it would work before changed.

That's just laughable. OF COURSE primary source military reports are more reliable than 5th hand information 3 decades out of date. Are we on a skeptic forum or Homeopaths-R-US?

A hominem argument again. People called me gay when I supported gay marrage. Can you raise above the childish name-calling or is that asking too much?

Instead of cherry picking the indivicual parts of my list that you feel you can attack better, lets move on.

You did not address other reasons that have more weight like

#18 It Would Be A Gift to Our Enemies. The final reason (for now – I will add more as I think of them) is that allowing open gays in the military would be a gift and a great recruitment tool for our radical Islamic enemies. In war, we are supposed to all be willing to make sacrifices. Banning Gays from serving in the military can be one of these sacrifices. It is not unreasonable. The military does its best to make sure that porn is not taken to or delivered to service men and women in muslim countries. The military also does its best to make sure that alcohol is not shipped to or delivered to muslim countries we are stationed in as well. We do our best to adjust. If we are willing to sacrifce by taking something away, we can more easily adjust by refusing to add something to the equasion.

 

[Phrost]

Bill do you actually have any military service under your belt, or do you just consider yourself an expert?

 

[zooterkin]

You did not address other reasons that have more weight like

#18 It Would Be A Gift to Our Enemies. The final reason (for now – I will add more as I think of them) is that allowing open gays in the military would be a gift and a great recruitment tool for our radical Islamic enemies. In war, we are supposed to all be willing to make sacrifices. Banning Gays from serving in the military can be one of these sacrifices. It is not unreasonable. The military does its best to make sure that porn is not taken to or delivered to service men and women in muslim countries. The military also does its best to make sure that alcohol is not shipped to or delivered to muslim countries we are stationed in as well. We do our best to adjust. If we are willing to sacrifce by taking something away, we can more easily adjust by refusing to add something to the equasion.

To repeat a point already made, what advantage does this give the US forces over the armies which are already fighting alongside them who do allow gays to serve? Are you saying that having the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan is endangering US soldiers, because it is recruiting radical Islamists?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill do you actually have any military service under your belt, or do you just consider yourself an expert?

Those are two different questions.

I actually have active duty military service under my belt, yes. You should read what I wrote. I made that clear.

What do you mean an by an expert?

Your question made me think of something I'd like to share. I think that if I had not served in the military, I would most likely have the exact opposite point of view and opinion on this subject. I support gay marrage. I would have thrown gay's serving in the military into the same logical group. I would do this because I would not know of anything to change my mind.

This term "homophobia" I find kind of strange too. This means someone fear gays? Is there something there to fear? Is it like the grown-up version of kooties? Are some people here saying I fear gays?

There needs to be a different term. I know from some of the gay guys I have met that they are revolted by photos of naked women. Why isn't the opposite behavior tolerated and politically correct?

 

[Bill Thompson]

To repeat a point already made, what advantage does this give the US forces over the armies which are already fighting alongside them who do allow gays to serve? Are you saying that having the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan is endangering US soldiers, because it is recruiting radical Islamists?

Is this so unthinkable? We know they use anything they can get their hands on to mold into a propaganda tool. Osama bin Laden is influenced by another Saudi who wrote a book about how American culture is devoid of any fear of God and religious undertones. He used Las Vegas as an example.

You know, the United States is the third most populated country on earth -- and if you count the EU as one country we are fourth. We are also the richest. Of courst this means that we are the biggest player in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that the UK has a different policy is small change. If we changed, it would be a much bigger deal.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Women are not serving along side men in combat.

When I was on the aircraft carrier we were once on a joint exercise with the coast guard. There was a woman surgen onboard. If we were called into a war zone, it was known that we would have to wait until a transport flew on board and carried her off before we could go into war.

I have not heard if times have changed since those days.

When were you on the aircraft carrier?

I was on deployment to a combat zone on a surface combatant (a DDG, to be specific) in 2004. In those days, STG seemed to stand for "Sonarman, Torpedoman, Gunner's Mate", in that we essentially had to stand a lot of topside .50 cal and M-60 watches. For the most part, I was alone & unafraid on the stern of the ship with my M-60. At other times, though, I was on a .50 cal with at least one other person, usually two. There was no expectation that, should we run into situations that might actually involve people attacking the ship, that all of the women would somehow be transferred off (or even inside the skin of the ship) to keep them safe. We provided security for the oil terminals (KAAOT, usually), and in fact did have several dhows make runs on us (presumably to test our response; they usually did this to the Coasties more, tho -- I assume because their boats are much smaller and not quite so encrusted with heavy weaponry).

Also, given today's assymetrical battlefield, it is not uncommon for women to be very heavily involved in combat operations despite the fact that they aren't available for specifically front-line MOSs, etc. Women do, from time to time, get caught up in fire fights (that article is four years old).

Women are also now eligible to serve as combat aircraft pilots. Women fly all manner of combat aircraft, including F-16s and A-10s.

IMO, gays are people attracted to the same gender. And that's it. Other than that, they're people. In a combat situation -- or a potential combat situation -- I'd like to have lots of well-trained, motivated people around me. I don't care about their sexuality. I do care if people distract me with sexual behavior, but it's the behavior that is a problem, not its source.

Standard disclaimer: The views herein are mine and mine only; they do not represent those of the Navy or the Department of Defense.

 

[Garrette]

Women do, from time to time, get caught up in fire fights (that article is four years old).

First female since WWII to win the Silver Star, and the first ever for action in combat. Here.

That said, either Bill Thompson is Poe or a blowhard. Either way, not worth much effort.

 

[Nosi]

Disagree - a similar restriction was lifted in the UK and it doesn't seem to have caused any breakdown in the effectiveness of the UK military. Which is hardly surprising since even when it was illegal homosexuals still served.

The UK is the size of America's tea cup. The whole country could fit in a smaller US state.

 

[Nosi]

I'm usually right of center, but I wouldn't care if Obama repealed "DADT."

Instead of promising to do it, however, why doesn't he just do it? Or, if it can't be done by executive order, why doesn't he get a sympathetic Congressman to introduce the bill as suggest above? Democrats control both Houses. What's the hold up? Is he waiting until they don't control both Houses?

Obama's guns are locked and loaded to Health care. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a strict back seater.

 

[Nosi]

what is a "Gay" military?

[silly]Everything's painted pink![/silly]

 

[Nosi]

Considering the military history of the sikhs I would suggest not objecting too strongly. That said if that's meant to be a halfway formal pic I doubt the guy in the turban is your most significant problem.

I saw a photograph of two Sikhs guarding Buckingham Palace on BBC News with their blue turbans and beards instead of bearskin hats.

 

[Darat]

Most industralized countries are secular. The United States is not dispite how much people would like to think it is or should be. That is just one part of the equation. There may be other considerations and factors. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

The UK is not secular, the head of state is also the head of the state religion, the government appoints some senior members of the clergy.

So again - What about all the armed forces in the world were simply being a homosexual no longer bars you from being in the military, for example the UK?

 

[Darat]

The UK is the size of America's tea cup. The whole country could fit in a smaller US state.

What has that got to do with my question?

 

[Nosi]

That is such a stereotype: That Gay men are all about sex. I hope you do know that Men, regardless of sexuality, do not always act on their urges. To tell you the truth, Sleeping with another soldier and risking getting booted, is less likely to occur than a gay guy fantasizing on his own time.

This stereotype is perpetuated by fantasy magazines of dubious taste and often XX rating. Said magazines are often targeted at gay and straight men, and a small number at women of same. Admittedly, I popped open a couple in my curious days, and boy, were they stereotypical in um...physical attributes and gentlemanly habits. Further description would violate the forum's rules six ways from Sunday.

 

[Agatha]

I was going to go through your hate-filled "reasons" point by point, but Sledge summed my feelings up:

Good grief. I've just waded through Bill's full list of reasons. I think I need a shower now. It's some of most ill-informed bigoted bile I've had the misfortune to read since... well, since the Jan Moir article on Steven Gately's death. That same horrible tone of "I'm not homophobic, but they are wrong." Please, at least have the honesty to admit you are afraid of and dislike gay people, don't hide behind this transparent facade.

However, I would like to correct one of your more egregious factual errors:

#16 The AIDS Scare. In the movie, Apollo 13, one of the single astronauts who had sex with a female astronaut groupie before the mission had contracted syphilis. Since the three men were urinating in a shared air-tight bag-like thing, another astronaut contracted syphilis.

None of the astronauts in the film Apollo 13 (or indeed in the book The Lost Moon, or on the actual mission) contracted syphillis. Fred Haise developed a UTI caused by insufficient water intake, he doesn't pass this on to the other astronauts.

 

[linusrichard]

Yow. I've got the bigot on ignore, but I saw this in Zooterkin's post...

#18 It Would Be A Gift to Our Enemies. The final reason (for now – I will add more as I think of them) is that allowing open gays in the military would be a gift and a great recruitment tool for our radical Islamic enemies. In war, we are supposed to all be willing to make sacrifices. Banning Gays from serving in the military can be one of these sacrifices. It is not unreasonable. The military does its best to make sure that porn is not taken to or delivered to service men and women in muslim countries. The military also does its best to make sure that alcohol is not shipped to or delivered to muslim countries we are stationed in as well. We do our best to adjust. If we are willing to sacrifce by taking something away, we can more easily adjust by refusing to add something to the equasion.

This is fantastic. It reminds me of how we would have lost the Civil War if we had enraged the Confederacy by enlisting black troops, and how we only won World War II by carefully keeping Jews out of our European forces, and by making sure we treated our own Japanese-American citizens with the utmost respect, so as not to anger our Japanese enemy.

Was it Sun Tzu, or von Clausewitz, who said that you can only triumph in battle by adopting the bass-ackwards cultural mores of your bigoted foe?

I'm doing my part at home to slow radical Islamic recruitment, by insisting my female relatives wear burqa outside the home.

I've also asked my creditors to stop charging me interest, as it goes against the deeply-held beliefs of those we must placate as we kill them.

 

[zooterkin]

Is this so unthinkable? We know they use anything they can get their hands on to mold into a propaganda tool. Osama bin Laden is influenced by another Saudi who wrote a book about how American culture is devoid of any fear of God and religious undertones. He used Las Vegas as an example.

Somewhat ironic, given the influence that Christianity has in the USA. Since 'they' are clearly not interested in the truth, then what is to be gained by trying to adhere to the morality of the people you are opposing? Surely it's better to follow your own principles and avoid the charge of hypocrisy?

You know, the United States is the third most populated country on earth -- and if you count the EU as one country we are fourth. We are also the richest. Of courst this means that we are the biggest player in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that the UK has a different policy is small change. If we changed, it would be a much bigger deal.

Do you have any evidence at all that this change would make any difference to how radical Islamists viewed the US or the US Army? Remember that gays are not banned from serving anyway, so they are already there, only from revealing their orientation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

However, I would like to correct one of your more egregious factual errors: None of the astronauts in the film Apollo 13 (or indeed in the book The Lost Moon, or on the actual mission) contracted syphillis. Fred Haise developed a UTI caused by insufficient water intake, he doesn't pass this on to the other astronauts.

Hmm, I don't recall that part of the movie, anyway. I do recall that one of the original 3 was grounded due to the possibility of smallpox...

Guess I need to watch the movie again (for the 100th time )

 

[BobTheDonkey]

...and by making sure we treated our own Japanese-American citizens with the utmost respect, so as not to anger our Japanese enemy...

If by "utmost-respect" you mean "internment", sure...that's how we treated them

 

[Agatha]

Hmm, I don't recall that part of the movie, anyway. I do recall that one of the original 3 was grounded due to the possibility of smallpox...

Guess I need to watch the movie again (for the 100th time )

If by 'smallpox' you mean German measles, then yes.