Obama and the Gay Military...

[Aitch]

what is a "Gay" military?

the Gay Military...

the - definite article
Gay - homosexual (as in gay, lesbian, bi-sexual; probably not so much transexual)
Military - members of the armed forces

So, the homosexual members of the armed forces. That help?

Capitalized because that's the way I do thread titles; a personal quirk, if you will.

 

[Rasmus]

But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic.

I have to pick on this little bit, because I see the same kind of argument quite a lot.

Can you provide any evidence for this claim at all? Or can you at least define "homophobic" in any way that would not be utterly meaningless whilst still allowing your assertion to b true?

For the record,

I am not homophobic to any degree, neither am I bi- or homosexual to any degree. Also, there is nothing I religiously believe in or which I worship in any way.

Why do you even make the assertiopn in the first place, though? Do you think open homophobia would be any more acceptable let alone better if it was somehow part of all of us?

If you could prove to my own satisfaction - or that of anybody else, really, that I was indeed homophobic my stance would not change. I would not think it any more permissible to give in to such bigotry and allow it to govern law.

 

[linusrichard]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender.

And race, right? And religion? Or, why not?

Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

I don't appreciate this libel of our armed forces.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

Yes, I'm not the biggest fan of mercenaries either. Jones' attackers were not US military, as you might have read if you had linked to the story and read what you linked to, rather than linking to an unhelpful picture.

I just think that if you do not know, you should not protest. And people who seem to be the most vocal about insisting gays are open in the military would never and have never been in the military.

And yet we're more respectful of the military than people like you, who think our troops don't have the training or discipline to be able to work in a team with their fellow soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen as they are ordered to do. I trust that our military in general is able to understand and follow orders. Of course, there are going to be some bad apples, but I don't think bad apples should direct policymaking.

That is one angle. Here is another. Sure it is a problem with men being homophobic. But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic.

Ha ha, okay, if it makes you feel better about your homophobia to think that all straight men are homophobic, then you go ahead and do what helps you sleep at night. But it ain't necessarily so.

What do you expect? Do you expect that all men go to sensitivity training classes? It is the military! It is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It exists to break and destroy and defend. It is a monarchy by design. And that works best. Too bad that it is not fair. Life is not fair. It never was and it never will be.

Exactly. So why should this "monarchy by design" be run to placate those who would undermine its mission, rather than those who would contribute to it? Let's say you have soldier A, who is eager to serve, trained, capable, and ready; and soldier B, who also appears to be eager to serve, and is trained and capable, but unwilling to obey an order to serve alongside soldier A; and soldiers C through Z who will follow whatever orders they are given. Why kick out A so that B can serve? Why not kick out B so that A can serve?

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.

Then why not a DADT for straight military personnel? If one guy talking about his boyfriend back home is a "distraction and concern" for some reason, why isn't another guy talking about his wife back home a problem? Other than bigotry, of course, which is all this is - which is all this ever was.

 

[Darat]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

...snip....

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.

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?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I don't think

Regarding Military Matters, I think I fixed it for you... Holy Heckulla, what an Epic Fail!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever been under fire Mr Thompson? Have you received military training? Your argument is worse than the "no atheists in foxholes" canard.

 

[Arcade22]

I am okay with gays in the military, as long as they don't make it anything special. Ok you're gay, this does not allow you any parade, armband.

I get so sick and tired of hearing when women, Arabs etc in the army and other places get in with Affirmative action and get special privileges.

Pictures like this just make my blood boil!

 

[zooterkin]

Pictures like this just make my blood boil!

You're objecting to the guy in the second row who's not wearing a hat?

 

[drkitten]

The Criminal Code supersedes the common law. If a criminal offence was that badly written, it would be challenged on Charter grounds the second the Crown tried to charge someone with it. It would, in fact, be un-constitutional for any court to convict someone based on statutory interpretation of an unclear criminal offence. That would be a prima facie violation of s. 7 of the Charter of Rights which says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." A judge doesn't have the power under common law to fix vague, overbroad or imprecise Criminal Code provisions. The constitutional jurisprudence is clear on this sort of thing. Conviction under a poorly written law has already been found to violate s. 7.

It would get punted back to parliament to get fixed, and no one would be convicted of the offence until parliament had done so.

Fair enough. It seems cumbersome,.... but fair.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I agree, but there are like three more years.

Three years is a long time. Also, I expect the President will first build a little political momentum, and then put forth a policy/plan change that will be difficult to reject. For that matter, I suspect he's already got some folks doing the initial ground work.

DR

 

[foxholeatheist]

I am okay with gays in the military, as long as they don't make it anything special. Ok you're gay, this does not allow you any parade, armband.

I get so sick and tired of hearing when women, Arabs etc in the army and other places get in with Affirmative action and get special privileges.

Pictures like this just make my blood boil!

Right on!

OK, all you feminazis get your pitch forks and torches ready because you may have to lynch me soon.

Women do not serve in combat arms MOS's. I am in the pretty female-heavy MOS myself, 68W Combat Medic but female medics are not line medics. That means they are not inserted into combat arms units. Hell, even most males are not. The more fit medics are sent to the line company's which in a BCT has 2 infantry companies, 2 armor companies, 1 engineer company, 1 HQ company (support like commo, cooks, medics, cav scouts, FISTERs, that kinda thing) and a support company (mechanics and crap).

In my unit, which is a good representation of the active combat team no female has rolled outside the wire except when traveling between FOBs. Meaning, they do no go out on mission and they do not assault houses. Our female medics stay at the big FOB and work at the Troop Medical Clinic seeing about colds and booboo's with the other POGs.

However, MP's can and often are female. MiTT teams as well (although everyone I've seen with a female the female never left the wire). I have seen units that have females serving alongside men, a guards unit that we did a joint mission with was a whole grabbag of MOSs, everything from infantry to finance on this mission. It went about as smoothly as a bag of cats thrown in a river. Not because of the females, because few had the proper training.

There's a huge difference between being in theater and being outside the wire. 90% of the folks here are fobbits. The Stan, that's a whole other story.

I wish we got paid by the mission. That'll show a lot of these fobbits who's actually pounding ground and keep them in their place. Oh, a fobbit is someone that never leaves the FOB, not exclusively female but most females I would consider fobbits. FOBs are big safe places with thousands of troops. A JSS is a small patrol base. That's where you find most of the active combat units.

Females also have different standards for the Army Physical Fitness Test which is a constant source of ire for me. I am all for equality and there is massive inequality going on.

Same goes for the gay folks. I don't care but you must uphold the same standard that I do in order to serve.

 

[Dancing David]

Three years is a long time. Also, I expect the President will first build a little political momentum, and then put forth a policy/plan change that will be difficult to reject. For that matter, I suspect he's already got some folks doing the initial ground work.

DR

We are in total agreement, the armed forces are the most resistant to change of the parts of the US government. Three years is probably a short time in terms of change, when you consider the institutional inertia.

 

[geni]

Pictures like this just make my blood boil!

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.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Regarding Military Matters, I think I fixed it for you... Holy Heckulla, what an Epic Fail!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever been under fire Mr Thompson? Have you received military training? Your argument is worse than the "no atheists in foxholes" canard.

No kidding. As someone who has served in the army, I found it outright surrealistic the way he rants about it turning into some kind of primal feeding frenzy when under fire.

Newsflash for those less informed: for the last few thousand years, combat has been a formation and tactics thing, not an individual rage fest. The formation that wins is the one that regains its cohesion the longest, and continues to operate as one unit, not like a bunch of monkeys driven by primal instincts.

And yes, it's not even a modern thing. If you look at the Napoleonic wars, a musketman square wasn't "dead" when you killed all soldiers, but when it lost cohesion. Then it would get rolled up by cavalry from one corner.

And if you go even back in time, be it a Roman legion or the 300 Spartans, it was _not_ the idiotic Hollywood image where macho men charge out of formation to do some combat of their own. Seeing the frenzied Spartans change out of formation to do some good ol' fashioned hacking and slashing, after they explained right in the movie why that formation works, and how each shield covers one extra man, made me cringe. Ditto for such idiotic sub-productions as The Last Legion, where they do that repeatedly, and one particular idiot even jumps off a fort wall to charge alone at the enemies. Jeesh. In reality the legion or phalanx who did that, would be rolled up right there and then even by a horde of cavemen.

But, yes, if any army turns into a feeding frenzy under fire, you've already lost. Regardless of whether they shoot each other or not. Because that guy who gets up to do some frenzied shooting of his own, isn't laying suppression fire for his squad mates, or whatever he's supposed to be doing instead. Geesh.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And if you go even back in time, be it a Roman legion or the 300 Spartans, it was _not_ the idiotic Hollywood image where macho men charge out of formation to do some combat of their own. Seeing the frenzied Spartans change out of formation to do some good ol' fashioned hacking and slashing, after they explained right in the movie why that formation works, and how each shield covers one extra man, made me cringe.

In all fairness, they do show the Spartans holding their ground using their formation. It's not until the attackers falter that the Spartans break ranks to finish off the stragglers (except for one or two places - and they suffer losses for doing so).

 

[funk de fino]

During the last few years of my service we had female frontline fighter aircraft pilots. One of them won the Cyprus gun firing excercise IIRC. A very impressive pilot.

Was quite embarrassing and juvenile during the pre-flight flaps checks.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Was quite embarrassing and juvenile during the pre-flight flaps checks.

As a former AF maintainer, I can imagine.

 

[Alt+F4]

Three years is a long time. Also, I expect the President will first build a little political momentum, and then put forth a policy/plan change that will be difficult to reject. For that matter, I suspect he's already got some folks doing the initial ground work.

DR

I would like to agree with this, but the available evidence shows otherwise. Obama has stated his opposition to gay marriage is based on his Christian beliefs. He did not speak out when Prop 8 proponents used his image and quotes in their propoganda.

In June the Obama Administration defended the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. Sure, this might has come from Bush leftovers in the Justice Department but if that was the case why didn't the President distance himself (or say anything) about this?

Why believe he is going to do something about DADT?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender.

And race, right? And religion? Or, why not?

You don't get it. If you don't get it, you never will. It does not mater, in the military. All that matters is winning the war.

Is breaking into my writing and taking something out of context a way of attacking something that you do not like?

In a real sense, gays CAN serve in the military. If there was a draft you would not be excused if you tell the military that you are gay. If that was the case, people did not have to escape to Canada during Vietnam.

It is just that the military does not allow you to have sex with other men if you are a man. Is it fair that the military can tell you who to have sex with and who you cannot have sex with? HELL YES! If you are an officer you cannot have sex with an enlisted person, that is grounds for dismissal. If you are an officer and married, you cannot have sex with someone outside of your marriage. That is grounds for dismissal as well. And it is a good thing that this is the case for several reasons. Allowing such behavior diminishes morale and can subject an officer to blackmail.

Having these potential litte love tifs and love nests in the fox hole also diminishes morale. So women cannot serve on the front lines along side men under morst situations and the same thing with openly gay men.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

I don't appreciate this libel of our armed forces.

As a test, I once posted an outrageous comment in the forum and at the end I posted, "just kidding" as a test to see who would read the entire comment before responding. There was one who did. This is not the same here, but if you read the whole post you would not have sliced and diced my post. I also remember in the 6th grade they would test kids by seeing who would read the whole instructions to a test befor launching into it. I don't mean to call you uneducated, maybe you are too passionate about something and need a time-out to gather your thoughts.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

Yes, I'm not the biggest fan of mercenaries either. Jones' attackers were not US military, as you might have read if you had linked to the story and read what you linked to, rather than linking to an unhelpful picture.

They were just as much under the stress, and in fact probably more so, than the traditional military. The fact that they were acting in a military capacity in a war zone is what is important. The fact that by name they were not the standard armed forces is minutia.

That is one angle. Here is another. Sure it is a problem with men being homophobic. But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic.

Ha ha, okay, if it makes you feel better about your homophobia to think that all straight men are homophobic, then you go ahead and do what helps you sleep at night. But it ain't necessarily so.

Straw Man and Ad Homemin. And if you think the military is the perfect battlefield to attack homophobia, you have even greater issues with logical thinking. I also never said I was homophobic. In fact, I am for gay marrage. You are resorting to reading things into what I write that I have not written.

 

[Alt+F4]

It is just that the military does not allow you to have sex with other men if you are a man. Is it fair that the military can tell you who to have sex with and who you cannot have sex with? HELL YES! If you are an officer you cannot have sex with an enlisted person, that is grounds for dismissal. If you are an officer and married, you cannot have sex with someone outside of your marriage. That is grounds for dismissal as well. And it is a good thing that this is the case for several reasons. Allowing such behavior diminishes morale and can subject an officer to blackmail.

Having these potential litte love tifs and love nests in the fox hole also diminishes morale. So women cannot serve on the front lines along side men under morst situations and the same thing with openly gay men.

This issue isn't about having sex in the barracks or the foxhole it's about (as another poster mentioned) the fact that you can be thrown out of the military for simply talking about your same-sex spouse. If it's all about winning the war why get rid of highly skilled people just for talking about how they spent their weekend?