Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed by Senate

Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Religious debate in 3.... 2.... 1....
Nope, not doing that again, not near one of the most important Christian holidays. I'm sticking by my assertion that MK's comment was religious bigotry, and you'd be hard pressed to argue it was not, even if you happen to agree with a small portion of his criticism. Sure, there is an element of what he said that can be held true of SOME christians, but not nearly all, and certianly not in the name of all Christians who vote.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
By replying I'm doing exactly what I don't want to do and that's turning this into said religious debate. :p

But yes, Mkilbride's comment was bigoted. Nix explained nicely where DADT came from and that's all the explanation I needed. This thread was about gays and lesbians finally being allowed who they are while still fighting for their country. To me, religion doesn't even come into the equation. The contempt some people have for homosexuals (even non-religious people, hah ;)) is something I will never, ever understand. I don't care what you're *******, if you want to fight for your country, you should be allowed to.

I guess there really are people who think gay soldiers would be so distracted by all the hot servicemen and women around them that they won't be able to defend their country to the best of their abilities. That notion alone makes me sick to my stomach.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
By replying I'm doing exactly what I don't want to do and that's turning this into said religious debate. :p

But yes, Mkilbride's comment was bigoted. Nix explained nicely where DADT came from and that's all the explanation I needed. This thread was about gays and lesbians finally being allowed who they are while still fighting for their country. To me, religion doesn't even come into the equation. The contempt some people have for homosexuals (even non-religious people, hah ;)) is something I will never, ever understand. I don't care what you're *******, if you want to fight for your country, you should be allowed to.

I guess there really are people who think gay soldiers would be so distracted by all the hot servicemen and women around them that they won't be able to defend their country to the best of their abilities. That notion alone makes me sick to my stomach.
The argument goes that Gay people are allowed to serve so long as they don't announce it. This is screwed up in a few ways, one was that they couldn't bring significant others to their events, and they couldn't acknowledge any relationships while serving. So you couln't have your partner be there when you came home or anything of that nature. The flip side of this is that sexuality of anykind doesn't have a place on the battlefield. When they show up, they show up to fight, not say I'm gay and I'm a soldier. Because saying I'm gay and I'm a soldier gets the priorities wrong, you are a soldier that happens to be gay. Truthfully, this should apply to straights as well. Stay disciplined, keep it in your pants. What happens on leave is your business.

That being said, I hope the bigots and the progressive rights gays looking to prove a point stay out of this, because the only points you should prove our there is that you take your oath to defend our country seriously.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
It really has no bearing on anyone's abilities. It's the intolerance of gay people that caused the debate and created laws which shouldn't be anywhere near the military in the first place. I think that most pro-DADT supporters are either intolerant or scared of gay people. That's all I can make out of all the speeches I've seen. I've not seen a single argument by anyone why gay people shouldn't be allowed to serve openly. It's always "people would be distracted" or something like that. Basically, what it comes down to for me is the difference between...

- Not knowing a squadmate is gay and being ready to die for him, and he for you, while you've served 3 tours together.
- Knowing he's gay and being scared of him and being distracted because now that you know he's gay, you know he's watching your ass in an entirely different way.

The second one is of course complete nonsense. I seriously cannot believe that a trained US soldier would be "distracted" if they knew a squadmate was gay, which makes the entire argument to not repeal it, seem even more ridiculous to me. I'm pretty sure most of them don't give a crap, as long as they perform. It seems to me, though I am European so this is just my perception, that the entire repeal was being held back by pencil pushers in the ... Senate (I believe, right?), because the people who had a say in the matter let their personal views get in the way of a step forward in society and tolerance. I'm absolutely sure there were gay American soldiers in World War II. I'm sure there were gay soldiers in Desert Storm and Desert Fox. And nobody is doubting the skills of the American soldiers who fought there. That's basically how I feel about it. But I'm Dutch so what do I know?
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
The flip side of this is that sexuality of anykind doesn't have a place on the battlefield.
Sexual orientation never comes up in battle, anyway. You're surviving, and you're accomplishing the mission. You're not out scouting for tail. If you are, you're probably a fobbit or a pog so you're not in the field, anyway.

Although this is only anecdotal evidence limited to my experience in the Marine Corps, just about anyone opposed to homosexuals openly serving does so for completely bigoted reasons. Especially grunts, who view themselves as alpha males. Because, if you're honest about it, there is no good reason not to let them fight. If you know your job, and you're not going to get me killed, I don't care if you're banging out horses on your free time, so long as its consensual.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
I 100% agree that sexual orientation has no bearing on your ability to fight. I worry that political motivations to join are not good reasons to join. I'm not opposed to gays fighting for their country, I'm opposed to progressives thinking that fighting for their country is a civil rights opportunity (and it never should have been, DADT is absurd, as are open bans on any group). As I've said before, there are people who are born to be there, people who are there for their college educations, and people who DON'T belong there. If you are #1 and #2, I have no problem with you, even if you happen to be gay. If you are #3, you don't belong there, regardless of sexual orientation, just like you say below.

If you know your job, and you're not going to get me killed, I don't care if you're banging out horses on your free time, so long as its consensual.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
The following is a rather crude summary of what I was told when arguing with a relative who did not believe gays should serve in the military:

The problem has nothing to do with how well a homosexual can be a soldier. It's clear that they are just as capable as anyone else. The problem arises from bigotry and discrimination from fellow soldiers who, upon finding out that their squadmate is a homosexual, may mistrust, harass, or simply put this individual in a dangerous situation. He claimed that it was for the good of the army and the protection of the homosexual that they not be allowed to serve openly.

Which is a bull**** argument of course, but that's what was presented to me. You could have made the same argument about blacks joining the military (and honestly, it would be pretty accurate to say that blacks were discriminated against and put in harms way in past wars), except it's not possible to hide the fact that you're black and I don't think any rational person today would argue that allowing blacks to serve was a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
So basically... we all agree? :p
More or less, but I have a feeling people were starting to believe I didn't agree, regardless of how many times I've supported gay rights in the past. In response to Sub, while I agree that there may be dangerous situations here, I also agree that this is not a reason to deny them entry.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
3,877
Best answers
0
There shouldn't be any problems like this in the first place.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
There shouldn't be war in the first place.

**** happens.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
"when i said bring up the rear i didn't mean...."


seriously though, this is a good thing. anyone who can't see that is a sub-par human being.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
25
Best answers
0
Location
Hungary
Problem is that there is a point in the fact that it's actually the people who discriminate that would pose a potential risk, like put people they don't see fit (gays for example) in harms way and not having their back just because of their sexual orientation. While this is a bull*** reason either way, it does prove, that it's actually the bigots and haters who tend to get their way just by being them, and it's always "reason" that has to fight for what's right.

Another thing, I'm not exactly how it works, but I suppose men and women in the military aren't separated on mission, right? So if you are straight and you have a women in your team, why wouldn't that be distracting? It doesn't even make sense to crash the lame as reason the pencil pushers come up with, it's simply insulting to anyone with a brain, that they actually use those as valid reasons and expect us to believe them... And it's pretty much those same pencil pushers who won't let the Zedroga Bill for 9/11 responders pass, so the WEALTHIEST people can get a 2% tax cut. I mean it's ridiculous, I wish at least 1 republican senator would have the balls to go out in front of the cameras and explain their "reasons".
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
thing is, with the way people are becoming more and more open, and less prone to "caring" whether someone is gay/straight/whatever. that those kinds of military calls will become more and more open to scrutiny.

military commanders already have to be damned careful what orders they make, and to who. because there is ALWAYS someone who will rat them out, and then there's a courtmarshall, and so on.

the other thing is, in the military, you'll find most people really DON'T care. when you're part of a unit, you're exactly that. part of a unit. now, i was in the royal marines and while i never served with a woman (the RM corps is still male only), i knew of two or three gay men who served, it was an "open secret" kinda thing. nobody made a big deal about it, nobody cared, they weren't treated any better or worse than the rest of us. we all went through the same **** day in and day out.

i guess what i'm trying to say is: when you're in the military, you've got bigger problems than which side of the fence someone wants to play ball on.
 
Resting in H.E.L.L
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,328
Best answers
0
Location
New England
Female soldiers in the United States Military do not serve on the front lines, only supporting missions; unless the fight comes to them.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
There shouldn't be war in the first place.

**** happens.
Ideally, you are right. But so long as there is an agressor that wants what someone else has, be it Halliburton contracts or souls in a holy struggle, war is a reality we have to deal with.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
Female soldiers in the United States Military do not serve on the front lines, only supporting missions; unless the fight comes to them.
Is this true? Because that's idiotic.
 
Resting in H.E.L.L
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,328
Best answers
0
Location
New England
Yes, it's true. There's a problem with female soldiers becoming pregnant in Iraq at the moment; there's alot of buzz over it. They're not allowed abortions, but they also don't want to return home. With male soldiers, it's not an issue.

sychological concerns

The disruption of a combat unit's esprit de corps is cited as another reason for women to be banned from front-line combat situations. Indeed, many soldiers have stated that they could not trust a woman to perform her duties in a place where trusting their fellow soldier would be critical.[2][6][7] There is a secondary concern that romantic relationships between men and women on the front lines could disrupt a unit's fighting capability and a fear that a high number of women would deliberately become pregnant in order to escape combat duties.[8][9] In the British Army, which continues to bar women from serving in infantry-roled units, all recruits joining to fill infantry vacancies partake in a separate training program called the Combat Infantryman's Course.

In the American armed forces, the 1994 rules forbidding female involvement in combat units of brigade size or smaller are being bent. Colonel Cheri Provancha, stationed in Iraq, argues that: "This war has proven that we need to revisit the policy, because they are out there doing it."[10]

A third argument against the inclusion of women in combat units is that placing women in combat where they are at risk of being captured and tortured and possibly sexually assaulted is unacceptable. In a Presidential Commission report it was found that male POWs, while being subject to physical abuse, were never subject to sexual abuse, and women were almost always subject to sexual abuse.[9] Rhonda Cornum, then a major and flight surgeon, and now a Brigadier General and Command Surgeon for United States Army Forces Command, was an Iraqi POW in 1991. At the time, she was asked not to mention that she had been molested while in captivity.[11] Cornum subsequently disclosed the attack, but said "A lot of people make a big deal about getting molested," she noted later, adding: "But in the hierarchy of things that were going wrong, that was pretty low on my list".

Finally, there is the argument that by not incorporating women into combat, the American government is failing to tap into another source of soldiers for military combat operations. This argument claims that the government is creating a military that treats women as second-class citizens and not equals of men.[12] Other observers state that without women, the military would have numerous manpower shortfalls they would not be able to fill.[
Just recently, women were finally allowed to be Submarine crewmen, previously they couldn't due to worries over their "biological functions" and in the effects living in a submarine has, especially considering the closeness of living in them for soldiers.

There is also a problem of women crying rape if they have sex with a fellow soldier and are caught; currently there have been several cases where the female pleads she was being raped; but beforehand knowledge of others shows it was mutual.(Sex is not allowed while in active service over there, so the female was trying to save her ass by saying the guy raped her, if it was mutual, they'd both suffer a less severe punishment, but this way, she gets off scott free, and the guy would be jailed).

So there are numerous realistic reasons. Studies have also shown female bone structures are less resistant to the rigors of combat. Also, roughly only 10% of women who applied to join the Military made it past the obstacle course, so they shortened it by 30%, and removed some obstacles, which means that the men are trained harder, therefore the field is not even, and it leads to the men looking down on the women.

Lots of valid reasons here; but it's alot better than it used to be.
 
Last edited:
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
yeah i don't like being the guy who says "a woman couldn't do that". but there's hmmm... shortcuts, that the army do for women here, compared to the men. that if they had done for the marines as well (there are women who make a fuss that they should be allowed in), it would affect the entire corps in a negative way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom