Obama: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" going away

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
Just great. Now what am I going to pretend to be in the event of a draft?

A woman. We're still exempt, because we're too weak to pull a trigger, or something.

we can't draft women, or our homefront sandwich making corp would be ravaged, also, the linen folding squads would be empty.

KaterinLHC wrote:
JoeBedurndurn wrote:
Just great. Now what am I going to pretend to be in the event of a draft?

A woman. We're still exempt, because we're too weak to pull a trigger, or something.

I never understood that. Women can basically shove a bowling ball out of their body without drugs, but can't pull a trigger or keep their cool under pressure? On what planet?

KaterinLHC wrote:
JoeBedurndurn wrote:
Just great. Now what am I going to pretend to be in the event of a draft?

A woman. We're still exempt, because we're too weak to pull a trigger, or something.

That's like being jealous that you can't get prostate cancer.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
Just great. Now what am I going to pretend to be in the event of a draft?

Unpreventably incontinent? With all the electronics in today's military vehicles, they won't want you around.

It's not that women can't pull a trigger as good as a man...
It's not that a gay man/woman can't do the same job a straight one can...

It's the discipline problems they create in units filled with soldiers from backwater pennsultucky who can't seperate their dick from their head or think everyone is staring at their dick...

This isn't about fairness and equality. We aren't here to make the military "fair". These are the men and women (in certain jobs) who are charged with defending your freedom by killing people who oppose it. Yeah, sure, it's unfair. It's even completely BS. But the military has enough problems keeping a platoon of Inantry inline and doing their job, they don't need more. Once society has moved past these problems, as a whole, you might see your miitary do so. We can't legalize gay marrige yet you think Jonny Bucktooth is not going to bash the gay on the bunk next to him?

Yeah, it's BS, but it's the real reality. Not the one the hippies want, but the one that exists. We can try peace and love after we've killed all who disagree...

Shoal07 wrote:
It's not that women can't pull a trigger as good as a man...
It's not that a gay man/woman can't do the same job a straight one can...

It's the discipline problems they create in units filled with soldiers from backwater pennsultucky who can't seperate their dick from their head or think everyone is staring at their dick...

This isn't about fairness and equality. We aren't here to make the military "fair". These are the men and women (in certain jobs) who are charged with defending your freedom by killing people who oppose it. Yeah, sure, it's unfair. It's even completely BS. But the military has enough problems keeping a platoon of Inantry inline and doing their job, they don't need more. Once society has moved past these problems, as a whole, you might see your miitary do so. We can't legalize gay marrige yet you think Jonny Bucktooth is not going to bash the gay on the bunk next to him?

Yeah, it's BS, but it's the real reality. Not the one the hippies want, but the one that exists. We can try peace and love after we've killed all who disagree... :)

Though I can sort of see that rationale, I also see that there isn'a lot of mileage to be gained out of pandering to Bubba Rae Bucktooth. If he has a problem with an African American drill instructor, he can drop and knock them out until Staff Sergeant Abraham Lincoln Johnson says he's done. I don't think it is much of a stretch for him to take his marching orders from 2nd Lt. Trevor Faggyfag.

2nd Lt. Trevor AwesomeyCertisisawesome.

It's got a certain ring to it.

As Reaper said, people will get over it.

But Funken...

The ban on gays was never rational, but politics isn't based on rationality.

Not sure this is factual at all - could you explain your rationale on that? And please remember, the military is NOT a social experiment, nor are we without discrimination - handicaps, physical constraints, eyesight, etc...so keep that in mind. Just curious on your statement.

Also, I think Obama will be more tactful than Clinton was...where he, in effect, spit in the military's face prior to even chatting with them.

Because gay men have *always* been in the military? It didn't exactly destroy the services...

Pigpen wrote:
The ban on gays was never rational, but politics isn't based on rationality.

Not sure this is factual at all - could you explain your rationale on that? And please remember, the military is NOT a social experiment, nor are we without discrimination - handicaps, physical constraints, eyesight, etc...so keep that in mind. Just curious on your statement.

The exclusion of gays in the military in the U.S. has been based on stereotypes, preconceived notions, and conjecture. Here are just a few of the highlights that I have heard in my lifetime:

1. Gays are too effeminate to function in an all-man's Army.
2. It will hurt unit cohesion.
3. Some troops may not like gays and that is bad for morale.
4. Gays will be having sex with each other in the barracks.
5. Closeted gays can be blackmailed by the enemy or spies threatening to expose their true lives.

Let's look at those more closely.

1. The idea that all gays are effeminate is such a ridiculous stereotype I am surprised I have even heard it in the last five years. Google "David Kopay" or "Esera Tuaolo" or "John Amaechi" or "Rubb Ed" for a visual refresher as to why it is a ridiculous stereotype.

2. Tell that to the Army Reserve unit that once was home to Lt. Steve May. May was my state senator here in Arizona in the 90s. He was openly gay and a Republican. He broke with his party to vote for a non-discrimination based on sexual orientation bill on the AZ Senate floor and gave a very impassioned speech on the issue. For his troubles, a copy of his floor speech was faxed to the U.S. Army which began proceedings to discharge May for a violation of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Sen. McCain and Sen. Kyl, along with the rest of the Congressional delegation from Arizona plead with the Army to suspend the proceedings. Additionally, every member of his unit, from the commander on down, signed a petition supporting May stating they knew he was gay, didn't care, and that he was the best and brightest of the unit. After intense pressure, the Army stopped the proceedings and May continued serving in the Army Reserves. Openly.

Also, the following nations allow gays to openly serve in the military: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland & South Africa.

Oddly, allowing gays to serve openly in the Israeli army doesn't seem to have put a damper on their excursion into Gaza.

3. When Truman integrated the troops last century, Gen. Omar Bradley opposed the policy saying, ""Experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline and morale." While Bradley's general idea may or may not be true, we do know his opposition to military integration was misplaced at best.

The other concern here is that gay men will make straight men uncomfortable because "they might look at me in the shower." When I was in seminary, I lived in a co-ed dorm with co-ed bathrooms. Men and women, black and white, gay and straight all shared the same bathroom. It didn't take long to discover that men and women make the same sounds and have the same general bodies as everyone else. No one was checking out anyone because we were at a professional graduate school doing our jobs of educating ourselves for Christian ministry and education. Did I find some of my male dorm mates attractive? Yes, I did. But my attraction was tempered by the fact that I was doing a job that didn't include having intercourse with my fellow seminarians and, contrary to popular myth, being a gay man doesn't mean that my libido is on overdrive every time any man walks by. I would expect the same level of professionalism from members of the military forces of the United States whether they are officers or recruits, gay or straight, male or female.

(As a side question, are straight men really that astonishing egotistical to believe that they are such Adonises that gay men can't contain themselves? If so, may I suggest a competent therapist and perhaps low doses of Haloperidol?)

4. Having sex in the barracks is, as far as I recall, forbidden in the U.S. military. If anyone is caught having sex in the barracks, they should be removed from military service and a hearing held to determine if court martial proceedings are in order.

5. One wonders, then, why you wouldn't want openly gay men in the military. If there is no secret to hide, you can't be blackmailed.

Ultimately, I side with Sen. Goldwater when he said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

Shoal07 wrote:
It's not that women can't pull a trigger as good as a man...
It's not that a gay man/woman can't do the same job a straight one can...

It's the discipline problems they create in units filled with soldiers from backwater pennsultucky who can't seperate their dick from their head or think everyone is staring at their dick...

This isn't about fairness and equality. We aren't here to make the military "fair". These are the men and women (in certain jobs) who are charged with defending your freedom by killing people who oppose it. Yeah, sure, it's unfair. It's even completely BS. But the military has enough problems keeping a platoon of Inantry inline and doing their job, they don't need more. Once society has moved past these problems, as a whole, you might see your miitary do so. We can't legalize gay marrige yet you think Jonny Bucktooth is not going to bash the gay on the bunk next to him?

Yeah, it's BS, but it's the real reality. Not the one the hippies want, but the one that exists. We can try peace and love after we've killed all who disagree... :)

I kind of take issue with this, though. I'm sorry, I'd rather have Corp. Francis McSissypants, the guy who has a 120 IQ and great reflexes, behind the wheel of a tank than Corp. Gomer Pyle, who barely passed high school and still has trouble telling left from right, even if Gomer's got a hot girlfriend at home and Francis is pining for his toy poodle King Arthur.

I'm not a "hippy" for wanting some sense of reality injected into the military. Face it, having the desire to defend one's country from those who would do it harm crosses religious, state, gender, and sexual orientation lines. It makes more sense to have our 21st century military staffed with the best and the brightest than have it based on who makes their willy stand up. If Gomer can't deal with the fact that he's got women and/or gay guys in his platoon, that his own f*cking issue to work through, preferably somewhere where he's not going to be given any weaponry that can be used in an "accidental" friendly fire situation.

I'll chalk this up as another Obama promise that will go unfulfilled.

KaterinLHC wrote:
A woman. We're still exempt, because we're too weak to pull a trigger, or something.

It's because nobody has bothered to change the selective service law. What politician would risk his seat to change a law that hasn't mattered for around 40 years?

The weakness and endurance argument concerns combat units. From what I experienced as an infantryman, it's a valid reason.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Having sex in the barracks is, as far as I recall, forbidden in the U.S. military.

Never heard of that while I was in. I seem to recall a restriction on women in the barracks for non-NCOs though.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Having sex in the barracks is, as far as I recall, forbidden in the U.S. military.

Never heard of that while I was in. I seem to recall a restriction on women in the barracks for non-NCOs though.

You may be correct. My nephew was in the military (Army) and said that in his barracks he was told that sex was forbidden there, but that could be specific to that particular unit/platoon/base/etc.

But, if the concern is that gays might have sex in the barracks, I am sure there are ways of quelling those fears.

Rubb Ed wrote:
I'm sorry, I'd rather have Corp. Francis McSissypants, the guy who has a 120 IQ and great reflexes, behind the wheel of a tank than Corp. Gomer Pyle, who barely passed high school and still has trouble telling left from right, even if Gomer's got a hot girlfriend at home and Francis is pining for his toy poodle King Arthur.

True, but let's not discount those gay men without those attributes. The army still needs grunts. Someone has to assault that machine gun nest, load the trucks, and clean the toilets. Regardless of their sexual orientation, if they are willing to do that, let them. Because I'm not gonna do it.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
2nd Lt. Trevor AwesomeyCertisisawesome.

It's got a certain ring to it.

Almost as good as Staff Sergeant Maxwell Fightmaster. Man, that's an awesome name. He should legally get his first name changed to "Throatpunch."

Crouton wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
I'm sorry, I'd rather have Corp. Francis McSissypants, the guy who has a 120 IQ and great reflexes, behind the wheel of a tank than Corp. Gomer Pyle, who barely passed high school and still has trouble telling left from right, even if Gomer's got a hot girlfriend at home and Francis is pining for his toy poodle King Arthur.

True, but let's not discount those gay men without those attributes. The army still needs grunts. Someone has to assault that machine gun nest, load the trucks, and clean the toilets. Regardless of their sexual orientation, if they are willing to do that, let them. Because I'm not gonna do it.

You'd trust a gay to get gay all over a toilet you're going to use? Don't you know you can catch the gay like that!?

LobsterMobster wrote:
You'd trust a gay to get gay all over a toilet you're going to use? Don't you know you can catch the gay like that!?

Shhhhh! You're revealing the "gay agenda."


Francis McSissypants, the guy who has a 120 IQ and great reflexes, behind the wheel of a tank than...

A point of order, tanks don't have "wheels", they have either lateral controls (IE: two big levers that control the tracks) or a steering column.


The weakness and endurance argument concerns combat units. From what I experienced as an infantryman, it's a valid reason.

And I agree with this. One of my most frustrating experiences on deployment was a 48 hour period in which my company had to man a machine gun live-fire range. I saw a lot of petite female MP's that physically couldn't charge an M2. We had to do it for them. Now, why the Army thinks it's appropriate to have physically weak soldiers as MP's is beyond me. I personally feel that the Army needs to revamp its criteria for MOS qualification. A rigorous physical aptitude test should be the only exclusionary criteria. Male, female, I don't give a damn. If you can't even load the weapon we expect you to fire because you're too weak, we don't need you.

Reaper81 wrote:

Francis McSissypants, the guy who has a 120 IQ and great reflexes, behind the wheel of a tank than...

A point of order, tanks don't have "wheels", they have either lateral controls (IE: two big levers that control the tracks) or a steering column. :wink:

Ugh... and I've played enough tank games to know that. Aaaanyhow...

1. The idea that all gays are effeminate is such a ridiculous stereotype I am surprised I have even heard it in the last five years. Google "David Kopay" or "Esera Tuaolo" or "John Amaechi" or "Rubb Ed" for a visual refresher as to why it is a ridiculous stereotype.

Now, tell me: if I Google for "Rubb Ed" with SafeSearch=OFF, am I going to regret it?

I saw a lot of petite female MP's that physically couldn't charge an M2. We had to do it for them. Now, why the Army thinks it's appropriate to have physically weak soldiers as MP's is beyond me.

Maybe those were the Army equivalents of parking meter maids?

Phoenix Rev wrote:
But, if the concern is that gays might have sex in the barracks, I am sure there are ways of quelling those fears.

It happens even with the current policy; but I think that getting rid of the restriction on gays would be a great time to crack down on sex between members of the same unit no matter what their orientation. A lot of pogue units already suffer from favoritism and drama due to hetero activities between members of the same unit. I'm be in full favor of adding a UCMJ article outlawing romantic relations between members of at least the same Company (preferably Battalion though).

Yeah, well, the M2 is the Army equivalent of parking enforcement... and I believe it's an object of worship in the Corps, I've seen that first hand. It's my firm belief that every single Marine in the Corps, male or female, including the Commandant, could load and fire an M2 unassisted.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
1. The idea that all gays are effeminate is such a ridiculous stereotype I am surprised I have even heard it in the last five years. Google "David Kopay" or "Esera Tuaolo" or "John Amaechi" or "Rubb Ed" for a visual refresher as to why it is a ridiculous stereotype.

Now, tell me: if I Google for "Rubb Ed" with SafeSearch=OFF, am I going to regret it? :D

Holy hell, I *hope* not!

Robear wrote:
Yeah, well, the M2 is the Army equivalent of parking enforcement... and I believe it's an object of worship in the Corps, I've seen that first hand. It's my firm belief that every single Marine in the Corps, male or female, including the Commandant, could load and fire an M2 unassisted. :-)

There should be one standard for physical requirements, because it doesn't matter if your a man or woman in a combat zone.

If you can't operate your weapon you shouldn't be in the military.

I'm truly all for equality but true equality. There shouldn't be separate standards.

Secret Asian Man wrote:
Robear wrote:
Yeah, well, the M2 is the Army equivalent of parking enforcement... and I believe it's an object of worship in the Corps, I've seen that first hand. It's my firm belief that every single Marine in the Corps, male or female, including the Commandant, could load and fire an M2 unassisted. :-)

There should be one standard for physical requirements, because it doesn't matter if your a man or woman in a combat zone.

If you can't operate your weapon you shouldn't be in the military.

I'm truly all for equality but true equality. There shouldn't be separate standards.

Amen to that.

In most fire departments I know about, there exists one physical standard irrespective of gender. The reasoning is simple. If you need to carry a 200 pound person down a set of stairs in a burning building, you don't have the option of taking two trips.

Considering the regularity of the occurance of having to drag your wounded buddies out of a firefight, I think I'd have a MUCH bigger problem with a battle buddy who had a lower physical standard to meet on a PT exam than I would with one that might want to buy me a drink when I get back alive.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
I'm be in full favor of adding a UCMJ article outlawing romantic relations between members of at least the same Company (preferably Battalion though).

Isn't this part that they have problems with more than anything? While the relations part may be icky to some they're more worried that Bob wont do what he's been trained to do because his beloved Bill just got shot.

It hasn't seemed to make a difference with the Male/Female pairs that i have heard of since we've been in Iraq so it may be ok with Male/Male.

Our soldiers go through hell, especially now in these asymmetric conflicts. If they can boink each other to get rid of some of the stress and relax for a moment, I don't see what the problem is. Same with porno; it's obscene that they aren't allowed pornography if they want it. A war zone is no place for puritan sexual morality.

So long as they aren't raping people, have at it, I say.

You'd trust a gay to get gay all over a toilet you're going to use? Don't you know you can catch the gay like that!?

Duh!! You can't catch it -- you choose whether to be gay or not on your own volition, remember?

Secret Asian Man wrote:

There should be one standard for physical requirements, because it doesn't matter if your a man or woman in a combat zone.

If you can't operate your weapon you shouldn't be in the military.

I'm truly all for equality but true equality. There shouldn't be separate standards.

I agree - and yet so many jobs have those separate standards. The whole idea of these separate standards really gets my knickers in a twist - but that could be a new thread all by itself, so I'm cutting myself off right now.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
You'd trust a gay to get gay all over a toilet you're going to use? Don't you know you can catch the gay like that!?

Duh!! You can't catch it -- you choose whether to be gay or not on your own volition, remember?

Well, to use the toilet you need to sign a UELA (User's End License Agreement). That's a choice.