Obama ends military ban

[lacktheknack]

Great!

Now the homosexual soldiers can go and reveal that they're gay!

...For no reason!

...And get targeted by HOMOPHOBIC SOLDIERS.

Wonderful. I can only see good things happening.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Just so you know, you've not only made me double post, but I slapped my forehead pretty hard after I read your comment. I'm not up for going through the myriad of ways your thinking is just wrong, but I will say that who's affected and who's affecting makes absolutely no difference in this issue. If performance suffers for whatever reason, people could die. Minimizing the risk is at the forefront of any military mission.

Think about it this way. If you know who's gay, you can account for it. Assign gay soldiers to units where none of the other members care.

 

[martin's a madman]

-snip-

See, I tried to word my post carefully so people wouldn't misconstrue it like you did. I know a gay soldier won't be playing grab-ass during a firefight, or even that he'll show any obvious signs of being gay at all. Not every (or even many) gays are like the flamboyant stereotypes you see on TV. The issue I'm concerned with is far more subtle. Women aren't allowed to serve on the front lines not only for biological reasons, but also for the vastly different ways men behave around them. The same could be said for gays, though to a lesser degree I think. And I don't even know why you are bringing up historically racist policies. The two issues are pretty different.

Guys like you preach on and on about an end to bigotry based on ignorance, which is all well and good, but you take it so far that you become ignorant yourselves. Men ARE different from women. Straights ARE different from gays. Nobody is better than anybody, but to ignore the differences between people is just as stupid as bigotry based on those differences.

No grab-ass?

Well, I know a military I'm not joining.

*flutters away*

 

[Ham_authority95]

So President Obama finally signed off on the ending of DADT, heres the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ends-gays-us-military-ban-205550221.html
so what r your opinions on ending the ban?

Cool. It's what they should have done 10 years ago.

Now all Obama needs to do is to re-introduce a health care bill that isn't watered down, weak shit and he'll have a fraction of my support.

 

[viranimus]

Yeah I really see this backfiring massively.

Dont ask dont tell wasnt a law that permitted exclusion of service to the military. It was what allowed homosexuals to serve and was suppsed to be a comprise in letting them in, and not letting them be persecuted for it.

So hypothetically all this does is removes the protections that were afforded homosexuals that they were not required to disclose their orientation and restores the original capability for the military to eject based on perceived orientation with little or no evidence. Because as far as Ive been able to tell in reading this, all this does is revokes dont ask dont tell. It does NOT make homosexuallity allowable in the military because no new legislation was drafted.

I understand that a large majority of people who were rallying against DADT cant remember the days when Clinton signed it into law, But you know, thats what happens when people get worked up over things they dont understand, place blame incorrectly, and not actually read or comprehend what they are signing on to.

Im not saying it will be taken this way immediately, but I sincerely get the feeling this was a setup that will eventually backfire because someone will eventually interpret it in this way.

I might be wrong, so I ask, someone please show me the newly drafted legislation that protects homosexual right to enter and remain in military service.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Just so you know, you've not only made me double post, but I slapped my forehead pretty hard after I read your comment. I'm not up for going through the myriad of ways your thinking is just wrong, but I will say that who's affected and who's affecting makes absolutely no difference in this issue. If performance suffers for whatever reason, people could die. Minimizing the risk is at the forefront of any military mission.

Think about it this way. If you know who's gay, you can account for it. Assign gay soldiers to units where none of the other members care.

While that is a simple solution, it's a lot less simple to actually do it. Most of the time we aren't even aware of the changes in our behavior around different types of people. It's one thing to say "I don't mind serving with a gay guy" and another to actually not behave any differently.

Like I've said, if this is an issue they've (the higher ups) already discussed and determined to not be an issue, then I'll accept their judgement and forget it. I just haven't seen anyone really talking about the possible effects of gays on the front lines, and the apparent lack of discussion is what I'm really concerned about. And no, those surveys they took don't really do it for me because they include the hundreds of thousands of service members who work in an office environment like I do where someone being gay won't change much of anything.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I might be wrong, so I ask, someone please show me the newly written legislation that protects homosexual right to enter and remain in military service.

Well, I know every briefing I've had on the subject (and oh my GOD if there's one thing the Navy loves, it's briefing the same shit over and over and over until you want to bash your face against a wall) gave every indication that after the law takes effect, being openly gay will be perfectly acceptable. They've even gone out of their way to mention that consensual sodomy is no longer against UCMJ code 125 (the one that specifically outlaws sodomy).

 

[Farther than stars]

Wow, took long enough. He wasted three years on something he could have ended on day one. He's the commander and chef of the US armed forces. He could have just told them to ignore the policy.

What an incredible disappointment this man has been.

I think you're underestimating how long political procedures like these take to complete, especially a controversal one like this. Besides, I like the fact that he spent the last three years doing other, more important things as well.
Also, it's "Chief", as in, he doesn't cook for the military as well as command it. =/ And while I'm on the matter, it's "Commander-in-Chief", if you want the rest of the title to be correct as well.

 

[LokiArchetype]

If they're distracted, that's their issue, not the issue of the person distracting them. If our special forces are so easily distracted, then I'd say our military has bigger issues than gays.

Just so you know, you've not only made me double post, but I slapped my forehead pretty hard after I read your comment. I'm not up for going through the myriad of ways your thinking is just wrong, but I will say that who's affected and who's affecting makes absolutely no difference in this issue. If performance suffers for whatever reason, people could die. Minimizing the risk is at the forefront of any military mission.

Why should the army go out of their way to accommodate the needs of mentally weak people who put other people's lives in danger with their delicate sensibilities?

If you're so easily shaken that simply being in proximity to a certain type of person shakes you mentally, then you have no place in special forces.

 

[Kolby Jack]

If they're distracted, that's their issue, not the issue of the person distracting them. If our special forces are so easily distracted, then I'd say our military has bigger issues than gays.

Just so you know, you've not only made me double post, but I slapped my forehead pretty hard after I read your comment. I'm not up for going through the myriad of ways your thinking is just wrong, but I will say that who's affected and who's affecting makes absolutely no difference in this issue. If performance suffers for whatever reason, people could die. Minimizing the risk is at the forefront of any military mission.

Why should the army go out of their way to accommodate the needs of mentally weak people who put other people's lives in danger with their delicate sensibilities?

If you're so easily shaken that simply being in proximity to a certain type of person shakes you mentally, then you have no place in special forces.

You just don't get it. It's not about weakness, it's about difference. Even if they don't realize it themselves, knowing one of their team members is gay could alter the way they behave, which could lead to problems. It's nobodies' fault, and it's not a problem of "mental weakness." I also said I didn't know for sure it would ever happen, just that it could in theory and that it should be looked in to.

It was so hard to type that paragraph without insulting you, by the way.

 

[orangeban]

I might be wrong, so I ask, someone please show me the newly written legislation that protects homosexual right to enter and remain in military service.

Well, I know every briefing I've had on the subject (and oh my GOD if there's one thing the Navy loves, it's briefing the same shit over and over and over until you want to bash your face against a wall) gave every indication that after the law takes effect, being openly gay will be perfectly acceptable. They've even gone out of their way to mention that consensual sodomy is no longer against UCMJ code 125 (the one that specifically outlaws sodomy).

I can picture that lecture now.

"And in related news, you may sodomise your fellow crew members, any questions? Yes, Johnson."

"Does that include rape sodomy?"

"No, Johnson, consensual sodomy only."

 

[orangeban]

Edit: Brilliant, the quote didn't appear, well this post is
@JackthePotato


I think his point is that in the army soldiers should be friggin' professionals and not act like 10 year-olds, "But, but, the *gays* are watching, sir!" Seriously, in the middle of a combat scenario gay people have more important things to focus on than their squad members genitals, so soldiers are just gonna have to grow out of this stupid, childish concern.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Good. The US government moves almost as slowly as the church. Also, que the people who inevitable use this as a reason to attack Obama somehow or way overact as if Obama just freed the slaves singlehandedly.

 

[orangeban]

Good. The US government moves almost as slowly as the church. Also, que the people who inevitable use this as a reason to attack Obama somehow or way overact as if Obama just fried the slaves singlehandedly.

How can you fry slaves single-handidly, surely one hand has to hold the pan, the other has to turn the slaves, it just doesn't sound possible. Though I guess you were talking about overreactions.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

Now Obama can make up for the Disastrous cash for clunkers program.
if that needs explaining, heres how it affected the poor:
cars old than 10 years old had their engines disabled using a mixture of silica and other oil in their engines, spewing magic fairy dust(burning engine smoke) that 'cleaned' the envioronment.
this prompted people to buy new cars, and most people were required to give up their cars. for classic car enthusiasts, this was hell, and the poor could not afford newwer cars, and could not buy older cars.
so yeah, the cash for clunkers was evil.

also, i dont really care, if they are gay, let them be gay, dont ssee why they should have been banned. Good work Barry.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I think his point is that in the army soldiers should be friggin' professionals and not act like 10 year-olds, "But, but, the *gays* are watching, sir!" Seriously, in the middle of a combat scenario gay people have more important things to focus on than their squad members genitals, so soldiers are just gonna have to grow out of this stupid, childish concern.

It's not childish! It's just an involuntary subconscious reaction! Hell, pretty much ANYONE acts at least a bit differently around someone they know is gay and aren't gay themselves. You may not think you do, but you do. All I care about is whether or not it would affect the mission.

 

[LokiArchetype]

If they're distracted, that's their issue, not the issue of the person distracting them. If our special forces are so easily distracted, then I'd say our military has bigger issues than gays.

Just so you know, you've not only made me double post, but I slapped my forehead pretty hard after I read your comment. I'm not up for going through the myriad of ways your thinking is just wrong, but I will say that who's affected and who's affecting makes absolutely no difference in this issue. If performance suffers for whatever reason, people could die. Minimizing the risk is at the forefront of any military mission.

Why should the army go out of their way to accommodate the needs of mentally weak people who put other people's lives in danger with their delicate sensibilities?

If you're so easily shaken that simply being in proximity to a certain type of person shakes you mentally, then you have no place in special forces.

You just don't get it. It's not about weakness, it's about difference. Even if they don't realize it themselves, knowing one of their team members is gay could alter the way they behave, which could lead to problems. It's nobodies' fault, and it's not a problem of "mental weakness." I also said I didn't know for sure it would ever happen, just that it could in theory and that it should be looked in to.

It was so hard to type that paragraph without insulting you, by the way.

If the British royal guard can wear silly hats and have fat, hairy men wearing nothing but a two size too small g-string hipthrusting against them without displaying the most minute of reactions, you'd think someone in the special forces would be able to handle someone being gay without losing their composure.

It's quite ridiculous to entrust the most sensitive and dangerous missions to someone affected by something so utterly trivial. They'll be in the most emotionally taxing situations imaginable, but this bothers them? This lowers their performance? What if they have to rescue and escort a gay foreign dignitary?

"I'm sorry, I'm trained to withstand all the horrors of an active warzones. Bullets, bombs, bio-agents, toxic gasses melting the faces off my comrades, being tortured and maimed, but being around gay people? I'm afraid that's simply asking too much, I am only human."

It's akin to saying

"I'm sorry, but under no circumstance can you put someone with the last name Johnson under my command, especially not with the rank 'Private'. I think the reason for this should be obviously. I cannot function to my full ability under these circumstances, I am laughing too hard on the inside."

 

[JMeganSnow]

An internet friend of mine was in the military on a submarine with several homosexual crewmates, and he said he was rather surprised to find out later that everyone, including superior officers, pretty much knew about these guys and didn't give a rat's buttock. He just assumed he was unusually tolerant or some such.

And, frankly, if you're some kind of huge homophobic hysteric, you don't need to be in the military anyway. In my experience, most military personnel don't worry about that kind of thing. They're much more concerned with a.) doing their jobs properly (which is hard work no matter what branch you're in) b.) getting enough sleep/food, c.) their friends/family/hobbies/whatever and d.) if they're actually in combat, carrying out their mission while (hopefully) not getting shot to hell. Caring about what other soldiers do with their sexual organs seems to be so far down their list of Things To Worry About I'd be surprised they could detect it using the Hubble.

 

[Enamour]

It's not childish! It's just an involuntary subconscious reaction! Hell, pretty much ANYONE acts at least a bit differently around someone they know is gay and aren't gay themselves. You may not think you do, but you do. All I care about is whether or not it would affect the mission.

This is the first time I've seen someone come up with a semi-valid argument against this. It'll doubtlessly have AN effect but I'm sceptical whether it would translate to lost lives but that's similar to what you're saying as well.

I'm gonna disagree with you on the sub-conscious thing; disliking homosexuality is a pre-conscious response ie. learnt behaviour, which I think is further validated by entire civilizations having been built on actively homosexualized militaries. The Spartans for example encouraged gayness; we put you next to your lover; the rationale being that the two would fight all that much harder to protect each other. Alexander's armies were not un-gay. The Roman armies for centuries, before the church came along, glorified love between men. Most of the Greek armies.

I know the modern US military has been built in a different culture so the rules are different, so I'm going to conjecture on it with another psychologically driven response. The training that military guys go through is meant to break you down so the military can rebuild you; your identity to a lesser or greater extent is centred around that training. A strong force that bonds people together is mutually experienced hardship, so I reckon that if a dude is "out" from the get-go then he has time to bond with his squad/unit mates; it's more of a familial response in the end, a feeling of brotherhood between soldiers. I think that's another reason why soldiers sometimes struggle to reintegrate into civilian society; they've a new identity built upon vastly differing norms.

tl;dr I'm trying to make you feel better... I think. We should grab some cocktails and discuss it in a more intimate setting.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

For some reason my mind immediately goes to the showers. Are homosexuals going to get different showers? Or does everyone in the military have their own personal shower? I don't know, I've never served (obviously).

To be honest, this did not even occur to me until you mentioned it. While in the military, I did not have any particular fear of gay people watching me shower or anything of that nature but I did note that I was forced to shower separately from females, presumably in part because I found them sexually attractive. While I would not want to further splinter the shower system (that was stressed enough with two groups when I was deployed), I am forced to wonder who would gays shower with. I suppose one's answer to the question would fall into three camps. The first would say that they should shower with people they do not find sexually attractive (leading to the problem of showering with the opposite gender), the second leaves them in the same position as now (I see no problem) and the third would have them showering with other like minded individuals (the equivalent of having me shower with the heterosexual females). I see no reason to change but then I can also see people arguing that they ought to be segregated.