Pentagon study: Gays could serve with no harm

[Loring2]

Agreed

It's funny.... I just got off the phone with a couple of my friends from back in Cali. They are part of a predominately military oriented group who used to congregate at our house on weekends as sort of a "safe house" (we lived <4 miles from MirMar Marine Air Station and <10 miles north of Naval Air Station North Island).

They were laughing about this study. They think it's hilarious because everyone except for the senior officer ranks already KNOWS who's gay/lesbian or not. The troops just don't give a shit. The VERY select few, according to them, that do have issues with it keep their mouths shut because they would get THEIR asses beat daily by ALL of their squadron mates if they every said anything.

I think this is about as close to the truth as you can get. As a guy who was an AF Sq. commander I had homosexuals in both the Sqs. that I commanded, 8 or 9 in each case. These guys were a cut above average and it appeared that they worked a bit harder than the norm.

Frankly, no one seemed to care and certainly no one worried about it.

The study is only for political purposes ... as usual.

 

[Stella_Omega]

At this time, there are two dangers that a gay serviceman or woman face if they get outed. One, being beat up by any homophobes that happen to be stationed with them, and two, being cashiered out of the service by DADT.

Seems to me that one of these things is not like the other, in that it could be done away with by a simple swipe of the lawmaking pen.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It can be done by executive order. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when he gives an order, it must be obeyed. Unfortunately, the current CIC hasn't internalized this concept 'cause he's a civilian, always has been. Harry Truman knew perfectly well how it worked so he issued an order ending segregation in the military. Within 48 hours, the military was integrated. That's all it takes but Obama has, unfortunately, chosen to wait for Congress. Why? 'Cause he's a civilian and a legislator!

 

[Stella_Omega]

It can be done by executive order. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when he gives an order, it must be obeyed. Unfortunately, the current CIC hasn't internalized this concept 'cause he's a civilian, always has been. Harry Truman knew perfectly well how it worked so he issued an order ending segregation in the military. Within 48 hours, the military was integrated. That's all it takes but Obama has, unfortunately, chosen to wait for Congress. Why? 'Cause he's a civilian and a legislator!

And on that note, I'm putting this thread on ignore. I've signed dozens of petitions, I donate what money and time I can.

Anybody here really need to rehash the subject on a porn board?

 

[sr71plt]

No.

This is how they DO respond in real life. This is how they are currently living their lives and their careers.

BTW, if I heard this from just one or two of our military friends it would be one thing, but it is pretty damn universal.

Maybe things were different when you were in the military, but now days, I think the enlisted and junior officers are a lot smarter and better grounded than the older, set in their ways Generals and Admirals who "think" they know what's going on. Probably has something to do with actually have gone to school with openly gay people.

I wasn't in the military. Where I was the DSTL was a whole lot stricter than in the military--but was given the blind eye when convenient (which, in my case, was found to be quite convenient).

I still don't believe you that what they say is fine with them is fine with enough of them not to make it hell on earth for GMs serving. This isn't a PC never-neverland. But, then neither you nor I will be the ones to find out one way or the other.

 

[sr71plt]

It can be done by executive order. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when he gives an order, it must be obeyed. Unfortunately, the current CIC hasn't internalized this concept 'cause he's a civilian, always has been. Harry Truman knew perfectly well how it worked so he issued an order ending segregation in the military. Within 48 hours, the military was integrated. That's all it takes but Obama has, unfortunately, chosen to wait for Congress. Why? 'Cause he's a civilian and a legislator!

Ummm, no. He isn't doing it so the monkey won't be on his back. (And he's not currently a legislator. Currently he's the Executive).

I'm in favor of ending DADT and opening the services up. I'm just not counseling anyone to hop on the bandwagon for, say, two decades.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Go fish. It's fundamental to the whole ball of wax of your posting history here. You can't help yourself. You hate everything.

The only thing I hate is you pablum spewing philosophy on who you think you are versus who you really are. You're a pompous, arrogant asshole who believes he's better than everyone else and the only with the correct view of that little bit of the world you live in. Dickhead.

You haven't pointed to any thread or post yet the would back up you claims my alleged hatred of gays. I wonder why that is? Asshole.

 

[sr71plt]

The only thing I hate is you pablum spewing philosophy on who you think you are versus who you really are. You're a pompous, arrogant asshole who believes he's better than everyone else and the only with the correct view of that little bit of the world you live in. Dickhead.

You haven't pointed to any thread or post yet the would back up you claims my alleged hatred of gays. I wonder why that is? Asshole.

Ah, another "I don't always hate someone in my posts" post by Zeb.

 

[Huckleman2000]

It can be done by executive order. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when he gives an order, it must be obeyed. Unfortunately, the current CIC hasn't internalized this concept 'cause he's a civilian, always has been. Harry Truman knew perfectly well how it worked so he issued an order ending segregation in the military. Within 48 hours, the military was integrated. That's all it takes but Obama has, unfortunately, chosen to wait for Congress. Why? 'Cause he's a civilian and a legislator!

He has to wait on Congress because it's a law. The President can't arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. Even if he chose to stop enforcing DADT, what would keep the next President from enforcing the law again?

Was there a law keeping the military segregated? Or was it simply custom?

 

[sr71plt]

Was there a law keeping the military segregated? Or was it simply custom?

A WWI executive order by Woodrow Wilson, I think. He was elected (twice) with the help of the black community, with the understanding he would initiate integration--and he, instead, pushed segregation after both elections.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

A WWI executive order by Woodrow Wilson, I think. He was elected (twice) with the help of the black community, with the understanding he would initiate integration--and he, instead, pushed segregation after both elections.

However, the segregation of the military, especially the Army, dates back to the Civil War. Entire units of African Americans fought the Confederates and later the American Indians heroically. Their officers were nearly always white, at least until the 20th Century.

 

[sr71plt]

However, the segregation of the military, especially the Army, dates back to the Civil War. Entire units of African Americans fought the Confederates and later the American Indians heroically. Their officers were nearly always white, at least until the 20th Century.

Was there a law then? (That was the question.) I don't know.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Was there a law then? (That was the question.) I don't know.

I suppose there was Plessy vs. Ferguson, "separate but equal", but that didn't say the military had to be segregated.

I mean, it wasn't illegal to be black and in the military, which is the situation now for LGBTs. So, I don't think it's quite an analogous situation.

 

[AllardChardon]

Interesting reactions. I have four young adult children raised by a most-liberal me in California and they, along with their friends, seem much more accepting of gays in their lives than I was in my high school years. A good friend came out of the closet and shocked the hell out of me. I never had a clue. We remained friends after I got over the shock.

But then, my parents had gay friends back in the 50s and 60s that came to our house. And we lived in Los Angeles, a very hip place.

My point is location might have a lot to do with this subject. A gay soldier might feel more accepted in California than say Alabama, with no slight intended for Alabama.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Was there a law then? (That was the question.) I don't know.

According to digitalhistoryonline, yes, it was. "It was not until the Civil War that African Americans were required to fight in racially separate units. In 1869, Congress made racial separation in the military official government policy. This policy remained intact through the Spanish American War, World War I (when two African American divisions participated in combat), and World War II."

 

[Huckleman2000]

According to digitalhistoryonline, yes, it was. "It was not until the Civil War that African Americans were required to fight in racially separate units. In 1869, Congress made racial separation in the military official government policy. This policy remained intact through the Spanish American War, World War I (when two African American divisions participated in combat), and World War II."

Regardless, non-whites were still allowed to serve.

I don't disagree that Obama has taken a pretty wonky approach to this, but I can understand why he's doing it this way. I don't like it, but I understand it. It's something that has to be done, to respect the rule and process of law. If there are further things to work out, like spousal benefits or whatever, non-repeal could jeopardize their future.

The GOP wants to punt this to the Courts. When a Judge repeals it, as it's clearly un-Constitutional, they can start squealing like pigs about "activist judges".

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Regardless, non-whites were still allowed to serve.

I don't disagree that Obama has taken a pretty wonky approach to this, but I can understand why he's doing it this way. I don't like it, but I understand it. It's something that has to be done, to respect the rule and process of law. If there are further things to work out, like spousal benefits or whatever, non-repeal could jeopardize their future.

The GOP wants to punt this to the Courts. When a Judge repeals it, as it's clearly un-Constitutional, they can start squealing like pigs about "activist judges".

Which is exactly the Pentagon's point. Not only will it let the neo-Nazi wing of the GOP play silly buggers it would force the military to do everything in giant rush instead of moving in a deliberate, controlled manner with proper training for the troops, housing arrangements, etc.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Which is exactly the Pentagon's point. Not only will it let the neo-Nazi wing of the GOP play silly buggers it would force the military to do everything in giant rush instead of moving in a deliberate, controlled manner with proper training for the troops, housing arrangements, etc.

Which is the Pentagon's POINTLESS point!

The bottom line is that they are already THERE!!!! Nothing has to change. No str8 guys are getting ass raped now and no str8 guys will be getting ass raped after the change. The only difference is that the bullshit will be gone and everybody will be treated as equals.

Fuck all the rest of the bullshit. It unconstitutional and wrong. It should be fixed by the MOST expedient manner possible. The ONLY thing preventing that is that, once again, our RIGHTS are being used by a bunch of hypocritical assholes to achieve some stupid assed political point.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

"Don't ask, don't tell" is federal law

The prohibition against gays serving in the military is federal law. 10 U.S.C. 654 provides:

Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
Search by Keyword or Citation
(a) Findings. - Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise
and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules
for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed
forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I
of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the
discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and
conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for
and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the
armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the
ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are
characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit
cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is
unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual
service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military
unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the
individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life
in that -
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces,
the unique conditions of military service, and the critical
role of unit cohesion, require that the military community,
while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized
society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws,
rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions
on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian
society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces
regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the
moment the member enters military status and not ending until
that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed
forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all
times that the member has a military status, whether the member
is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off
duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is
necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at
all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces,
the international responsibilities of the United States, and the
potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat
routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces
involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions
that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced
intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a
longstanding element of military law that continues to be
necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that
exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create
an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of
morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts
would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of
morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
essence of military capability.
(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated
from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and
approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such
regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or
solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless
there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with
procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has
demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and
customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to
recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force,
coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the
member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent
with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline,
good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage
in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual
or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further
finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set
forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that
he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,
has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual
acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person
known to be of the same biological sex.
(c) Entry Standards and Documents. - (1) The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of
members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in
subsection (b).
(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or
appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set
forth the provisions of subsection (b).
(d) Required Briefings. - The briefings that members of the armed
forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically
thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed
explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual
conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies
prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction. - Nothing in subsection (b) shall be
construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed
for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense that -
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the
purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest
of the armed forces.
(f) Definitions. - In this section:
(1) The term "homosexual" means a person, regardless of sex,
who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage
in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the
terms "gay" and "lesbian".
(2) The term "bisexual" means a person who engages in, attempts
to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage
in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term "homosexual act" means -
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively
permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of
satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would
understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in
an act described in subparagraph (A).


This is a federal statute. It can only be overturned by an act of Congress. The President cannot issue an executive order changing the law. The military cannot simply refuse to enforce the law.

The study was commissioned by the U.S. so that it would have empirical evidence to present to congress for the purpose of overturning the law. The conclusions refute the argument in favor of the law, which is that the military would suffer if gays were allowed to serve openly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

According to digitalhistoryonline, yes, it was. "It was not until the Civil War that African Americans were required to fight in racially separate units. In 1869, Congress made racial separation in the military official government policy. This policy remained intact through the Spanish American War, World War I (when two African American divisions participated in combat), and World War II."

Blacks were a bit too impudent and insolent for their own good, and needlessly provoked Confederate opponents who then slaughtered them in combat. It was always foolish to twist a Rebel's tail. So whites didnt wanna serve with idiots.

One of my kinsmen was an engineer who laid out the Olustee Florida battlefield in 1864. When the black soldiers came marching along his batteries and infantry arragements kicked their ass.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I am still of two minds about this. First, I haven't seen the survey, and I doubt that anybody here has. I have read the news article written by the AP writer, but that is largely her interpretation, and she seems to be in favor of repeal.

For one thing, there are apparently four possible answers: Mixed results, Positive change, No change and Negative change. She has combined the first three responses together as if they were the same, and they are not. Why did she not list each response separately and give readers more information?

For another thing, why are military spouses even included? They are indirectly affected by DADT, but not directly, unless husband and wife are both members of the armed forces. The law covers only members and not spouses. If two soldiers are married and their wives like to get together for some lesbian action sometimes, that has nothing to do with DADT, nor should it.

I have also learned more than 30% of combat forces oppose the repeal, including as much as 68% of the Marines who responded. The whole purpose of the armed forces is to fight the enemy and, if those who do the actual fighting believe repeal would have negative effects, those opinions should be
given more weight that opinions of clerks or recruiters.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The military is gonna become a fag bathhouse.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I am still of two minds about this. First, I haven't seen the survey, and I doubt that anybody here has. I have read the news article written by the AP writer, but that is largely her interpretation, and she seems to be in favor of repeal.

For one thing, there are apparently four possible answers: Mixed results, Positive change, No change and Negative change. She has combined the first three responses together as if they were the same, and they are not. Why did she not list each response separately and give readers more information?

For another thing, why are military spouses even included? They are indirectly affected by DADT, but not directly, unless husband and wife are both members of the armed forces. The law covers only members and not spouses. If two soldiers are married and their wives like to get together for some lesbian action sometimes, that has nothing to do with DADT, nor should it.

I have also learned more than 30% of combat forces oppose the repeal, including as much as 68% of the Marines who responded. The whole purpose of the armed forces is to fight the enemy and, if those who do the actual fighting believe repeal would have negative effects, those opinions should be
given more weight that opinions of clerks or recruiters.

Jesus, dude! About the only thing in this entire comment that you got right was your name (did you get help with that too.... honest????)

 

[Huckleman2000]

The military is gonna become a fag bathhouse.

Only in your dreams.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Jesus, dude! About the only thing in this entire comment that you got right was your name (did you get help with that too.... honest????)

Okay, so tell me where I'm wrong:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I am still of two minds about this. First, I haven't seen the survey, and I doubt that anybody here has. I have read the news article written by the AP writer, but that is largely her interpretation, and she seems to be in favor of repeal.

Has anybody on this forum seen the actual survey results? I doubt it, but I could be wrong. The item in the OP is not the report, but was written by Anne Flaherty of the Associated Press. Had she just given the results, without lumping three of the responses together, I would have considered her to be neutral but, because of the wording, I believe she has an opinion and it is coloring her reportage.

For one thing, there are apparently four possible answers: Mixed results, Positive change, No change and Negative change. She has combined the first three responses together as if they were the same, and they are not. Why did she not list each response separately and give readers more information?

This is what the OP article says: with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. Reading between the lines a bit, I take this to mean 30% believe there would be negative results. Once again, I wonder, if she just wants to present the facts, why did she list three types of responses as all being favorable?

For another thing, why are military spouses even included? They are indirectly affected by DADT, but not directly, unless husband and wife are both members of the armed forces. The law covers only members and not spouses. If two soldiers are married and their wives like to get together for some lesbian action sometimes, that has nothing to do with DADT, nor should it.

This is my opinion, but I said nothing that is not factual.

I have also learned more than 30% of combat forces oppose the repeal, including as much as 68% of the Marines who responded. The whole purpose of the armed forces is to fight the enemy and, if those who do the actual fighting believe repeal would have negative effects, those opinions should be given more weight that opinions of clerks or recruiters.

The last sentence is my opinion too. Here is a link to another article written, in part, by the same writer. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gays_in_military Apparently I was in error about the Marines. 58% of them oppose repeal, rather than the 68% figure I used earlier.