Pentagon study: Gays could serve with no harm

[sr71plt]

So there are absolutely no bigots in the military that still hate black people???? Not a single member of the Klan or Aryan Nations?

What bullshit!

Sure there are. Taken a color check on the military recently (since you seem to know so much first hand about GM in the military)? About 40 percent black/Hispanic. They are a little hard to isolate and pick on any more.

I know one bigot on this thread, though: you.

 

[Katyusha]

i think this thread got off on the wrong foot. the core issue was never "harm", though it was often mentioned. the issue was approval--or lack of disapproval. boths sides are, in fact, aware that this is the issue.

as the 'debate' trails off, inconclusively, the pro DADT side has become more open: they don't want the military to be seen as approving or condoning such acts.

this same issue has come up in the prostitution thread: should the authorities take an official stand? if you stop arresting prostitutes, is that saying "it's ok"? if you stop discharging gays doing their thing openly [or, as openly as anyone else], are you saying, "we approve"?

But that turns it from a rights issue to a moral issue, and this isn't a moral issue. It's not the military's place to approve or disapprove of homosexuality, nor is it their place to regulate it. This is who these people are. It's not "a thing" that they're doing.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll be happy when the thread just shows some sense of reality.

 

[AllardChardon]

It seems that the 'Abomination of the Lord' edict reaches so deeply into some folks' hearts, they cannot see the beauty of the love, honor, devotion and loyalty that is also present amongst happily monogamous gays. These same traits are employed in the performance of their duty to the military of the United States. When gay soldiers will they be accepted without repercussion is anyone's guess? I thought marijuana would have been legalized by now and that STILL has not happened. If we are any one thing as a people, we are slow to change.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So there are absolutely no bigots in the military that still hate black people???? Not a single member of the Klan or Aryan Nations?

What bullshit!

I think you must be the only person on this thread who is unaware it is about sexual orientation rather than race. For some reason, you keep mentioning race, as if it were relevant.

I'm not sure, but I believe membership in the Klan or Aryan Nation or similar organization would be considered detrimental to a person's effectiveness as a member of the armed forces, so such membership would probably be banned. The same would apply to membership in the New Black Panther Party or similar racist black groups, and maybe to La Raza. Even so, there may well be persons who belong secretly to one or more of these organizations or similar groups.

 

[sr71plt]

I think you must be the only person on this thread who is unaware it is about sexual orientation rather than race. For some reason, you keep mentioning race, as if it were relevant.

I think she's indexing that acceptance of soldiers of color gradually came along once all legal impediments were out of the way--so the claim is that the same will happen with gays.

First, yes, getting rid of the law will be a step in that direction. And not changing the law will stand in the way of getting there. So, yes, the law should be changed. And those gays willing to take the risk should have the right to do so.

Second, HOWEVER, these are only tangentially analogous instances. The compared perceived personal "threat" of a black man and a gay man beside you in the barracks and the trenches is apples and oranges--and no where near each other on the levels of perceived threat by the white male straight soldier (and I'll bet a black straight soldier doesn't perceive any less personal threat/irritation at a proximate GM than a white straight male might). In addition, especially with the advent of the volunteer army, nearly a quarter of the soliders in the army are black and another 10 percent are Hispanic. If the reality of the first difference noted in the first sentence wasn't overriding (but it is), maybe when a quarter of the army is openly gay, then an individual gay solider won't be as isolated and set up for harrassment and mayhem. (Again, I look at all of this from the perspective of the GM taking the risk, not from legal rights, political correctness, or the sensitivity/prejudice of the straight soldier.) Until then, however . . .

Beyond that, Safe-Bet #2 (who sounds creepingly identical to Safe-Bet #1) is just posting from deep personal prejudice/bigotry, uncontrollable anger, and assuming she speaks for those she doesn't speak for (or know about--or have to stand in the shoes of. She's just trumpeting a political agenda with no real regard for the GM at all. It's clear she hates all men).

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think she's indexing that acceptance of soldiers of color gradually came along once all legal impediments were out of the way--so the claim is that the same will happen with gays.

First, yes, getting rid of the law will be a step in that direction. And not changing the law will stand in the way of getting there. So, yes, the law should be changed. And those gays willing to take the risk should have the right to do so.

Second, HOWEVER, these are only tangentially analogous instances. The compared perceived personal "threat" of a black man and a gay man beside you in the barracks and the trenches is apples and oranges--and no where near each other on the levels of perceived threat by the white male straight soldier (and I'll bet a black straight soldier doesn't perceive any less personal threat/irritation at a proximate GM than a white straight male might). In addition, especially with the advent of the volunteer army, nearly a quarter of the soliders in the army are black and another 10 percent are Hispanic. If the reality of the first difference noted in the first sentence wasn't overriding (but it is), maybe when a quarter of the army is openly gay, then an individual gay solider won't be as isolated and set up for harrassment and mayhem. (Again, I look at all of this from the perspective of the GM taking the risk, not from legal rights, political correctness, or the sensitivity/prejudice of the straight soldier.) Until then, however . . .

Beyond that, Safe-Bet #2 (who sounds creepingly identical to Safe-Bet #1) is just posting from deep personal prejudice/bigotry, uncontrollable anger, and assuming she speaks for those she doesn't speak for (or know about--or have to stand in the shoes of. She's just trumpeting a political agenda with no real regard for the GM at all. It's clear she hates all men).

I will also be glad when the law is repealed, but I have some misgivings as to what effect that will have on the military as a fighting force. The people most affected will be the men and women in the trenches, literally and figuratively, but I bet they were the ones least questioned.

As for the last, I think she particularly hates white men. I remember when she sounded like a broken record by repeating "Priveleged white men" over and over. I'm not sure why she singled out white men in particular, because white people are much less hostile to gay rights than black people. This was shown two years ago when Prop. 8 was on the ballot in CA.

 

[sr71plt]

I will also be glad when the law is repealed, but I have some misgivings as to what effect that will have on the military as a fighting force. The people most affected will be the men and women in the trenches, literally and figuratively, but I bet they were the ones least questioned.

I believe the most affected men and women are the gay ones. The straight ones have options. The gay ones are stuck with whatever situation hits them in the face.

As for the last, I think she particularly hated white men. I remember when she sounded like a broken record by repeating "Priveleged white men" over and over. I'm not sure why she singled out white men in particular, because white people are much less hostile to gay rights than black people. This was shown two years ago when Prop. 8 was on the ballot in CA.

Probaby a bad marriage that was, of course, all his fault.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Pro baby a bad marriage that was, of course, all his fault.

No, "probably" from being serially raped as a tween by a "privileged white male" who was protected from being timely punished for his crimes by the incompetence of other "privileged white males", asshole!

It's also not all males (regardless of color and stupid ass comments). Just the ones who are egotistical, arrogant, condescending, misogynists like you two.

As for sounding like my late wife, I guess that comes from living together for so long and for having like feelings about little shits like you that don't have the balls to come out of the closet but who get all prissy and pissy about people who actually are willing to stand up for their rights. (oh, that's right... you HAVE yours as long as you are a coward shivering in the back of the closet with the rest of the old junk nobody cares about anymore. Have fun with that).

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I'm not sure why she singled out white men in particular, because the white people I know anecdotally are much less hostile to gay rights than the one minority section of black people of a certain age and class living in a certain area that decides to come out to vote in general elections. This was shown two years ago when Prop. 8 was on the ballot in CA. However, this is not an absolute set-in-stone representative of the mindset of ALL black people in California and America as a whole. Or all heterosexual non-whites, for that matter.

Fixed your post, dear.

 

[sr71plt]

No, "probably" from being serially raped as a tween by a "privileged white male" who was protected from being timely punished for his crimes by the incompetence of other "privileged white males", asshole!

It's also not all males (regardless of color and stupid ass comments). Just the ones who are egotistical, arrogant, condescending, misogynists like you two.

As for sounding like my late wife, I guess that comes from living together for so long and for having like feelings about little shits like you that don't have the balls to come out of the closet but who get all prissy and pissy about people who actually are willing to stand up for their rights. (oh, that's right... you HAVE yours as long as you are a coward shivering in the back of the closet with the rest of the old junk nobody cares about anymore. Have fun with that).

You do frenzied shrew very well.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I'm not sure why she singled out white men in particular, because the white people I know anecdotally are much less hostile to gay rights than the one minority section of black people of a certain age and class living in a certain area that decides to come out to vote in general elections. This was shown two years ago when Prop. 8 was on the ballot in CA. However, this is not an absolute set-in-stone representative of the mindset of ALL black people in California and America as a whole. Or all heterosexual non-whites, for that matter.


Fixed your post, dear.

I'm not sure why she singled out white men in particular, because white people, at least in California, are less hostile to gay rights than minorities in general. This was shown two years ago when Prop. 8 was on the ballot in CA. Voters in precincts in which the voters are mostly Black, Hispanic or Asian favored the proposition which would have outlawed same sex marriage, while those precincts which are mostly white voted against it.

Whether or not this is true of citizens outside CA is impossible to say.

I refixed the post, Dear.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You do frenzied shrew very well.

And no one cuts straight to emasculation like a self-righteous lesbian.

 

[sr71plt]

And no one cuts straight to emasculation like a self-righteous lesbian.

But I do so love the smell of shrill zealotry in the morning.

 

[Safe_Bet]

You do frenzied shrew very well.

You do pissy and shrill closet clown very well too.

BTW, say "Hi" to Larry Craig for me the next time you are in the airport bathroom reaching under the stalls.

 

[Safe_Bet]

And no one cuts straight to emasculation like a self-righteous lesbian.

You're safe, dude.... not worth the effort...

 

[sr71plt]

You do pissy and shrill closet clown very well too.

I just don't know all those wonderful hate words you use. I'm sure you get a lot of practice.

You know, you aren't going to be any part of getting progress on this and other issues. You are the stereotypical rabid zealot that those contemplating supporting change look at and then walk off from shaking their heads.

It's a pity you're going to go through life with this much bigotry and hate under your bonnet.

I do pity your children for growing up in such an environment.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I just don't know all those wonderful hate words you use. I'm sure you get a lot of practice.

You know, you aren't going to be any part of getting progress on this and other issues. You are the stereotypical rabid zealot that those contemplating supporting change look at and then walk off from shaking their heads.

It's a pity you're going to go through life with this much bigotry and hate under your bonnet.

I do pity your children for growing up in such an environment.

I'm a "rabid zealot" because I call you on your prissy pontificating about people fighting for their rights, while not having the guts to come out of the closet and be proud of your orientation (vs. sniveling in the shadows)?

Well then I guess you're right...

BTW, don't pity my children. They are growing up to know that you stand up for what you believe, as opposed to being taught that being gay is some disgusting thing that has to be hidden away in shame (feel familiar, closet clown??? )

Meh. Wimpy little dribblers like you aren't worth getting upset over. I'll just be amused at you stamping you foot and being "miffed" from now on.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm a "rabid zealot" because I call you on your prissy pontificating about people fighting for their rights, while not having the guts to come out of the closet and be proud of your orientation (vs. sniveling in the shadows)?

Well then I guess you're right...

BTW, don't pity my children. They are growing up to know that you stand up for what you believe, as opposed to being taught that being gay is some disgusting thing that has to be hidden away in shame (feel familiar, closet clown??? )

Meh. Wimpy little dribblers like you aren't worth getting upset over. I'll just be amused at you stamping you foot and being "miffed" from now on.

Oh, I don't mind if you prattle on and prove my points.

 

[AllardChardon]

Pentagon already taking steps to blunt 'don't ask, don't tell'

Pentagon already taking steps to blunt 'don't ask, don't tell'
The Christian Science Monitor
By Anna Mulrine

Washington – Senior Pentagon officials expressed frustration this week with the Senate’s failure to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, for his part, said the development “disappointed” him.

He warned of the widespread confusion that would be introduced into the military ranks if the courts act before Congress does. “My greatest worry,” he said, “will be that then we’re at the mercy of the courts and all of the lack of predictability that that entails.”

These fears are well-founded, Pentagon officials stress. But in the near future, a series of directives recently put into place by Mr. Gates and other senior administration officials make it far more difficult for gay troops to be discharged from the military, even while the ban is still in place.

'Don't ask, don't tell': Can military handle a repeal of gay ban?

New directivesThe Pentagon announced in October, for example, that any “don’t ask, don’t tell” discharge would from that point forward would require the approval of senior civilian officials in the Defense Department – officials who are also Obama administration appointees. President Obama has said that he wants to see the ban overturned.

Since then, no service members have been discharged under the policy, according to a Pentagon spokesperson.

Back in March, Gates put an end to what were referred to as the “vendetta outings” of gay troops by third parties who might be nursing a resentment or gripe. The Pentagon also greatly limited the evidence that could be used to discharge the accused under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, making the testimony of counselors, clergy, and security clearance personnel, for example, inadmissible in hearings.

It was all what Gates called “special scrutiny on third parties who may be motivated to harm the service member.”

What’s more, under those changes, only a general officer in the chain of command of the accused could discharge troops under “don’t ask, don’t tell."

The measures were designed to add “a greater measure of common sense and common decency” to proceedings against US troops who risk their lives for their country, Gates said.

Last year, roughly 428 homosexual personnel were forced to leave the military. More than three quarters of those were service members who revealed their own sexuality, according to the Pentagon’s top lawyer Jeh Johnson – in essence forcing the Pentagon to proceed with hearings.

But though discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” have largely ground to a halt, critics such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen point out that the law continues to force gay service members “to live a lie.”

Chaos of the courtsWhat's more, the courts may overturn the ban at any time, as happened in October when a federal judge struck down the law. Gates has called this period a “nightmareâ€

It ended when the Justice Department was granted a temporary stay of the law on appeal days later. Gates pointed out on Friday that one of several other lawsuits pending in the courts would overturn the ban only in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes a handful of Western states, raising the possibility that serving as an openly homosexual American soldier would be legal in some parts of the country, and illegal in others.

This would be an untenable situation, military officials point out, particularly given how often US troops are asked to move around – not to mention, they add, the confusion of figuring out what policy would be for US bases overseas.

As a result, Gates warned as he returned from a trip to Afghanistan this week, the failure of Congress to act – coupled with cases steadily making their way through the courts – means that the Pentagon will continue to face “again, the potential for extraordinary confusion.”

'Don't ask, don't tell': Can military handle a repeal of gay ban?

 

[Calaban]

As a straight white man who served in the army I didn't give a shit what anybody else did in their personal life. It didn't matter if a squadmate was black or gay or whatever, the important thing was if you could depend on him to do his job when it counts and that's nothing to do with race or orientation.
I think most modern service people think the same way. Sure there are still bigots to be found but they are the minority these days. It would be a personal matter for people to serve as openly gay and risk a few assholes or just keep it quiet if they prefer.

 

[AllardChardon]

Thank you, Calaban for your first hand experience with this issue. I agree with you that the majority of younger people are much more tolerant of all kinds of people.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Pentagon already taking steps to blunt 'don't ask, don't tell'
The Christian Science Monitor
By Anna Mulrine

Washington – Senior Pentagon officials expressed frustration this week with the Senate’s failure to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, for his part, said the development “disappointed” him.

He warned of the widespread confusion that would be introduced into the military ranks if the courts act before Congress does. “My greatest worry,” he said, “will be that then we’re at the mercy of the courts and all of the lack of predictability that that entails.”

These fears are well-founded, Pentagon officials stress. But in the near future, a series of directives recently put into place by Mr. Gates and other senior administration officials make it far more difficult for gay troops to be discharged from the military, even while the ban is still in place.

'Don't ask, don't tell': Can military handle a repeal of gay ban?

New directivesThe Pentagon announced in October, for example, that any “don’t ask, don’t tell” discharge would from that point forward would require the approval of senior civilian officials in the Defense Department – officials who are also Obama administration appointees. President Obama has said that he wants to see the ban overturned.

Since then, no service members have been discharged under the policy, according to a Pentagon spokesperson.

Back in March, Gates put an end to what were referred to as the “vendetta outings” of gay troops by third parties who might be nursing a resentment or gripe. The Pentagon also greatly limited the evidence that could be used to discharge the accused under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, making the testimony of counselors, clergy, and security clearance personnel, for example, inadmissible in hearings.

It was all what Gates called “special scrutiny on third parties who may be motivated to harm the service member.”

What’s more, under those changes, only a general officer in the chain of command of the accused could discharge troops under “don’t ask, don’t tell."

The measures were designed to add “a greater measure of common sense and common decency” to proceedings against US troops who risk their lives for their country, Gates said.

Last year, roughly 428 homosexual personnel were forced to leave the military. More than three quarters of those were service members who revealed their own sexuality, according to the Pentagon’s top lawyer Jeh Johnson – in essence forcing the Pentagon to proceed with hearings.

But though discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” have largely ground to a halt, critics such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen point out that the law continues to force gay service members “to live a lie.”

Chaos of the courtsWhat's more, the courts may overturn the ban at any time, as happened in October when a federal judge struck down the law. Gates has called this period a “nightmareâ€

It ended when the Justice Department was granted a temporary stay of the law on appeal days later. Gates pointed out on Friday that one of several other lawsuits pending in the courts would overturn the ban only in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes a handful of Western states, raising the possibility that serving as an openly homosexual American soldier would be legal in some parts of the country, and illegal in others.

This would be an untenable situation, military officials point out, particularly given how often US troops are asked to move around – not to mention, they add, the confusion of figuring out what policy would be for US bases overseas.

As a result, Gates warned as he returned from a trip to Afghanistan this week, the failure of Congress to act – coupled with cases steadily making their way through the courts – means that the Pentagon will continue to face “again, the potential for extraordinary confusion.”

'Don't ask, don't tell': Can military handle a repeal of gay ban?

Can the military? Of course. Can the GOP? What, and deny them their favorite scapegoats and campaign issues? Fat chance!

 

[AllardChardon]

I saw a story on the TV about this last night and will see if I can find it and post it.

 

[AllardChardon]

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal goes to Senate again. Has anything changed?

Here it is;

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal goes to Senate again. Has anything changed?
The Christian Science Monitor
By Gail Russell Chaddock

Washington – The House today passed a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning gays from serving openly in the military, but it’s not clear that the Senate can muster the time or political will to move it to the floor before the end of the 111th Congress.

Only last week, Senate Republicans blocked a bid to repeal of the Clinton-era ban as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. Democrats fell three votes short of the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster.

The House has now decoupled the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal from the defense authorization bill in the hopes that the repeal might pass on its own in the Senate. House majority leader Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland called the 250-to-175 vote for repeal "a very strong statement that it is time to move forward."

'Don't ask, don't tell': Can military handle repeal of gay ban?

But little appears to have changed in the Senate, with Democrats still looking for three Republican votes to get to 60, since Democrats hold only 58 seats and Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia voted against repeal last week.

Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine voted for repeal last week, and she could be joined by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine this time. But it does not appear that Senate majority leader Harry Reid has made any headway on persuading moderate Republican Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to vote in favor of a repeal. Even if he does, Senator Reid is running short on time.

The deal to separate "don't ask, don't tell" as well as other controversial measures from the defense authorization bill, however, should help the defense bill pass.

"Because of the unique circumstances in which the bill is being considered and the importance of the legislation to our men and women serving in uniform at a time of war, we have agreed to drop many controversial provisions that were included in the House and Senate versions of the bill."

The House vote fell out mainly on partisan lines, with 15 Democrats opposing repeal of the ban and 15 Republicans supporting it.

Republicans opposing repeal say that the move will be disruptive to troops in combat. “We should not forget that we are fighting two wars,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R) of Indiana, during Wedensday’s floor debate.

House Republican leader, John Boehner, the presumptive next Speaker of the House, says he will not bring repeal to the floor so long as the nation is at war.

In a recent Pentagon survey, more than two-thirds of troops said that they did not object to openly gay men and women serving. But reservations were stronger among combat forces in the Army and Marines. Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos on Tuesday told Pentagon reporters that repeal of the ban could cost lives. "I don't want to lose any marines to the distraction."

Recent polls show that a strong majority of Americans now favor repeal. Some 77 percent of those polled in a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey said that they supported allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

Indeed, lawmakers say that they are seeing fewer objections from voters to a repeal than in past years. Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas, who voted to repeal of the ban as a matter of civil liberties, says his office has received no letters from voters on the issue in the run-up to the vote. "Feelings are not as strong as they used to be."