Obama to Overturn "Don't-Ask, Don't-Tell" Policy
 

Obama aide: Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' must wait - CNN.com

I'm so glad he's going to do this. Clinton's policy was a disaster and Bush wasn't ever going to touch the issue. Thoughts?

I think it's about time. Well, past time. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit; this is the U.S. after all. I'd like to hear comments from those here who are serving, have served, or know someone serving in the U.S. forces.

But for interest's sake (and for comparison), check this article out: CTV.ca | Canada's military to allow gay weddings on bases (It's dated 2005.)

Agreed...in the AF for the past 19 yrs (only one more to go!). It is time for America's Military to acccept ALL members of this society, regardless of sexual preference.

I have nothing to say against this.

However, technically it's still illegal to have sex without previously being married to said person... and even then it's illegal to do it in any way outside of missionary position while being a member of the armed forces.

Seaver, are those health and safety regulations?

Nope, in the UCMJ :)

One of my favorite lines, it is illegal to have "undo carnal knowledge of the opposite sex." No anal for you, sorry not yours.

Yep. UCMJ Artcile 125-

And-

I think the key word there is May direct. Prostitution's also in violation of the UCMJ. I'd be willing to bet there's a blind eye turned to this in every branch of the service somewhere tonight.

Heh thanks for having the direct quotes. It's been a few years for me since I've been in.

While I applaud the idea of openly allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, I think it's too big a job to police the inevitable harassment they will get from some of the meat heads (and there are meat heads at all levels). It's a shame that a sect of people who want to serve their country have to put up with daily bullshit from some of their fellow soldiers, not to mention a few of their commanding officers.

Having been in the military I know most everyone there puts up with a daily dose of bullshit from their fellow soldiers/sailors regardless of sexual orientation. In that respect a persons sexual orientation shouldn't be off limits. It certainly isn't off limits for straight soldiers/sailors so why should it be different for gays? For the most part if you do your job effectively I don't think the majority really give a shit about your sexual orientation.

I'm not concerned with people busting each other's balls. I AM concerned with more serious, physical conflicts.

I saw a Seaman driving the USS Alabama (Nuclear Missile Sub) litterally get dickslapped by a Petty Officer he owed $15 to. The guy driving the sub reached back and racked the PO dickslapping him, and the Captain only then stepped in yelling at the driver to pay attention and keep all hands on the wheel.

Some things you just don't understand unless you're in.

I'm sorry, but there are more pressing matters to worry about.

The only thing I could see him doing is getting tougher punishments for hazing, intimidating, or threating in the UCMJ.

But still, wait until year 3 or 4. Is this really a big deal, or is some group (left or right) trying to bring this up?

it's not a big deal to you, maybe.

also, his reps have said it won't happen right away, so no, it's not considered a pressing issue right now

This is why I joined the Army.

Maybe they'd get more recruits if they stressed the dickslap friendly atmosphere...

Originally Posted by ASU2003 View Post
I'm sorry, but there are more pressing matters to worry about.

The only thing I could see him doing is getting tougher punishments for hazing, intimidating, or threating in the UCMJ.

But still, wait until year 3 or 4. Is this really a big deal, or is some group (left or right) trying to bring this up?


AGREED AGREED AGREED. Also even if 'don't ask don't tell' is rescinded, the same basic policy will probably be in place forever. The military isn't especially inclined to bow to the whims of the democratic party regardless of the official policy. PS I don't care at ALL whether you're into men or women I just don't think it's as important as people make it out to be. I support gay marriage and I support gays in the military...I also have no problem with don't ask don't tell. That's basically my philosophy on life in general...unless one of us is trying to initiate sexual activity with the other, what difference does it make?

the big deal is that under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, you can still be kicked out of the military for being gay.

I think this is a good move so long as fraternization policy remains the same. Fraternization prevents people from the same group going at it, for fear of the inevitable drama which could ensue. Un-needed distractions could provide a dangerous situation and cost lives.

Keep the Not In Same Heirarchy rule, and I'm all for it.

Didn't realize they could kick you out if you "come out." Nevermind I guess a restructuring of that policy is in order.

In other words, let me say...

+1

I'm totally fine with this

Maybe I should have watched the Democratic debates, this is the first I'm hearing this.

I can't help but think . . . why? I’m sure everyone here agrees with the first part of the policy. I don't see the majority openly stating "hey I'm heterosexual". There is no reason for it. Why is there any need to modify this? It is simply a logistical nightmare, not to mention potential negative morale effects in combat training and on the battlefield. Political correctness would cripple everything and the leaders would be afraid to undo the damage done.

I think it is possible for a politician that has never served in the military to make good decisions as Commander In Chief. This; however, is not an example. Focus on more important things Obama.

It didn't come up in the debates as anything more than a yes/no question ("Will you overturn it?")

And the current policy is a nightmare. You really support a policy that says "we can't ask if you're gay, but if we find out, you're done."? Really? It's cool to have a policy that says if you're gay and want to serve you have to pretend not to be gay?

Trying to call this a "political correctness" issue is pretty insulting to me.

But if we let the gays force us to let them serve openly in the military, what's going to stop them from forcing us to let dogs, children, dead people, and/or polygamists serve openly too?

you're right, we shouldn't disrupt our proud tradition of rampant homophobia in the military just to shut up those sissy whiners

What is up w/people being so afraid of a homosexual???? I have been straight for all of my 39 years and have yet to have a gay guy hit on me. So is the big fear? Trust me vagina lovers....gay guys don't hit on straight guys.

Sarcasm I hope?

I've been hit on a couple of times, speak for yourself ;)

Sarcasm is correct.

And for the record, gay guys can't get enough of my cock.

Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock? | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Well, I assume the talk of homophobes is being directed at me since I’m the only one in this thread disagreeing. I’m not going to give all the reasons why I’m not. I do have concerns of the effects the new policy may carry with it.

When I entered the Navy they were still asking the question "are you a homosexual?" When Clinton's modifcation took effect it wasn’t Earth shattering. Being a Navy Corpsman I worked the ER, attended Basic Underwater Demolition School, and served as a field combat medic with the Marines.

In the time working at the emergency room, I worked alongside a commissioned officer who was gay. Everyone knew it, and he was well liked. In fact, he’s probably one of the best physicians I have ever worked under. His skills were superb and he was an excellent teacher as well. He never hit on any of the males; he also never openly shouted to the world “I’m gay”. This may seem odd to some, but in the 6 years I was in the Navy I never heard a straight person proclaim their sexual preference.

In many of the things I did in SEAL training and as a field medic I wouldn’t be alone in stating that having knowledge of whose gay would be problematic. Just like Clinton’s progressive eyes were opened when he toured the tight quarters of a Submarine. That’s not good news, that not bad news, it’s just the news. There are many work situations in the military the resemble working a civilian job. There are also scenarios that unless you have experienced for yourself, it’s pretty easy to cast judgment on how far away we all are from the Star Trek Utopian society

What’s the issue here? If the military finds out someone is gay? How does that usually happen? If two guys are caught having sex on duty they’re going to be in trouble. If a man a woman are caught having sex on duty they are going to be in trouble. Is this about having the right to walk into a work area and letting everyone know about one’s homosexuality just because they should be able to? Currently there really aren’t any critical problems. I think what this really may be about is being able to put a gay ad online and not be persecuted for it. When this policy is put into place I guarantee there will be probelms. I also agree with keeping females off the front lines and out of Special Forces.

there will be problems in the short term but improvements in the long term.

Children, dead people, dogs . . .heh

Polygamists however- do you think they are unfairly persecuted? The common agreement here is that the goverment has no business in people's bedrooms- and I agree. Should the same be for people that choose to have multiple spouses?
-----Added 17/1/2009 at 09 : 31 : 30-----
Currently there are many areas in the military that it proably would not ever be a problem. But there are aspects where it will most definately be a problem.

Is there anyone in this thread that has combat experience or at least combat training experience that thinks its a good idea for people to be open about their homosexuality?

explain the problems. how is an "out" homosexual a detriment to the areas you are talking about? what's the fear?

Agreed. Everything the government has and does is funded by taxpayers and, therefore, no citizen should be discriminated against by or by order of the government.

Some naively assume that by abolishing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, they'll end discrimination against gays in the military. The practical truth is that under certain conditions, particularly in combat, open homosexuality can create discomfort and threaten unit cohesiveness.

The existence of openly homosexual service members can lead to apprehension and resentment in units, and ultimately threaten military readiness and morale. The problems would start far before combat (which hopefully there is none or an end).

Unfortunately, some conditions require commanders to use their own discretion in deciding whom to remove. Congress should not interfere with that by injecting the politics of gay rights into the military.

Does everyone here also feel females should be in the SEALs, Rangers, Forced Recon, etc.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m.../Vasquez-1.jpg

so you're against openly gay men in the military because the current soldiers are too insecure in their own manhoods to be able to function properly in combat with a gay guy by their side? that's a pretty weak argument, and one that bows to an out-moded way of thinking. the idea of allowing gays in the military is (in part) to normalize the idea of it so that the "lack of morale" cliches go away

Sun, that's the exact same argument as to why Blacks and Whites could not serve together. Do you support re-segregation of the military, or do you seed that the integration of the military helped break down barriers which continued to exist in the civilian world long after.

The women serving in special forces argument is a whole other beast all together. I'd have no problem with it provided they were held to identical standards to their male counterparts... the PC fact is women are given a borderline free pass on anything physical in standards comparison. This, however, has nothing to do with sexual direction.

There is a couple of situations I had been in where I would have felt uncomfortable- not insecure, but as a whole I would have dealt with it. Its just my opinion there is going to be many who wont deal with or deal with it in ways that will cause problems. The CNN survey shows the general public in favor of lifting the policy, but a majority of the military is still opposed to it.

Seaver there are females that can hold to the same standards. Do you really think that is the only reason they are being held back?

Ofcourse I dont believe in segregation of races in the armed forces. In fact Ithink its a great place to show how poeple of all ethnic backgrounds can work effectively with one another. Im only offering my opinion based on my experience, I think its going to lead to greater discrimination and more problems.

you've yet to elaborate on what these situations are.

I wont go into many of them, but how about huddled next to one another (nut to butt)in the mud for a couple of days waiting for a target. Go visit a sub like Clinton did. It opened his eyes a little.

so you're fine being "nut to butt" with hetero dudes by not gay ones? doesn't sound like a particularly sexually charge scenario.

Is it? I see Sun's argument as more comparable to why men and women should not serve together. That is, it's okay to have women in the military, and it's maybe even okay to have women fighting side-by-side with men in combat situations, but it's not okay for men and women soldiers to be sharing, like, tents and showers, together.

it seemed to work fine in Starship Troopers

but seriously, the underlying assumption this theory is that gay guys look at every situation sexually. clearly, being trapped in a fox hole and fighting for your life isn't exactly a time when one is thinking "oh yeah, rub your butt on my nuts". it's a pretty outdated way of thinking.

and if a gay guy DID act inappropriately in that situation, I don't think any of us would be upset that they were disciplined accordingly

Me personally, it depends I guess on whether the guy had made any prior advances. Like I said the doctor I had worked with who was gay, never did. he was one of the best physicians I have ever worked with.

Im not talking about me, though. Im giving you my opinion of what the outcome will be based on all the people I met and things I did in the military.

The phrase is what that was known as literary be so close because of what was going on. In essence that as with many of the things I would describe are just words your reading on a monitor. It will not cast any lasting meaning until you've experienced it for yourself. Although not in all cases, but in most- its the reason why a large protion of the people wanting this to happen are individuals that have not served.
-----Added 18/1/2009 at 01 : 12 : 21-----

Yeah looked what happend in Starship Troopers between Rico and Liz. Fighting for life and limb does take priority, but what about the rest of time. (and there can be a lot of it)

In Basic Training and Combat Situations there is little assumption to privacy. Women would not be expected to shower, change, and sleep in close proximity with men (who may or may not find them sexually attractive).

Why should men be expected to shower, change, and sleep in close proximity with men (who may or may not find them sexually attractive)?

Yes, I know, they already do. There is a big difference psychologically between doing so without the knowledge of it (how it is currently) and with the knowledge of it. Label that any way you want, but that's the way it is.

It's not their being in a foxhole, together, in combat, that is problematic in and of itself. It's the downtime situations and events – and the social/psychological ramifications thereof, which could affect soldierly trust and morale – that took place prior to their being in a foxhole together, that could cause serious problems.

No, gay guys aren't going to look at every situation sexually, and I'm sure the last thing on their mind in the middle of combat – even in a foxhole, with "nuts to butt" – would be sex. Still, gays males are still male, thus they are, like most all other males, visually sexually stimulated (far more so than women are), which could easily cause, at the very least, discomfort and unease among their heterosexual peers during downtime in the barracks and in the showers, what with soldiers' closeness to one another and their utter lack of privacy.

You know what might make a soldier uncomfortable and complicate their relationships and cause them serious problems? Killing people.

Perhaps we should phase this whole "killing people" thing out of modern warfare. If there's anything the prototypical American soldier has shown himself incapable of, it's being uncomfortable.

Phase killing people out of modern WARfare . . . . don't get me wrong, maybe things would be better with paintball.

Wait wait, let's just have the smartest minds of each country play chess! Whoever wins gets to claim the territory and displace millions of people!

So since we have Deep Blue... does that mean we win?

I don't know what the source is for this discussion. Everything I've seen has said that this is not a priority for Obama: Washington Times - Obama to delay 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal. If he does decide to make a change to the policy it will be interesting to see what kind of response comes out of the active service personnel. Clinton was threatened in Washington Post guest editorials that he would lose the allegiance of the junior officers. That was 1992 though, and there's a lot of turnover in the military. Obama has some ambitious plans for Afghanistan, it's probably not in his best interest to start things off with such a severe challenge to the military command structure. Some of those same people who threatened the 1992 coup are now senior officers (or whatever).

I was in the army for a weekend once.

I don't think it is appropriate for the occupation. I have nothing against homosexuals, but there is a perfectly reasonable motivation as to why the military only wants heterosexual males to occupy the "combat arms" occupations. Simplicity. It is easier to manage like-minded drones.

The military is essentially adult day care for violent henchmen and it's easiest to maintain control over a homogeneous (har-har, I said homo) group of stereotypical angsty woman-humping males than it is integrate different the two biological genders and whatever sexual orientations may exist into the mix. The military wants to try to keep things basic. Although it once was, race isn't an issue from what I've experienced. The excuse to keep women out of combat arms is that men can't psychologically handle seeing a woman blown in half. Honestly... after being deployed for a while, I doubt anything blown in half would really shock me: Man, woman, or child. The excuse to keep open gays out of military is that "it's icky" and that it would violate some conservative sense of military discipline and decorum. I can't argue with that. The military has a hard enough time with male-on-female sexual harassment issues.

Studies from the Israeli military found too many drama issues with coed combat units. The problem with homosexual males in a combat unit is that it's like having a girl... but a big ugly hairy one that gets to see you take a shower in a trailer with no privacy curtains. We're really insecure about that stuff.

Military Spirit: I submit that there were no openly gay Vikings. The military is a place of manly-men and homosexual males are not considered "real men." It's hard to get Sergeant Ultimate Badass to befriend Corporal Cupcake. Sexual orientation equates to more than just what you do with your genitals during your free time in the military. Homosexuality means weakness, ineptitude, being a total pussy, unreliable, won't kill the bad guys, might touch my no-no hole, etc.

Seriously... how would a drill sergeant insult an openly gay private? Call him Princess? Hah, they use that on the straight guys.

...

God, sexual orientation and gender roles are freakin' confusing. Pfft, no wonder the military doesn't like homosexuals...

It's beyond the 7th grade reading level to understand the implications.

oh my god, that's hilarious

Hilarious or not, it's true. I think it's sad that something as petty as sexual orientation can be a huge limiting factor in one's life. It's just as bad as gender or skin color or religious preference.

I can understand where the logic came from but I sure as hell don't know where it's going. We live in a society where "everything is cool now" but is it?

well thank God I'm a straight white male and I don't have any of these genetic defects. well, my "love's blowing shit up with guns" gene is defective I guess, which basically makes me a black homosexual

You can't SERIOUSLY be comparing gays in the military to animals, children etc??? I mean honestly.

I served my time in the Marines, and met a few Marines, Navy, and Army that were gay. We all knew they were, but we didn't concern ourselves with that. All I gave a SHIT about, was that if the shit hit the fan, and I was being shot at, would they help protect me and save my ass from being dead.(ok, I see the humour from the last sentence coming soon...lol) We didn't care if they were gay, they didn't hit on any of us. We did our job, we followed orders, and we got the job done. THAT is what the Marines were about. get the job done, follow orders, and get back safe. THAT is what is important. And YES I have been in confined areas with others who were gay. It didn't bother me, acause I knew I saw straight, and they new I was straight. Who cares. they are human beings, just like everyone else.

They already do. They're called decent Iraqis and they get blown up a helluva lot more than we do.
-----Added 19/1/2009 at 10 : 31 : 17-----
Where did anyone mention genetics, guy? Plenty of straight guys that can't fit the bill in the military. And why did you mention race? I fail to see how...

...

Oh, wait... you're Derwood. Sorry. Carry on.

I was comparing the people who use slippery slope arguments against increased acceptance of homosexuality to idiots.

I was just riffing on your absurdity. carry on.

Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Canadian Military Performance | Palm Center

Also,

Soldiers march in Toronto Gay Pride parade

This can mean a few things, but maybe we can come to this conclusion: Gay and lesbian members of the U.S. forces should continue hiding regardless of the outcome...or they can try to join a more tolerant armed forces culture. Most of NATO should be okay...the U.S. is problematic and has a similar situation to Russia, who allows "well adjusted homosexuals" in regular service (i.e. "don't be gay").

Remember, the U.S. is quite conservative compared to other industrialized nations, and the military tends to be more conservative than other areas of society. It might take a while, but I think things will change eventually. You can't change a culture overnight.

I wonder how much of the problems from integrating open homosexuals into the military can be directly traced to the fucked-up notions of masculinity used to define military culture.

It seems to me that if the military found ways to motivate people that didn't depend on sexual insecurity (i.e. calling someone a princess) they might be in a much better position to welcome openly homosexuals to the party.

Honestly, what do you care? Military is just a bunch of dumb baby-butchers anyway, right? Henchmen for the man! Just a waste of tax-payer dollars. All we do is ruin foreign countries on purpose. All the deep intellectuals of the world can solve all our problems without conflict.

Did you get that defensive presumptuousness in the service?

I did.

Where did you get your deep enlightenment about the military?

Did you think what I said was deep? It seemed pretty obvious to me.

Crompsin has taken an early lead in the 2009 Strawman of the Year race.

He doesn't seem to be paying attention to other people's experiences which negate his assumptions about how gay service members ARE assimilated. He also is apparently unaware of the past 5 years of women in combat roles (and 17+ years as combat pilots). Israel is a different culture, their military has a largely different purpose, and Israeli soldiers are conscripts. His concern seems to be focused on the platoon level where, yes, non-conformity can be dangerous and erode morale. It's already been pointed out that military conduct codes wouldn't allow for someone to be a flaming pansy regardless of sexual orientation. Interestingly, some of the more stereotypical lesbian personality traits would be ideal for military service.

I think with Obama, unlike Bush, at least we'll have a military Commander in Chief who will prioritize individual's vital skill sets for combating terrorism over excluding people based on their sexual identity. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/op...amin.html?_r=1

Eh, we talk about what we know. I know platoon level. That's what I did. I avoid some of the posts in this thread because they aren't similar to my experience.

...

Where are the female 11Bs (infantry), again? 13 series (artillery)? 18s (special forces)? 21s (combat engineers)? Oh, yeah... there aren't any. When I said "combat arms" I meant combat arms, not combat service support.

...

Well, I know how many days I wore a uniform. Anybody else?

...

At no point in this thread have I said that I have anything against homosexuals serving. I did say that it would be a bad idea right now for the points that others above have noted: because of the two fronts we're "fighting" on and the conservative senior leaders.

Don't rock the boat when the boat is firing missiles.

If Alexander the Great was a fag, thats good enough for me. A fighter is a fighter.

And what would those be? I'm curious, because my old unit had two undercover-but-obvious lesbian mechanics and they were just as bad as the male mechanics. Don't stereotype homosexuals. That'd be politically incorrect.

It would be incorrect period

Really?

Now I know that between the U.S. and Canada, our armed forces are like night and day, but we have females serving in all of these roles. I'm sure we aren't the only ones. Are you sure there aren't any in the U.S. forces, or are you speaking in generalizations?

Oh, and I'm sure there are homosexuals everywhere; they're just hiding, as per their orders.

"Complicating the dynamics would add more problems than it would solve."

I'd tend to agree with that.

Does this suggest that U.S. personnel don't have the discipline?

I submit there were plenty of openly gay Roman soldiers/officers. I submit there were plenty of openly gay Greek/Spartan kings/soldiers. I submit Richard the Lionheart was so openly gay his own beloved countrymen constantly mocked him for never providing an heir.

Part of me hates the fact we are on the same side of the issue after you put forth a statement like this.

Dude, you don't want to get into a discussion about women in combat roles. Just because females sometimes come under fire does not mean they are, by and large, physically/culturally prepared for full blown combat. My experience with women in actual firefights is limited, but I was very disappointed. Most women in 'combat roles' aren't. They are serving in ways that do not typically place them toe to toe against someone else who is trying to kill them. We had a female canine handler with us for a while and she embarrassed herself when we got in our first real fight with her. After leaving her at the local fire base for the next couple firefights we were told to take her along again and that we were being sexist. We got in another fight and she almost shot one of our guys because she was shooting with her weapon over her head and being afraid rather than aggressively trying to deliberately line the gun up and kill people. Oh, and her dog ran the show...she had very little control over him and she refused to allow her dog to be put at risk instead of a soldier because she valued him as much as a human.

I have had to run and fight while wearing 90+ pounds of kit at altitude. Ruck 130 pounds all night long. Muscle jammed machine guns back into working order. Man handle people I didn't want to shoot. Pee while driving because we couldn't afford to slow down. Carry injured soldiers and detainees out of a fight. Etc.

The army has had to drastically lower the PT standards for women because they are simply not competitive with men physically. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are too few and far between to base policy on.

Also, what Crompsin was trying to get at is that men will try to protect a woman to the detriment of the unit in combat. It is just a part of male culture and Israeli officers would lose control over their units when a woman was injured...

But, for what it's worth, I fully support women in roles where they can compete (or out compete) men. Such as aviation. I have had a female Apache pilot shoot people just yards away from me when my vehicle broke down in an ambush. She would engage when we really needed it but others were reluctant because of the possibility of a mishap. I am friends with a bunch of fantastic female Kiowa pilots and I have seen them do some amazing things.


As for gays, I don't particularly care about someones sexual orientation...unless I am going to be naked around them in communal showers/toilets, spooning to stay warm in the cold, etc. Then it is an issue for me.
-----Added 19/1/2009 at 09 : 07 : 10-----
Canada can get away with it because they are not actually fighting. Come the next real war and the policies will change real fast.

Additionally, with open recruitment and equal standards for men and women, women comprise less than 2% of combat arms branches in the canadian military. If they were just as capable as men, there would be more of them in the more demanding fields.

To be fair, those fucked up notions of masculinity are pretty much the norm outside of the military too (though less so lately).

Canada's role in the invasion of (and continued deployment in) Afghanistan

Captain Nichola Goddard, artillery observer, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (1st Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery), Canadian Forces casualty in Afghanistan

What is a "real" war anyway?

Where have I heard that line before? :rolleyes:

18 bombing sorties, one night:
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargra...ova_TL_350.jpg

Okay, can we get back to "don't ask, don't tell" now?

Thank you. This isn't about women, and should be in a whole different thread (as it's a whole different beast).

(throws brakes on the threadjack-mobile)

However, I will say that women in the military and gays in the military do have a parallel. Why is it that only the hetero male is suitible for combat action? Does this only apply to infantry, or does this extend to artillery, aviation, etc...?

(I'm not a military expert, so please someone touch on different combat roles and whether it would be more or less difficult to serve alongside gays and lesbians in these situations.)

...

Dunno. Maybe hetero males make up the majority of the military and thus the homogeneous group that is the easiest to assemble and cater to for combat operations? The military, right or wrong, is about efficiency. It sometimes fears change because it can't predict the results. The "ignorance" of if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it is strong in the military. Racial integration wasn't exactly quick or smooth. I predict the same will be true for homosexuals if / when Mr. Obama decides to blow down the don't-ask-don't-tell wall.

Aviation may be classed as "combat arms" by some but I see it more like support. Aviation is like playing video games compared to light infantry tasks... which comprise the most physically demanding jobs in the military. It's one thing to fly a plane and pull a trigger to fire rockets, it's another thing to jump out of a plane and ruck 15 miles in 3 hours with 70 pounds on your back and be expected to close with and destroy the enemy using a rifle. Aircraft are badass and all but they don't win wars. Men with boots and rifles win wars.

...

I think it's funny that the anti-war crowd is whining that there isn't 100% equality in an institution they seem to disrespect so often.

Ah, the good ol' days, back when "real" men engaged in "real" wars.

:p
-----Added 20/1/2009 at 10 : 29 : 40-----
Well, those two women look like they have the testosterone to engage in combat.

;)

Everybody who does not support women in the infantry on this thread has mentioned aviation as an exception...which is what those two ladies did. If you are a plane pilot then you are also an...aviator.

They do not. Homosexual men are still, by a large margin, physically more capable than the average female parallel to the Heterosexual male.

A male liking another male does not mean he can not hump (sorry... it's actually military jargon) as well as the guy who likes girls. Get the average female soldier and they will not produce equal results as the average male. Therefore, there is no parallel. The parallel would be if we had to reduce physical requirements for homosexuals because not enough were passing.

The parallel is this:
"Not suitable for the job because he's gay."
"Not suitable for the job because she's a woman."

There are women who are physically capable for combat roles. Why rule them out based merely on gender?

The same goes for homosexuals. Are they capable of doing the job?

Majority rules. Cater to the dick-swinging brutish masses, bro.

I knew a handful of women in the army that were almost as badass as some of the guys, but their aren't too many of 'em.

They just didn't have the upper body strength required to do the crazy stuff we were asked to do.

I'm all for universal standards but they're "unfair" to women.

This Starship Troopers stuff... pipe dreams.

That's odd.

I didn't use Starship Troopers as an example. Isn't that sci-fi of some kind?

Stuff mentioned earlier. Coed military giant-bug-slaying scifi movie based ever-so-loosely on a Heinlein novel.

Silly people use it and the female characters in Aliens as a reason to let women serve in combat arms.

Oh, okay. That has nothing to do with what I said, though.

Look, I'm not saying force women into all combat roles. I'm saying allow women who are capable of doing certain jobs to do those jobs. If that means there will be virtually no women infantry, then fine. But that isn't the only combat role out there. It doesn't make sense to prohibit capable personnel from doing jobs (whether they be women or homosexuals), especially when you have the spectre of a draft hanging over your head.

Sorry, I was addressing like three different posts. I'm retarded.

...

My point is: Why change the flow of things in the military for the three women out of a thousand that can handle a particular job such as infantry, combat engineer, artillery, etc. Just because you can tweak something doesn't mean you should. I mean, we are talking about a job where people are supposed to kill others using weaponry that probably scares the man-dress off Allah. Men are better suited for the job. I'm all for equality, but let's get real. It's a messy job.

The "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" (DADT) policy, from what I've deduced from serving, is mostly about maintaining military decorum. The military is just as hard on heterosexuals as it is on homosexuals when dealing with "obscenity." Just look at the deployment rule book... no pornography. You can get UCMJ for having porn overseas these days. Can't see your wife for a year... but uh, we can't have you ogling a Playboy. Conservative through-and-through, the Army isn't a whole lot of Vietnam-style fun these days.

Draft: ...but we (U.S.) don't. It is my feeling that no politician in their right mind would ever try to pass a draft again. Short of WW3 with China, I don't see a draft going down anytime in the future. You can't send rich white college kids to war! That's unamerican!

But what if one combat personnel out of one hundred is homosexual. Should he continue hiding, and calling his beloved John back in Iowa "Joan"?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it... but it'd be silly to rock the boat right now. In the future? Go for it. When the U.S. is doing one of it's 10 year breaks from a "war" would be a good time to drop the DADT-Be-Gone bomb.

Wait 'til the war machine is taken out of gear before you crawl under the hood.

Good point.

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't see gay/straight/black/white/male/female thing in the military as all the social constructs that exist out in the civvie world.

I see it as raw materials, stats, doing-the-math of who can shoot, move, and communicate.

Race? Not an issue. Sexual orientation? Not an issue. Gender? The "move" part is a problem.

Females in combat arms:
Shoot - Studies have shown that the female hand is wired better to use firearms than the male hand due to a better ability to independently use the fingers.
Communicate - Most of the military communicates on a third grade level. That's not an issue. Studies have shown that women actually make better leaders than men in non-combat occupations due to their method of leadership being more lesson-oriented instead of punishment/reward.
Move - Problem. That's simple strength and endurance. The male model of human is generally superior in those categories. Straight biology.

Obviously this a very basic breakdown and misses all sorts of stuff, but you get the idea.

...

Okay. I'm going to go beat my chest and set things on fire.

Sorry bub, I didn't bring up women...Crompsin did. So you had a bad experience with a lousy soldier, you associate that with her gender, but none of the inadequacies you mentioned are necessarily linked to the differences between men and women. I'm sure in your experiences you also encountered incompetent male soldiers, were they poor soldiers because they were men?

I'm a reasonably fit man, but I would want at least four months of training before I attempted some of these things. There are people with all manner of physical strengths and weaknesses, some are men some are women. There are roles in the military for people with strong bodies and dull minds, people with weak bodies and sharp minds, and people with strong bodies and sharp minds.

Also, it's possible for women to pee and drive at the same time.
Yes I'm aware of the Israeli findings. I'm also well aware, as you should be also, that those findings have been completely disproven or become irrelevant over the past five years. If you had served with Leigh Ann Hester or Monica Lin Brown would you think that all combat soldiers should be women? C'mon, of course not. Did the men in the linked situations forget their training and huddle around the women? (The answer is no).

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you went to a public high school and went through boot camp there's a 99.9% chance that you've showered and shat with homosexuals. Turns out that gay men are capable of being in these situations and not gawking or wolf whistling at other men.


-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 22 : 44-----
Can you link to these studies? I'm highly skeptical. Why isn't this supposed difference reflected in sport shooting, piano playing, or ... you name it?
Well you're right, except about the "problem" part. The military already segregates people based on their physical capabilities. There is every manner of specialization based on physical and mental ability. There's a little gray area for effort and determination but some people will never be Marines, snipers, paratroopers, SEALs (most people), etc. Some people aren't suited to be chefs, techs, or truck drivers but the military needs those people too. Have you seen some of the chubbies in active duty? I have, sure standards have been relaxed, but also America is the fattest country in the world. I agree with Slims and you that standards should not be relaxed for gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. The military has a long history of bigotry though so those standards require close attention.
Well good then, you're in complete agreement with President Obama (I've already linked this). I'm completely sure that this issue is only being floated by the right wing to rile their base and stir up controversy.

edits-grammar

This may be a threadjack... but you don't know how accurate you are with this statement.

I grew up in the military bubble. I never lived in areas which are ethnically or economically segregated until after my father retired. There was no "other side of the tracks," there was no separation between white/black/hispanic families as the housing on base was assigned. On base everyone has a great deal of base respect for each other being all members or family members of the military. It was only in High School after my father left the military when I ran into my first experience with racists.

Hopefully after homosexuality becomes a non-issue in the military (10 years from now or so) the military can again take the lead in social integration and acceptance (read that again without your head exploding hehe).