Don't ask, Don't tell

[Puckstop31]

Looks like it might be going away. Like I said in the previous bout on this issue, as long as the force is really ready for it and its NOT just a political issue, good for them.

Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DK71700&show_article=1)

Hopefully Congress will do something right for once and NOT force how this will actually take effect on the military. Lets the force decide how to ease into it.

ETA: With tounge FIRMLY in cheek... Anybody find it funny that it is a Naval Officer who is getting this rolling? ;) LOL

[RICHARD]

ETA: With tounge FIRMLY in cheek...

Are you sure you want to go with THAT analogy!:eek::confused::o:D

lolololololol...

[Puckstop31]

LOL...

But all kidding aside, I REALLY hope that Congress just does not force this massive change in one fell swoop. The ONLY thing that matters in the military is combat readiness. A lot (most?) of the people in the force would have no problem with this. Sadly, there are still bigots who would not. Those people could have a profound negative impact on their units combat readiness and that is bad.

To put it another way... It needs to be done so that this is not an additional stressor on combat units. You have enough stress on the pointy end already.

[RICHARD]

Well,

Of course you need wind to be sailor!:confused::eek::o

[blue]

As long as they dont get any special considerations or treatment, I dont really see any issue that wouldnt solve itself.

[wombat2u2004]

Wasn't Alexander's regiment of Companions made up completely of gay soldiers ??? Paired off as one young and one old soldier who fought together, slept together, learnt from each other ????
Wom

[Catherinedana]

I'm still baffled as to how someone's sexual orientation affects their ability to do anything that they are trained or prepared to do. Misconceptions about what to expect from homosexual men is the main problem here, in my belief. I had a gay friend who was an absolute monster of a man, a bouncer in a bar in NYC and he always said, "Just because I'm gay that doesn't make me a pansy!" and it was the absolute truth!

[Cataholic]

Somehow, I have managed to work my entire adult life and never had my sexual preference come up. I suppose one could say that being in combat is different...and of course it is. BUT, if I were on the front line, or close to it, my sexual thoughts would be, uh, minimal. That staying alive thing would be a tad bit more important.

Some might say that living in close quarters would be the issue. Ok. Maybe it is. But, if I don't have sexual urges for all the men I see every day, and, presumably, they don't either, why would a gay man or woman in the military be any different?

This is a sexual preference....it is such a small part of who anyone is. If being gay is going to cause the military to fall apart, cause in-fighting, breed mistrust (whatever the homophobes are claiming will be the result) why is it ANY different than any other phobia? Racism? Elitism?

If someone has a problem with gays being in the military, maybe that person should choose another career choice.

[happylabs]

Are you sure you want to go with THAT analogy!:eek::confused::o:D

lolololololol...

Ewwwwww

[Lady's Human]

Wasn't Alexander's regiment of Companions made up completely of gay soldiers ??? Paired off as one young and one old soldier who fought together, slept together, learnt from each other ????
Wom

I just did a quick search on that. I had never heard that about the companions, and even the wiki link doesn't mention anything of the sort.

As to eliminating don't ask don't tell, it has nothing to do with the ability of the soldiers, it has everything to do with the personalities of soldiers, especially young soldiers, and the ability of the army to form soldiers into teams.

I truly hope that the authors of this policy are ready to accept the blood on their hands when this is implemented, because it isn't going to be pretty.

[smokey the elder]

I believe there are military SOPs for hetero relationships. Could these not be adapted to include all relationships? Male/female relationships are not problem-free (re: the Marine who allegedly murdered his pregnant girlfriend/fiancee/SO.)

I think homophobia is just silly on the face of it. What are straights/heteros afraid of anyway? That a gay person is going to steal one's SO? That's about how much sense it makes to me.

[wombat2u2004]

Wiki is that not reliable Kev.
If you read the histories of Alexander, he actually formed that crack fighting regiment out of handpicked gay men (and of course in those days, especially in Greece / Macedonia, gay men were a majority).
The idea was.......that the men of that regiment were paired off....one old, but experienced soldier, and one young inexperienced soldier who was much fitter. The two became lovers, and actually protected each other in battle.
The whole system was based on that pairs teamwork. This regiment often surrounded Alexander, and were his elite bodyguards, and were used mainly for skirmishing and Alexanders protection. They were different from the other regiments that Alexander used on the field in the formation of the phalanx, where 12' long sarisas (thrusting spears) were used. The Companions, not being a part of the main phalanx were much lighter armed, and employed swordsmen, stone slingers and light cavalry.

[Cataholic]

As to eliminating don't ask don't tell, it has nothing to do with the ability of the soldiers, it has everything to do with the personalities of soldiers, especially young soldiers, and the ability of the army to form soldiers into teams.


Don't gay people do 'teamwork'?

[Lady's Human]

I believe there are military SOPs for hetero relationships. Could these not be adapted to include all relationships? Male/female relationships are not problem-free (re: the Marine who allegedly murdered his pregnant girlfriend/fiancee/SO.)

I think homophobia is just silly on the face of it. What are straights/heteros afraid of anyway? That a gay person is going to steal one's SO? That's about how much sense it makes to me.

Personal relationships are not just SOP material, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is very specific about interpersonal relationships.

It's very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't been through basic training (Real basic training, not the BS courses you can go to for a fee to see what it's like, taught by REAL army sergeants.......LMAO) how dangerous this could be. Soldiers who volunteer to be on the pointy end of things are not exactly your run of the mill people, it is an intensely alpha male environment, and soldiers will take things into their own hands if there's someone who they don't think fits into their team.

To quote a tanker, you're in the field for weeks on end with four guys in a small space, how would you like it if you thought the loader who's staring at the TC's butt for weeks on end was checkin you out? Ain't gonna deal with that, bro.

[Lady's Human]

Don't gay people do 'teamwork'?

Not even remotely the point.

Anything which the members of the team can't handle (personality quirks in particular) becomes dangerously abrasive, and frequently leads to confrontation. Confrontation in teams which are full of people trained to kill people and break things gets ugly rapidly.

[LokiDog]

I have a solution. End all war on the planet. That way we would have no need for the military in any form. Just service organizations to respond to natural disasters and such.

But aside from that - people are people, gay or straight, black or white...
PEOPLE should have the right to pursue any occupation they desire.

[Lady's Human]

But aside from that - people are people, gay or straight, black or white...
PEOPLE should have the right to pursue any occupation they desire.

In an ideal world, yes.

But in an ideal world, we wouldn't need the military.

As an aside, does that mean my wife, who has a minor physical disability, should be able to be a soldier if she wants?

Or should I be able to be an F-15 pilot, despite the fact I wear glasses?

[Catherinedana]

To quote a tanker, you're in the field for weeks on end with four guys in a small space, how would you like it if you thought the loader who's staring at the TC's butt for weeks on end was checkin you out? Ain't gonna deal with that, bro.

Then the problem is here. . .and it's a matter of prejudice and wrong-thinking, caused by some irrational fear? Who knows. Does everyone out there who is not gay really believe that a gay man has no control over his sexual urges? In a word, ridiculous.

[Lady's Human]

It may be ridiculous to you, but there are many, many things in the military a civilian would find ridiculous.

[Puckstop31]

Then the problem is here. . .and it's a matter of prejudice and wrong-thinking, caused by some irrational fear? Who knows. Does everyone out there who is not gay really believe that a gay man has no control over his sexual urges? In a word, ridiculous.

To answer this and all the similar comments....

It doesn't matter if it's 'irrational'. All that matters is that it WILL happen. There is simply no way to explain what it means to be part of a team on the pointy end of the spear unless you have been there. ANYthing that takes focus off the mission is a hazard. Are there other things, not related in any way to DADT that cause lack of focus? Sure. Is it a good idea to add another in one fell swoop? Probably not.

LH mentioned a story about a tanker.... I was an armor crewman (tanker) most of my military career. LH is right. There is little like the need to act as one as there is in a tank crew. The crew needs to act in harmony to get the job done. Personally, I would have no problem with a open homosexual on my crew, as long as he was just another guy in the crew. If they want to shove their sexuality around, problem. But that's just me. I worked with other, otherwise OUTSTANDING soldiers, who would have a huge issue with having gay crewmembers.


__


Like I said in my original couple of posts... In the long term, this is probably a good thing as long as it is implemented slowly and on the forces terms. Because, as has been said, this has ZERO to do with the physical or mental ability of homosexuals to perform the job. Its about what it does to team dynamics.

[Catherinedana]

It may be ridiculous to you, but there are many, many things in the military a civilian would find ridiculous.

I am absolutely clueless regarding military life and responsibilities so I guess I can only speak from my own civilian and very liberal up-bringing. Guess that's why it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps having such a diversity of people in my life has made me immune to some of the differences? I just can't think in that direction. . . :confused: and sometimes it is very hard for me to hear others speak negatively about people because of beliefs or orientations or making sweeping, all-inclusive statements like the one I quoted previously. ?Sometimes I forget that my experience is not everyone's experience. :rolleyes: My bad, as they say.

[LokiDog]

In an ideal world, yes.

But in an ideal world, we wouldn't need the military.

As an aside, does that mean my wife, who has a minor physical disability, should be able to be a soldier if she wants?

Or should I be able to be an F-15 pilot, despite the fact I wear glasses?

I think if she or you wants to be part of the military, you have that right. As long as you feel you are capable - and can prove it - you should be allowed to. There are many paths in life that you have to prove your capabilities... pass the bar to be a lawyer, pass the MCAT to get into medical school... I think if you are able to prove yourself in your chosen field, you should be allowed to do it.
Things should NEVER be based on you race, sexual orientation...

But aside from all that, to answer you questions. If we have no military on the planet. Why would you fly F-15's?:love::D:love::D:love::D:love::D

[Puckstop31]

I am absolutely clueless regarding military life and responsibilities so I guess I can only speak from my own civilian and very liberal up-bringing. Guess that's why it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps having such a diversity of people in my life has made me immune to some of the differences? I just can't think in that direction. . . :confused: and sometimes it is very hard for me to hear others speak negatively about people because of beliefs or orientations or making sweeping, all-inclusive statements like the one I quoted previously. ?Sometimes I forget that my experience is not everyone's experience. :rolleyes: My bad, as they say.

Well, you might not understand why things like LH said are true. But those things in the military that civilians would never understand, happen for a REASON.

[Puckstop31]

I think if she or you wants to be part of the military, you have that right. As long as you feel you are capable - and can prove it - you should be allowed to. There are many paths in life that you have to prove your capabilities... pass the bar to be a lawyer, pass the MCAT to get into medical school... I think if you are able to prove yourself in your chosen field, you should be allowed to do it.
Things should NEVER be based on you race, sexual orientation...

But aside from all that, to answer you questions. If we have no military on the planet. Why would you fly F-15's?:love::D:love::D:love::D:love::D

I think you are missing the part about this not having ANYthing to do with ability.

[wombat2u2004]

Has anyone any thoughts on rank structure ????
Say for instance.........the sergeant is gay and the private in his outfit is not gay.
I know that if the powers that be did approve of gays in the forces, then they would certainly have new military laws against pulling rank in sexual situations.
But that wouldn't stop the sergeant from giving that private a bad time on the side....would it ????
And how would the private treat that, if say for instance the sergeant made sexual advances on him privately.......the poor old private would have no defence in a military court.
Where would it stop ????? Look at the problems in the military now with both men and women.....sexual harassment cases all the time....even rape !!!!!

[Karen]

It is completely and absolutely forbidden to "pull rank" and demand sexual favors ever within the military, regardless of sexuality. It may happen anyway, but it IS absolutely against the rules.

I am all for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" being lifted, as long as it is done correctly, and with thought about the situations people are in. And in my opinion, it shouldn't be anyone's business and if someone does not WANT to reveal his or her sexuality, it should not be forced.

[Lady's Human]

It is completely and absolutely forbidden to "pull rank" and demand sexual favors ever within the military, regardless of sexuality. It may happen anyway, but it IS absolutely against the rules.


It happens, and it frequently happens in the reverse, as well.

Many Drill Sergeants have had their careers ended by charges of that nature.

Whether or not the charges held up is immaterial. Once the integrity of a sergeant is challenged in that manner, they're DONE. It is incredibly easy for a Private to end the career of a Drill Sergeant.

It's easier to recover your career from a DUI or drug offense.

[RICHARD]

Or should I be able to be an F-15 pilot, despite the fact I wear glasses?

You can get yourself a huge honkin watch if get past that requirement.

--------------

I love this story and this shows the difference between the civilian and military way of life. Some of you have heard it before..

A soldier was looking in a catalogue for a replacement zipper.

He looked under the letter "Z" until he gave up and went to a sargeant who told him he would never find it there.


It's under the letter "I"!


Interlocking Slide Fastener:);)

[wombat2u2004]

It happens, and it frequently happens in the reverse, as well.

Many Drill Sergeants have had their careers ended by charges of that nature.

Whether or not the charges held up is immaterial. Once the integrity of a sergeant is challenged in that manner, they're DONE. It is incredibly easy for a Private to end the career of a Drill Sergeant.

It's easier to recover your career from a DUI or drug offense.

Then if the law is passed, won't the problems you already have in the military become greater ????

[Lady's Human]

Yep.

And not just the issues with Drill Sergeants.

[wombat2u2004]

Then why would they consider passing the laws ????
I know that lawmakers are usually very much out of touch with REAL issues, but surely they can use their heads when it involves something as important as the military.

[Lady's Human]

It's all about social engineering, and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the force.

[Lady's Human]

The problem is you're focusing on the physical ability, and completely ignoring the psychology of the soldiers on the pointy end of things.

Just because someone has the raw physical ability to do something doesn't mean they are suited for the military. If their presence is going to be disruptive to the team, they're not fit to serve. You don't adjust the mindset of 40 soldiers in a platoon so you can make one fit in, it just doesn't work that way. The 40 will find a way to take care of the one, and chances are, unlike DADT discharges, it won't be covered by the media.

[LokiDog]

I think you are missing the part about this not having ANYthing to do with ability.

Your right. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was responding to the post by Lady's Human on whether they could serve in the military.

I believe you should not be discriminated against just because of sexual orientation.

If I remember my history. Blacks were not allowed in the military until they proved themselves as Buffalo Soldiers, or special units during the civil war...

Not allowed to be pilots until the Tuskegee Airmen in WWII and so on.

I DON'T think that gays need to prove themselves as capable before being allowed to serve. But might this be a way to opening the door to universal acceptance?
I don't know - just a thought.

[Lady's Human]

Blacks were part of the US Military since the Revolutionary war.

The military's treatment of blacks wasn't always proper, and was shameful in many respects, but they were allowed to serve.

Pres. Truman changed that with his order to the military to integrate NOW!

This is a different kettle of fish. The main reason for the segregation of the military was the presence of many southern aristocrats in the senior ranks who carried their prejudice with them. Rank and file enlisted didn't care, they could fight, they knew they could fight, it was an issue with the leadership, not the troops (For the most part.....racism still exist in the military, and will, always, as long as the military is made up of people)


It will take more than an executive order to change this.

[wombat2u2004]

I believe you should not be discriminated against just because of sexual orientation.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this new age term "Sexual orientation".
I'll just call it what I always have "A sexual perversion"
I'm sorry if I have offended, but I do have an opinion and a belief that these so called groups just want rights. I suppose it's a shame that evolution never equiped humans to be asexual, so that gay men can have children, but I guess that's just tough luck....eh ????

[smokey the elder]

*trout slap* I SO don't agree with that statement. *sigh*. I'll grant that there are UCMJ (I used the term "SOP" because in a regulated environment these have the force of law BTW) rules that I, as a civilian, have no clue about. However, I still stand by my lay opinion that the UCMJ rules, over time might be modified. Maybe the armed forces aren't ready for this kind of liberal thinking. If so, that's unfortunate, that the armed forces, in a time of slow recruitment, may be missing out on some very good soldiers/sailors/Marines.

All of the above is solely MY opinion, and not intended to flame anyone.

[wombat2u2004]

Blacks were part of the US Military since the Revolutionary war.

The military's treatment of blacks wasn't always proper, and was shameful in many respects, but they were allowed to serve.

Pres. Truman changed that with his order to the military to integrate NOW!

This is a different kettle of fish. The main reason for the segregation of the military was the presence of many southern aristocrats in the senior ranks who carried their prejudice with them. Rank and file enlisted didn't care, they could fight, they knew they could fight, it was an issue with the leadership, not the troops (For the most part.....racism still exist in the military, and will, always, as long as the military is made up of people).

Very true !!!! We had a Searchlight team with us in Nam.....there was one black guy and two white guys, and I remember one of the white guys was from Alabama. They gave that black guy real crap, all of the time treated him so badly. I won't tell you what eventually happened here on this thread, I'll PM you some time and tell you the story.....not good.

[sasvermont]

......and will continue to change, thank goodness.

[blue]

......and will continue to change, thank goodness.

And if change causes unrest among our troops, its a good thing?


I would bet both LH and Puck served with the gays during their years in the service. I would further bet that there was a gay in my training platoon, and more then one in my series, and maybe a half a dozen or more on MCRDSD during my short time there. I cant speak for Puck or LH, but I dont have any problem with gays in our military and I dont think they do either.

I can see this "change" ending badly if the PC and GA groups have too much say in the "change".

[wombat2u2004]

This documentary just about explains it all..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ecasPqhgk

[blue]

I may have to smack my Ausie friends around if this is what yall call documentary.

But that isnt to far off from what I fear will happen if the PC and GA groups get their way.

[Alysser]

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this new age term "Sexual orientation".
I'll just call it what I always have "A sexual perversion"
I'm sorry if I have offended, but I do have an opinion and a belief that these so called groups just want rights. I suppose it's a shame that evolution never equiped humans to be asexual, so that gay men can have children, but I guess that's just tough luck....eh ????

Wow, I cannot even believe the amount of ignorance in that post. There is offering an opinion, and then there's just being blatantly rude. :rolleyes:

[Catty1]

It will be a more peaceful day, I think, when humans are just referred to as "sexual" with no prefix in front of the word.

That should include just about everyone. ;):)

[Karen]

And if change causes unrest among our troops, its a good thing?

If the unrest is simply that, yes. There was unrest when the service was integrated, but it settled down after some time. Hopefully this is handled well, and the same will happen.

[smokey the elder]

I'm sure the first female plebe at each service acadamy had a few issues.

[Lady's Human]

If the unrest is simply that, yes. There was unrest when the service was integrated, but it settled down after some time. Hopefully this is handled well, and the same will happen.

Not completely, but that wouldn't be politically correct news, now, would it?

[lizbud]

What are the straights afraid of? Do they think gays will attack the first
man/woman after getting rid of DADT? LOL The younger aged "kids" moving
up in the military ranks nowadays, don't have the old prejudices. I think
the removal of DADT, will not be as big a problem , as some think.

[Lady's Human]

The end of DADT will be a bloody (literally bloody) nightmare, but you'll probably never hear about it.

It will just get piled into the pile of training that units have to do during the week. Be nice to everyone training, cultural/ethnic/racial/sexual/don't sleep with the commander/his wife/his dog/ training that already takes one training day per week out of the training cycle for mandatory classes.

How about this.......

When you can convincingly prove that all the other social stressors in military units have been effectively handled, then end DADT.

Until then, leave it well enough alone.

Too much upheaval in the force in the middle of a war isn't exactly a brilliant suggestion, and goes further to show how distanced the JCS are from the troops.

[caseysmom]

What are the straights afraid of? Do they think gays will attack the first
man/woman after getting rid of DADT? LOL The younger aged "kids" moving
up in the military ranks nowadays, don't have the old prejudices. I think
the removal of DADT, will not be as big a problem , as some think.

Actually a lot of the young military guys still feel the same way, I think they don't want to be showering etc with guys that like other guys. I guess I can see their point.

[lizbud]

Actually a lot of the young military guys still feel the same way, I think they don't want to be showering etc with guys that like other guys. I guess I can see their point.


Well, I can always dream that people are getting smarter and
kinder with every generation.:)

Maybe I should look up more stats on this question. Can't hurt.:)

[caseysmom]

Well, I can always dream that people are getting smarter and
kinder with every generation.:)

Maybe I should look up more stats on this question. Can't hurt.:)

Some things take a long time to change unfortunately.

[RICHARD]

http://www.lifeskate.com/.a/6a00e54f7ecf2c88330120a7f73be7970b-800wi

Johnny Weir, Olympic Figure Skater.

Proudly serving on the U.S. Skating team?

Don't ask?;)

[Karen]

Johnny Weir, Olympic Figure Skater.

Proudly serving on the U.S. Skating team?

Don't ask?;)

No need to.

[Puckstop31]

Well, I can always dream that people are getting smarter and
kinder with every generation.:)

Maybe I should look up more stats on this question. Can't hurt.:)

"Smarter"? "Kinder"? By who's standard?

Then "Stats" on this 'question'?


Subjective much?


Are you willfully ignoring everything LH and I are saying? People, you know, who actually really served in the REAL Army and can tell you that 3/4's of the stuff you read is not true?

Of course not....

[RICHARD]

Look, If ANYONE can make it thru bootcamp, an academy or training to become a soldier? More power to them.

I realy doubt that any gay person is there for fun and games, especially when everyone else in the program has a gun, too

---------------------

I am for gay marriage, why should straight people be the only ones taking the chance on being miserable forever?;)

Every 'cause' for the past 30-40 years gets front page notoriety, then someone from the group goes stupid and the whole movement gets painted with the brush....

People like this Johnny Weir, set whatever faction he's involved with back a few years. Some kid named Rudy Galindo was the first openly gay ice skater.

And you know what, more power to him.

It dont affect my life.

It's always the people at the extreme fringe that make it worse for the people who just want to exist and be treated fairly in life.

Who you like and who you have shoot at don't really have any connecttion, It's about being able to pull the trigger at the right time and not do any collateral damage, when you do.


Go back to sleep everyone.

The straight and gay soldiers will die long before any of us civilians.....Maybe we should leave them be for willing to risk THEIR lives and lifestyles ahead of ours?

[blue]

If the unrest is simply that, yes. There was unrest when the service was integrated, but it settled down after some time. Hopefully this is handled well, and the same will happen.

So the gays should be segregated on bases and while deployed? Should they receive separate training as well? They should be treated as a special protected group?

Causing unrest while troops are deployed IMHO is not a good idea.

I dont think anybody has said the gays shouldnt be in the military in this thread, but it should be left to the military on how to openly let the gays integrate in the military.

[wombat2u2004]

http://www.lifeskate.com/.a/6a00e54f7ecf2c88330120a7f73be7970b-800wi

Johnny Weir, Olympic Figure Skater.

Proudly serving on the U.S. Skating team?

Don't ask?;)

Looks like he's ready to go out on the town with the boys.
Or the gals ???
You know what they say....boys will be girls and girls will be boys etc etc..LOLOL

[wombat2u2004]

It dont affect my life.
It might if Johnny Weir got a hold of ya....hee hee

[RICHARD]

I have to clarify my point..

I don't who you date.

I feel that who you have a relationship with is your own business. I really am put out when people do the PDA thing or start to talk raunchy about "last night". I am not a prude and love a great dirty joke, but when you start to talk about your SO - who I happened to meet at the last party/function/get together- you have overstepped the line.

It's your business, not mine.

I have always been of the mind that you come to work, work, go home- when your homelife follows you in, that's not good.

I find any couple doing the kissy face, grab arse-ing in public to be disrespectful, obnoxious and rude.If they treat a relationship with such ilittle thought in public, they probably treat their professional life the same way.

But hey, I am more afraid of the straight, religiously radical moron trying to light his testicles on fire because he's wearing BVDs soaked in kerosene.

I somehow suspect that they are harder to deal with than gay people. it's just a hunch!:confused:;)

[Lady's Human]

I have to clarify my point..

I don't who you date.

I feel that who you have a relationship with is your own business. I really am put out when people do the PDA thing or start to talk raunchy about "last night". I am not a prude and love a great dirty joke, but when you start to talk about your SO - who I happened to meet at the last party/function/get together- you have overstepped the line.

It's your business, not mine.

I have always been of the mind that you come to work, work, go home- when your homelife follows you in, that's not good.



The problem with that in the military is that you know EVERYTHING about your battle buddies, and wind up knowing them probably better on most levels than their SO. There is NO privacy in military units whatsoever.

[wombat2u2004]

Well, my opinion only, but I believe that if they let gays into the armed forces, then there will be lots of trouble.
And I still hold to the belief that it's only a rights issue.....it's happened here in Australia, and still happening. In the 1960's the White Australia Policy was still the order of the day, the aboriginal peoples actually had their own schools (which their kids never showed up much at), and the whites had their schools. The abo's squealed discrimination etc etc, the law was finally passed and the abo's could attend the same schools as whites.
The outcome ???? The Aboriginals won the RIGHT to go to the same schools, but did they attend those schools ???? NOPE !!!! Nothing changed other than the aboriginals now had the RIGHT !!!!!
And so I believe is the issue now facing you all in the USA.
Wom

[wombat2u2004]

Be nice to everyone training, cultural/ethnic/racial/sexual/don't sleep with the commander/his wife/his dog/ training that already takes one training day per week out of the training cycle for mandatory classes.

Might be safer to sleep with the dog !!!!

[RICHARD]

The problem with that in the military is that you know EVERYTHING about your battle buddies, and wind up knowing them probably better on most levels than their SO. There is NO privacy in military units whatsoever.

Understood.

I just hate the idea of people being in love and being happier than I am.:eek:;)

[Lady's Human]

As Blue and Puck said, there were people in my units and people I served with who I KNEW were gay. I didn't give a damn. They were soldiers, got the job done, and that was all I was concerned about.

However, I'm not your average basic trainee, and I've seen what happens in those scenarios. It ain't pretty.

[RICHARD]

As Blue and Puck said, there were people in my units and people I served with who I KNEW were gay. I didn't give a damn. They were soldiers, got the job done, and that was all I was concerned about.

However, I'm not your average basic trainee, and I've seen what happens in those scenarios. It ain't pretty.

A question?

I am curious-no, not that way;)- about who incited the 'problems' when they came up.

Just a percentage?

I get the feeling that mean spirited people were the majority.

-----------------------

In the old days I had a 'harem' I ate lunch with.

We'd walk into the cafeteria and you would hear us before you saw us..

It got back to me that I was gay because people could not figure out how I could 'roll' with so many woman and not be involved with any of them.

I took it as a badge of honor. I loves me my women...and I realized that hate can be a powerful emotion, especially coming from the Neanderthals on the planet.

[Grace]

Fact-Check: Would the U.S. be alone in allowing gays to openly serve in the military?

According to the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara-based think tank that studies controversial public policy issues:

-- Twenty-five countries allowed military service by openly gay people as of June 2009.

-- They are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Bottom line: The United States would not be alone in allowing gays to openly serve in the military. As of 2009, there are no fewer than 25 other countries that follow an open policy.

source (http://www.laindependent.com/news/83376742.html)

[RICHARD]

I want to throw out a France joke......nope, not gonna do it.:D

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I personally wish everyone would go back in the closet, straight and gay and whatever. I have no interest in anyone's sex life or lack of one. :rolleyes: :D

[kuhio98]

I'm in the Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't care group.

As long as you're not hurting children or animals, I don't care what you do in the bedroom.

[wombat2u2004]

I don't care what you do in the bedroom.

That was going to be my very next post on this thread, but now I'm not going to tell...hee hee

[moosmom]

I was always opposed to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is MY opinion that it is no one's business (not the governments, not mine, not yours) as to one's sexual orientation. And one's sexual orientation has nothing to do with how well one defend's their country.

[wombat2u2004]

Hi Donna,
No more discussions from this end downunder on gays, religion or racism.
It's troublesome territory.
I'm outa this thread.
P.S Nice to see you again ;)
Wom

[moosmom]

Hey Wom,

Didn't mean to offend you, I was only voicing my opinion. No hard feelings???

[wombat2u2004]

Hey Wom,

Didn't mean to offend you, I was only voicing my opinion. No hard feelings???

None mate....we all have our own opinions. But I find these subjects kinda get too heated if you know what I mean. And I know in the past my opinions have offended some as I tend to insult if I get too heated up, so I'll just avoid them from now on.
Have a good day mate....and yeah, it's good to be back with you all.
Wom

[moosmom]

Glad to have you back, Wom!! There are certain subjects my father always told me never to discuss in public. Sex, religion and politics. Boy was HE right!!!!;)

[wombat2u2004]

Glad to have you back, Wom!! There are certain subjects my father always told me never to discuss in public. Sex, religion and politics. Boy was HE right!!!!;)

Yeah, he's right.
Thing is everybody has their own views, and boy....they are ALL so different LOLOL. So nobody wins in discussions like that.
The last couple of years since I've been gone from here haven't been that crash hot for me Donna, I've been back and forth to the shrinks that many times I couldn't count them. The ******* even wanted to put me into a clinic for a while, but I got out of that one. So he has me medicated up to the eyeballs at the moment, and now I'm kind of much calmer.
I went to my best mates funeral late last year, he was in Nam with me in 69, and had every single attributed condition that the orange could throw at him.
And all I got was a few psych issues....go figure !!!

[moosmom]

Sorry about your buddy.

Better living through pharmaceuticals, I say!! Yeah, I'm on meds too. Damn chemical brain inbalances!!! But the meds to help. I have PTSD and ADD not to mention severe depression and anxiety. *shakes head* And to think I could've inherited my Dad's blue eyes and good looks. *sigh* Instead I'm the lucky recipient of his depression, high blood pressure and high cholesterol and I'm sure whatever else I'm not aware of.

Oh hell, any day with both feet on the ground is a good day, I suppose.

[wombat2u2004]

Oh hell, any day with both feet on the ground is a good day, I suppose.

That's true mate.

[Grace]

Interesting article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/233132) from Newsweek by a major in the Israeli Army.

[phesina]

Thank you, Grace. That's really good to read.

So much for demoralizing the troops..

[blue]

Interesting article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/233132) from Newsweek by a major in the Israeli Army.

An OpEd piece is not an "article"


Thank you, Grace. That's really good to read.
So much for demoralizing the troops..

It was a good read, To me it makes a point that the Israeli gays arent pushing for special status in society, that they are integrating into society instead of demanding society make changes for them. If American gay culture acted the same way we would have had gays in our military for decades.

[wombat2u2004]

That was very interesting...he did raise a bunch of good points.

[lizbud]

Thanks for the article Grace.:)

[lizbud]

An OpEd piece is not an "article"



If American gay culture acted the same way we would have had gays in our military for decades.




The article meets all the criteria of an article, therefore is in fact
an article.

We already have had gays serving in the military for decades. They don't
wait for Government approval, they just want to serve their country.

[Grace]

An OpEd piece is not an "article"




article - A story, report, or opinion piece in a newspaper, magazine, journal, internet etc.

source (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/article)

article - a written composition in prose, usually nonfiction, on a specific topic, forming an independent part of a book or other publication, as a newspaper or magazine.

source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/article)

[Grace]

Latest news on DADT.

From POLITICO -


New rules coming on gays in military
By: Jen DiMascio
March 25, 2010 08:22 AM EDT

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will make it more difficult to kick gays out of the military, imposing new rules for their discharge under the Pentagon’s don’t ask don’t tell ban on open homosexuality.

The changes rolled out in a Pentagon press briefing Thursday will apply to all open and future cases, but only Congress can repeal the current law barring gays from serving openly.

“It remains the law and we remain obligated to enforce it,” Gates said. “At the same time these changes will allow us to execute the law in a fairer and more appropriate manner.”

Now, the Pentagon won’t entertain anonymous complaints against members of the military, requiring third parties to give information under oath. It will also place “special scrutiny” on third parties who may be trying to harm the accused. And the Pentagon will only allow more experienced officers to initiate claims or to actually “separate” gays from the military.

The rules for what information can be used in a case will change too. Now, the Pentagon will outlaw discharges based on confidential information provided to lawyers, the clergy, psychotherapists and doctors. And information picked up during investigations of domestic or physical abuse or security clearance proceedings is also out of bounds.

The changes are being applied after a 45-day review of how service-members are discharged for their sexual orientation. The Pentagon’s yearlong study of how to implement full repeal is ongoing.

Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reiterated that any repeal of the current law should take place only after that review, due Dec. 1, is complete.

“I think it’s very important for us to go through this process,” Mullen said. “Haste could very easily generate a very bad outcome.”

The top civilian and military leaders of the Pentagon also denounced Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, for writing a letter to Stars and Stripes that publicly outlined his opposition to repeal.

“It is often stated that most service members are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate,” Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army Pacific, said in the letter. “I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.”

Gates and Mullen said the general would have been allowed to express his views within the chain of command and should not have spoken out publicly and that the Army is addressing the issue.

“As a three-star leader in command, by virtue of that position alone, he has great influence,” Mullen said, adding that when the secretary announced the Pentagon’s review, the Army issued written guidelines about it. “If there’s policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with … the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet.”


source (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35007.html)

[Lady's Human]

“As a three-star leader in command, by virtue of that position alone, he has great influence,” Mullen said, adding that when the secretary announced the Pentagon’s review, the Army issued written guidelines about it. “If there’s policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with … the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet.”

How,exactly, can you vote with your feet in the military when soldiers are signed to four to six year contracts?

[Grace]

In the Washington Post and NY Times, the comment by Admiral Mullen reads . . . if officers feel so strongly that they cannot abide by policy changes, "The answer is not advocacy. It is in fact to vote with your feet."

The Officer in question is Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the head of Army forces in the U.S. Pacific Command.

[Lady's Human]

Again, overlooking the fact that until you achieve a fairly high rank, you are bound by your contract with the military.

The disconnect that shows between leadership and those who are under them is on one hand mind boggling, but at the same time, having been a part of the MBA and PC lead Army, doesn't surprise me in the least.

[wombat2u2004]

The disconnect that shows between leadership and those who are under them is on one hand mind boggling,

Then maybe those who lead must at one time have been led.

[RICHARD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/gay-softball-world-series_n_545763.html

So, these guys weren't gay enough to compete?

Isn't that discrimination?

I was on a few teams where the girls were better than I was and had better luck scoring-if you know what I mean.;)

--------------------

Sports is such a competitive activity it doesn't surprise me that no one in the Major Leagues would admit to being gay, then you get tossed out of a game/competition because you aren't gay enough.:p


I think us straight folks should get together and picket the next time the "Gay World Series" is played.;):confused::)

[wombat2u2004]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/gay-softball-world-series_n_545763.html

So, these guys weren't gay enough to compete?

Isn't that discrimination?

No Richard, it isn't discrimination. We all know that only heterosexuals are guilty of that. ;)

[blue]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/gay-softball-world-series_n_545763.html

So, these guys weren't gay enough to compete?

Isn't that discrimination?

I was on a few teams where the girls were better than I was and had better luck scoring-if you know what I mean.;)

--------------------

Sports is such a competitive activity it doesn't surprise me that no one in the Major Leagues would admit to being gay, then you get tossed out of a game/competition because you aren't gay enough.:p


I think us straight folks should get together and picket the next time the "Gay World Series" is played.;):confused::)

They have a point.



Unless the full fledged gays want to be separate but equal.

[RICHARD]

They have a point.



Unless the full fledged gays want to be separate but equal.


Yes, they do but wouldn't you need some switch hitters in the dugout?
:confused:

-------------------------------


http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/restaurant-fined-for-turning-away-blind-man-because-of-gay-dog/19455945


Why do people put that extra step into thinking?:eek: