God forbid a gay man serve, he might make some of the other soldiers uncomfortable. Further more he could serve he just needs to keep his mouth shut about his personal life. But no he had to go talk about being gay. A soldier never ever talks about sex... ever... unless he's gay then they just do it for the attention.

END SARCASM.

It's a shame to toss out an experienced fighter pilot. They're actually hard to come by, tons of people want to fly but only a few are actually capable of becoming a fighter pilot. It's so blindingly stupid to take a good man who is willing to serve his country and then thow away his talent and training because he does guys.

"...he might make some of the other soldiers uncomfortable."

A 2006 Zogby poll found that 72% of Iraq and Afghanistan vets are "personally comfortable" around gays, a fact which undermines the oft-heard assertion that letting gays serve openly would heighten tension and erode morale. In addition, among those 20% who said they are uncomfortable working with gays, only 5% said that they are "very uncomfortable." The other 15% were "somewhat uncomfortable." The vast majority of troops do not feel strongly about the issue. Indeed roughly a quarter said they knew someone in their unit was gay, and 45% said they suspected as much; of those who knew of gays in their unit, most said the information was widely known by others. In other words, gays already serve openly throughout the U.S. military, and this reality does not undermine morale or harm recruitment or retention, much less "destroy" the force.

#2 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I agree I think the whole arguement against having gays "openly" serve is stupid. All the military folks I know, which is not a huge number and which were primarily younger guys, had no problem with serving with a gay guy or gal. But people will keep making the stupid arguement over and over again despite the fact other militaries already allow gays and have no problems.

It drives me nuts that people marginalize a whole group of individuals because the bible tells them so. Even when I was a kid, I didn't understand what was so bad with being gay. Not that I said anything because my town in general and my father in particular are embarassingly homophobic.

One less flying fag.

praise jebus!

nanc

Gays in the military could be used as a great asset, instead of water boarding the prisoner could simply be told ok you don't want to talk we have no choice but to turn you over to the RUMP RANGERS nude and in handcuffs, then see how fast they spill the beans...

#5 | Posted by ATaxpayer

You're sort of, uhm, how can I put this...

... dumb.

He's not the only one

what's wrong with this picture?

don't ask. don't tell.

he apparently cannot follow orders and therefore rendered himself unworthy.

Seriously Who gives a flying fuck if a soldier, airman, naval person is gay?

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-05-20 11:04 AM

Stick around. They'll be here.

what's wrong with this picture?

don't ask. don't tell.

he apparently cannot follow orders and therefore rendered himself unworthy.

#8 | Posted by nanc at 2009-05-20 11:06 AM |

There ya go.

Gheys, like the maryjane, are not natural.
Nobody promised the gheys a pink uniform and all of the latte's they could drink. Why are they even interested in the military in the first place, didn't their school offer up Home Ec or was there only ROTC?

Keep don't ask don't tell in the infantry, and allow gays to openly serve elsewhere. Then when people see it's not a big deal they can get rid of it in the infantry as well.
Sure, it's openly discriminating against gays in the infantry, but who fucking cares? It would be more than gays currently have, and in a short time Don't Ask will be gone anyway.

don't ask. don't tell.

he apparently cannot follow orders and therefore rendered himself unworthy.

#8 | Posted by nanc

Why should don't ask, don't tell apply only to gay. To be fair no military person should be allowed to discuss their personal sexual exploits. And don't dare say they don't because that's total bullshit.

Seriously Who gives a flying fuck if a soldier, airman, naval person is gay?

#7 | Posted by truthhurts

Possibly some of the enlisted men and women?

Possibly some of the enlisted men and women?

#13 | Posted by wisgod

But apparently not most.

But apparently not most.

#14 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Do you have a poll to provide? And have you gotten word from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

i don't care if they're gay - they should follow orders.

Do you have a poll to provide?

#15 | Posted by wisgod

Read the frickin' thread.

Possibly some of the enlisted men and women?

#13 | Posted by wisgod

Never in the history of the world has a person let alone a soldier had to work with a person they weren't comfortable with or didn't like.

If orders came down for them to serve with gays, they'd serve gays whether they liked it or not. And they get over any problems they had. It worked when blacks were integrated.

Military types aren't generally disobedient. And these folks breaking rules because of DADT are purposely torching their careers in an attempt to change the armed services for the better. Not some need to be a loud queen.

Possibly some of the enlisted men and women?

#13 | Posted by wisgod at

so because some neanderthal cant handle his own latent homosexual feelings a hero like this Lt. Col is forced out of the military.

thanks for proving a point.

Here's another one - even though its from 2004, one could reasonable extrapolate that the numbers have improved since then.

"Even among those who oppose allowing gays to serve openly, however, the rationales often used for excluding gays were rejected. Only 16 percent of those opposed believed lesbian and gay service members were 'bad for morale,' while just 12 percent thought allowing gays to serve openly would be 'bad for teamwork,' two justifications frequently used by military leaders who have rejected the idea of allowing gays to serve openly."

You know for the record, I had wonderful sex last night with my finance. We do all sorts of fun things in bed.

But in the office, it isn't appropriate for me to tell about it.

And it's very inappropriate if anyone asked about it.

Doing so could cost a person their job in a formal office setting.

I don't understand the need or call to be open about our sexual experiences regardless of what kind of pee hole you enjoy.

Don't Ask?

Don't Tell?

Don't Work.

Obama promised to get rid of it if elected and now he's saying it's "not his top priority".

Spud hopes that just means he's working on concensus building in the meantime and will announce the cessation of the stupid childish and, ultimately, dangerous tactic ASAP.

Be Well.

i don't care if they're gay - they should follow orders.

#16 | Posted by nanc

I think these guys are trying to make a point that the orders are stupid and it's time to change them. They're willing to throw away careers for this. I think they're brave.

#21 | Posted by Manypaths

But are you're coworkers aware of the fact you have a fiance, do you have a photo on your desk, do you ever talk about your plans for an anniversy, vacation, or wedding?

This guys aren't allowed to acknowledge that their chosen partners are anything other than a good buddy. It's not about sex, it's about being free to talk about an important part of your life.

Also this soldiers are more than just coworkers, they live and work together.

I had wonderful sex last night with my finance.

Yer finance?

You had sex with yer banker?

Did ya pay her back with interest?

Was there a penalty fer early withdrawal?

Does she have nice assets?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

Be Well.

You know for the record, I had wonderful sex last night with my finance.

#21 | Posted by Manypaths

i always knew there was something strange about you.

I think these guys are trying to make a point that the orders are stupid and it's time to change them. They're willing to throw away careers for this.

So are you suggesting that he got what he asked for?

If so, I agree.

Whoops.

Don't tell her that I got it wrong......

And don't ask......

So are you suggesting that he got what he asked for?

#27 | Posted by Manypaths

No I'm suggesting that he's championing for change against a unjust regulation. So by definition what is happening to him is wrong but he's willing to go through that in order to push for change. He's asking for change not a continuation of DADT.

Did he get what he asked for? No.

Did he know what was going to happen? Yes.

Whoops.

Don't tell her that I got it wrong......

And don't ask......

#28 | Posted by Manypaths

I'm assuming your fiance doesn't wear an engagement ring to work because it is a token of a personal relationship which inappropriate in a professional setting.

so because some neanderthal cant handle his own latent homosexual feelings a hero like this Lt. Col is forced out of the military.

thanks for proving a point.

#19 | Posted by truthhurts

Clinton made the rule. Take your outrage up with him.

Now Rogue, you keep referring to straights being comfortable in the presence of gays. We recognize that for straights, the presence of a gay presents no allure, and the gay doesn't arouse sexual desire.

Now you can advise us from a gay perspective of the comfort level of a gay being among straight males in intimate situations. I know that if I am in the presence of women to whom I am attracted in a barracks situation, I would walk around "aroused," probably turgid. And I would be distracted from other matters, sex being such a strong drive.

Was this flyer getting his rocks off being in a virtual deer park with so many attractive sex objects available? Is it fair to the gay to place him is such a milieu? And if he is aroused, non-homosexuals would probably experience "discomfort" if this gay hit on them.

Do you think a gay fellow should be free to make sexual advances to his fellow military personnel? Or should he be required to contain himself?

And do you think that gays should be permitted to act according to their nature if they should feel impelled to go prancing and mincing around and using a falsetto voice? What if the gay is an exhibitionist and drops the towel or is a Peeping Tom type and tries to observe his fellow military's pudenda? Could this create discomfort for some? Should gays be required to hide their "feelings?" How overt can this gayness be without negatively affecting the group?

And remember folks, the military has a crucial function and to be sidetracked by becoming a tool in a social movement even though it might compromise effectiveness does a disservice to the people of this country.

The suggestion that some homosexual would discuss his sex life in interacting with normal men does not confront the reality. His sexuality would be at issue all of a sudden as he thrust it into conversation as if his deviance were normal. It would not be a matter of the same general interest as men discussion women, and most straights would find it repugnant.

As for military polls on a sensitive subject where the orders have come down to take a particular position, those of you familiar with the process recognize how manipulative its conduct is. "If I don't get 100%, then ... And where the officer's review is based in part on his securing compliancem, duress is routinely used.

Come on homosexuals, would this provide for voyeurism or exhibitionism for a "feeling" homosexual? How would you expect him to handle it? Would he need to inhibit his expression of his feelings and actions, or is the onus upon the straights to tolerate whatever excesses in which he might feel compelled to engage.

What we really should be talking about in this forum is how these chickenhawks keep calling out our honorable boots on the ground battle tested military veterans Kerry/Powell and actually got/getting traction.

what's wrong with this picture?
don't ask. don't tell.
he apparently cannot follow orders and therefore rendered himself unworthy.

#8 | Posted by nanc at 2009-05-20 11:06 AM | Reply

Strangely enough, no heterosexual soldier has been discharged for openly telling his sexual orientation.

...which means there is one standard for gays and another for straights. How is this conducive to building a good armed forces? It's a strawman/boogeyman argument...and it's not a logical defense.

Johnson, you seem to be quite the self-anointed expert on gay behavior. Pray, enlighten us as to how you got this information. I'm referring to your posts #33 and #32

Furthermore, how often do you think men and women are around each other in a "barracks situation" as you described it. You are inferring that men and women are naked in front of each other in the military. How do you know this?