Recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants.

[McAllyn]

It's always strange that those who otherwise appear to be conservative, libertarian types show themselves to only be that way wrt things that go their way.

True freedom, individual liberty as it should be here, is ugly and annoying at times. When others can do basically whatever they wish as long as they don't impinge on YOUR rights, you have to tolerate a lot more, even things you think are 'sinful' or 'wrong'. I'm a devout Christian that has certain religious beliefs regarding things, but my country is supposed to be about individual liberty. Those that wish to impose your religious-based morals on others, be careful - one day the majority of folks may have a different religious viewpoint than you and shove THEIR morals down your throat...

"Let's hope it's not the damn Hari-Krishnas."

This moment of levity brought to you by a 14yr old retard.

[Guest Jamie]

"Let's hope it's not the damn Hari-Krishnas."

This moment of levity brought to you by a 14yr old retard.

Or the Jehovah's Witnesses.... 'cause I don't think I could take the required leg work.

( More levity, in case the first dose didn't take. )

[mikegideon]

"Let's hope it's not the damn Hari-Krishnas."

This moment of levity brought to you by a 14yr old retard.

Haven't you heard... the Muslims are coming

[Guest mustangdave]

WOW...16 pages...and maybe counting...we need a KWIK reference to kill this thread...KWIK...IS not GAY....he just enjoys the attention

[Guest Jamie]

WOW...16 pages...and maybe counting...we need a KWIK reference to kill this thread...KWIK...IS not GAY....he just enjoys the attention

A f***ed a**hole that enjoys the attention...?

Sounds gay to me.

[mikegideon]

WOW...16 pages...and maybe counting...we need a KWIK reference to kill this thread...KWIK...IS not GAY....he just enjoys the attention

See post #27. BTW... I think he IS gay.

[McAllyn]

WOW...16 pages...and maybe counting...we need a KWIK reference to kill this thread...KWIK...IS not GAY....he just enjoys the attention

Ah, but don't forget, he did serve in the military.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I'm not going to explain it, only point out that the constitutionality probably hasn't been ruled on yet... and that it may very well be now, and soon, in light of what we're currently discussing.

Remember, everything has to start somewhere, and several things have been examined and ruled on that hadn't been touched by the courts in a very long time.

"Limited" is one thing... Misconduct, for instance, wouldn't be tolerated from any soldier, "straight" or otherwise. However, there's a big difference in having rules of conduct that cover certain situations, and simply banning an act - or even admitting to it, ever - altogether. Not letting soldiers talk about certain things isn't the same as not letting them talk at all, ever, for as long as they're in the military, or letting someone know that they ever have spoken.

( This sort of gets back to the whole "no yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" argument, also. )

I seriously doubt anything but time without the rule can answer that. I suspect though that all of the claims that having openly-homosexual people in the military will prove to be it's undoing will turn out to be like the claims that if people are allowed to carry guns anywhere they want, that the streets will run with rivers of blood.

Yes, go, get smarter.

Just because you and I have different opinions doesnt make either more or less intelligent sir

And yes time will have to tell but my thoughts are that flamboyant gays who want their sexual preference to be known havent joined in part because of the rule. If it is removed maybe they will join now that they can freely express their sexual preference. Maybe they wont even go into combat roles but possibly wish to serve in traditionally more feminine roles

[McAllyn]

Just because you and I have different opinions doesnt make either more or less intelligent sir

And yes time will have to tell but my thoughts are that flamboyant gays who want their sexual preference to be known havent joined in part because of the rule. If it is removed maybe they will join now that they can freely express their sexual preference. Maybe they wont even go into combat roles but possibly wish to serve in traditionally more feminine roles

Or, maybe it will butch them up a little, and cure their gayness! Then we all win!

Sorry, that was uncalled for, but this seems to be dragging on and is becoming tiresome.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

It's always strange that those who otherwise appear to be conservative, libertarian types show themselves to only be that way wrt things that go their way.

True freedom, individual liberty as it should be here, is ugly and annoying at times. When others can do basically whatever they wish as long as they don't impinge on YOUR rights, you have to tolerate a lot more, even things you think are 'sinful' or 'wrong'. I'm a devout Christian that has certain religious beliefs regarding things, but my country is supposed to be about individual liberty. Those that wish to impose your religious-based morals on others, be careful - one day the majority of folks may have a different religious viewpoint than you and shove THEIR morals down your throat...

I would agree that liberty is something that needs to be protected. However in the military it seem IMO that certain liberties are limited/reduced for the efficiency of the military as a whole. Perhaps one's right to openly profess their homosexuality is one of those???

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Or, maybe it will butch them up a little, and cure their gayness! Then we all win!

Sorry, that was uncalled for, but this seems to be dragging on and is becoming tiresome.

Lol...I know it drags on but at least it gives us something to do haha.

[mikegideon]

Ah, but don't forget, he did serve in the military.

Probably why he hasn't come out yet

[Daniel]

Just because you and I have different opinions doesnt make either more or less intelligent sir

And yes time will have to tell but my thoughts are that flamboyant gays who want their sexual preference to be known havent joined in part because of the rule. If it is removed maybe they will join now that they can freely express their sexual preference. Maybe they wont even go into combat roles but possibly wish to serve in traditionally more feminine roles

I am not aware of a traditionally more feminine role in the army. Care to enlighten?

[BryanP]

I would agree that liberty is something that needs to be protected. However in the military it seem IMO that certain liberties are limited/reduced for the efficiency of the military as a whole. Perhaps one's right to openly profess their homosexuality is one of those???

It is true that some individual rights are restricted while in military service. However, it is NOT done on an unequal basis. So unless you plan to ban all expressions of heterosexuality as well you might want to rethink your logic.

[Guest KimberChick]

I am not aware of a traditionally more feminine role in the army. Care to enlighten?

I think what he's trying to convey is that a rather openly gay man, or what society percieves as such, could be less likely to be a grunt. Granted it's perpetuating one hell of a stereotype.

[Guest db99wj]

Just because you and I have different opinions doesnt make either more or less intelligent sir

And yes time will have to tell but my thoughts are that flamboyant gays who want their sexual preference to be known havent joined in part because of the rule. If it is removed maybe they will join now that they can freely express their sexual preference. Maybe they wont even go into combat roles but possibly wish to serve in traditionally more feminine roles

It shouldn't be about them freely expressing their sexual preferences, absolutely nothing, Nada, zilch. There is no room for that kind of crap in the military, hetero, homo, metro, bi, uni, etc or for ANY workplace for that matter. It is about being treated fairly in promotions, posts, etc without being pushed out because of their sexual orientation. It should be a don't ask, don't tell and add in, because nobody should give a damn.

Oh, FYI, I spent 1990-1998 in the Tennessee Army National Guard.

Edited October 20, 2010 by db99wj

[mikegideon]

I think what he's trying to convey is that a rather openly gay man, or what society percieves as such, could be less likely to be a grunt. Granted it's perpetuating one hell of a stereotype.

This whole thread is about stereotypes.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

It is true that some individual rights are restricted while in military service. However, it is NOT done on an unequal basis. So unless you plan to ban all expressions of heterosexuality as well you might want to rethink your logic.

Well we do make decisions based on heterosexual logic such as men and women using separate bathing and sleeping facilities. I am ok with openly homosexual service members IF we make some changes to the bathing and changing facilities accordingly to reflect a similar setup to those used in the male/female division. I however do not think it is right to tell someone's son they have to shower with an openly gay man when we wouldnt require our daughter to shower with a man of any sort.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Flamboyantly gay or not they still have to conform to the UCMJ. They aren't going to be running around wearing pink tutu's with rank on them. They're going to wear the uniform as required and perform their jobs professionally as required or they'll get the boot. Not because they are gay but because they failed to meet the military standard required for enlistment and retention.

As far as women in the military, keep in mind that they are held to a lesser physical fitness standard. This is why they are restricted from certain jobs where it is CRITICAL to meet those standards. And restriction or not I'd bet any woman who proved they could meet that physical standard and made a big enough deal of it could get into any job in the military. Also there is some congressional resistance to allowing women in combat roles not just the military.

A poll of the military would have prevented black military units being formed because segregation was the norm at the time.

A poll of the military would have prevented black integration in the military because segregation was the norm at the time.

A poll of the military would have prevented women from serving in the military because segregation (of women) was the norm at the time.

The military doesn't get to pick and choose anything. They take their orders from the Constitution, the President, and Congress. In that order. The military cannot have a political will. This is what really rankled the hippies when the military didn't just embrace peace and free love and refuse to go to Vietnam. A military with a political will soon becomes a military dictatorship. A good example of a military with a political will? Look up the Praetorian Guard.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I think what he's trying to convey is that a rather openly gay man, or what society percieves as such, could be less likely to be a grunt. Granted it's perpetuating one hell of a stereotype.

Not trying to stereotype too bad but in some homosexual relationships you will have a more feminine partner/partners. Under the current policy they would likely not permitted to openly exhibit their feminine behavior therefore they would likely not join. Instead the ones who currently enlist would appear to be the more masculine partners whose behavior would be more likely to conform to the heterosexual male stereotype outside of their specific sexual partner preference.

[Guest db99wj]

The shower thing is an issue. Even if the person is not attracted the person, they can have physical attractions beyond that, so saying a if men and women were to shower together or a gay man with other straight men, and the potential for arousal or "checking out the goods" is still high. The person could be a complete as$hat, ugly as a box of rocks, and you hate them, but could be attracted to physical features.

Bring back saltpeter and fix all the problems of sexual ideas.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Flamboyantly gay or not they still have to conform to the UCMJ. They aren't going to be running around wearing pink tutu's with rank on them. They're going to wear the uniform as required and perform their jobs professionally as required or they'll get the boot. Not because they are gay but because they failed to meet the military standard required for enlistment and retention.

As far as women in the military, keep in mind that they are held to a lesser physical fitness standard. This is why they are restricted from certain jobs where it is CRITICAL to meet those standards. And restriction or not I'd bet any woman who proved they could meet that physical standard and made a big enough deal of it could get into any job in the military. Also there is some congressional resistance to allowing women in combat roles not just the military.

A poll of the military would have prevented black military units being formed because segregation was the norm at the time.

A poll of the military would have prevented black integration in the military because segregation was the norm at the time.

A poll of the military would have prevented women from serving in the military because segregation (of women) was the norm at the time.

The military doesn't get to pick and choose anything. They take their orders from the Constitution, the President, and Congress. In that order. The military cannot have a political will. This is what really rankled the hippies when the military didn't just embrace peace and free love and refuse to go to Vietnam. A military with a political will soon becomes a military dictatorship. A good example of a military with a political will? Look up the Praetorian Guard.

So are you saying the military has never been granted deference or rather that it shouldnt have been granted such deference if it had been granted?

[Guest KimberChick]

This whole thread is about stereotypes.

lol, truthiness....you has it.

Who cares where they like to dip their wick, so long as they love their country and are prepared to defend it to their death.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

The shower thing is an issue. Even if the person is not attracted the person, they can have physical attractions beyond that, so saying a if men and women were to shower together or a gay man with other straight men, and the potential for arousal or "checking out the goods" is still high. The person could be a complete as$hat, ugly as a box of rocks, and you hate them, but could be attracted to physical features.

Bring back saltpeter and fix all the problems of sexual ideas.

Well at least someone here agrees the shower thing is an issue. If you address that I am more comfortable with allowing open gays and lesbians in the military. Maybe setting separate bunk/shower facilities is the answer? IDK precisely but I think it must be addressed. The issue of sexual attraction and the possible side affects is a very different issue from racial segregation IMO.

[Guest GT_Rat]

The prohibition of women in combat roles is Congressionally mandated. The military doesn't make that decision.