Obama ends don't ask don't tell

[Tsar Fire]

If one of the reasons is homophobia, that's all the more reason to end the policy. The Supreme Court didn't eventually say "oh, sorry black people, you have to keep riding in the back of the bus because you'll scare the white children in front." No, they said **** your racist bullshit nonsense, black people can sit wherever they damn well please.

So if the soldiers are homophobic, they can suck it up and deal with it. If a soldier acts on his homophobia, then he's in trouble. He should be more concerned with the military justice system screwing him up the ass than he should of gay people.

And consider this. Our military is stretched thin. One of the reasons is because of our stubborn refusal to remove thousands upon thousands of troops from Germany and Japan, where we don't even need to be. When we have a troop shortage, so much so that military recruiters are sticking a gun into the hands of every poor person they can dupe, you don't tell people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, a country that barely views them as a human being mind you, "thanks but no thanks, we don't need your kind here." That's just a whole new level of stupidity.

Rebuttal. This shouldn't be relevant to troops serving in the field, and yes, I think they should keep a don't ask don't tell policy, not because I think Gays are evil subhuman mutations, but because it can and will probably cause a great deal of tension in the barracks.

Do you want to take a big communal shower if you know sergeant Lavinsky over there is checking you out? No. Do you really want to deal with the fact that one of your squad might have the hots for you? Not really.

Soldiers don't need these distractions, and frankly, sexual orientation shouldn't even come up. When these men(and women) are living in a life and death situation, having to consider the sexual orientation of the rest of the room when you are getting dressed shouldn't be an issue.

We don't have guy+girl combo barracks either, and for obvious reasons. Soldiers just don't need the distraction. They don't need to think about any member of their squad as anything but that; a squadmate.

 

[Viggy]

Rebuttal. This shouldn't be relevant to troops serving in the field, and yes, I think they should keep a don't ask don't tell policy, not because I think Gays are evil subhuman mutations, but because it can and will probably cause a great deal of tension in the barracks.

Do you want to take a big communal shower if you know sergeant Lavinsky over there is checking you out? No. Do you really want to deal with the fact that one of your squad might have the hots for you? Not really.

Soldiers don't need these distractions, and frankly, sexual orientation shouldn't even come up. When these men(and women) are living in a life and death situation, having to consider the sexual orientation of the rest of the room when you are getting dressed shouldn't be an issue.

We don't have guy+girl combo barracks either, and for obvious reasons. Soldiers just don't need the distraction. They don't need to think about any member of their squad as anything but that; a squadmate.

Rebuttal. When black people and other ethnic minorities were trying to get their equal rights, it was very tense. But because equal rights are kind of a big deal, the laws were changed anyway.

Openly homosexual soldiers will not be any less well-disciplined then other soldiers. If any one of them does get frisky in the showers or whatever, that is a bad reflection on that soldier, not on openly homosexual soldiers in general. Likewise, it is bad for a straight soldier to be getting all worried about his squadmate just because his squadmate is gay. They're soldiers, not teenagers. They will be mature, or they will learn to be mature.

I agree that sexual orientation shouldn't come up, but a gay soldier shouldn't have to hide it either. Because that is a homophobic policy, and I think most of us can agree that homophobia is bad, mkay?

 

[Sovereign]

Rebuttal. This shouldn't be relevant to troops serving in the field, and yes, I think they should keep a don't ask don't tell policy, not because I think Gays are evil subhuman mutations, but because it can and will probably cause a great deal of tension in the barracks.

Do you want to take a big communal shower if you know sergeant Lavinsky over there is checking you out? No. Do you really want to deal with the fact that one of your squad might have the hots for you? Not really.

Soldiers don't need these distractions, and frankly, sexual orientation shouldn't even come up. When these men(and women) are living in a life and death situation, having to consider the sexual orientation of the rest of the room when you are getting dressed shouldn't be an issue.

We don't have guy+girl combo barracks either, and for obvious reasons. Soldiers just don't need the distraction. They don't need to think about any member of their squad as anything but that; a squadmate.

Getting rid of don't ask don't tell isn't about holding gay parades in a military barrack. Most gay people don't exactly shout their sexual orientations on roof tops FYI.

The problem is that with don't ask don't tell, if people FIND OUT that you are gay, you will be kicked out of the army, which is ridiculous. Everyone should have the right to serve in the military. Gay people are Americans as well, and they have every right to defend their country.

 

[Niner]

Just to have it known, the don't ask don't tell policy was often used as a "get out quick" card by men and women who wanted out of the military. about 90 percent of those who were kicked out due to this policy voluntereed the information of their sexual orientation themselves. It was most common right before a deployment actually....so the statistics of gays that were "Kicked from the military" is very large but only about 10 percent of them were against their will....

 

[Sovereign]

Just to have it known, the don't ask don't tell policy was often used as a "get out quick" card by men and women who wanted out of the military. about 90 percent of those who were kicked out due to this policy voluntereed the information of their sexual orientation themselves. It was most common right before a deployment actually....so the statistics of gays that were "Kicked from the military" is very large but only about 10 percent of them were against their will....

Another reason to end it.

 

[Niner]

Another reason to end it.

I'm not going to get into arguments over it, I just wanted to state that fact so it would be clear. Oh and my information came from my Dad, who was a Commander in the United States Navy so it can be trusted as fairly reliable.

 

[Viggy]

Just to have it known, the don't ask don't tell policy was often used as a "get out quick" card by men and women who wanted out of the military. about 90 percent of those who were kicked out due to this policy voluntereed the information of their sexual orientation themselves. It was most common right before a deployment actually....so the statistics of gays that were "Kicked from the military" is very large but only about 10 percent of them were against their will....

So, assuming this information is reliable... Not only is a policy of intolerance being allowed to go on, but it is also helping people who probably aren't even gay at all to cowardly abandon their duty.

Seriously, Obama needs to hurry up and end this shit.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Rebuttal. This shouldn't be relevant to troops serving in the field, and yes, I think they should keep a don't ask don't tell policy, not because I think Gays are evil subhuman mutations, but because it can and will probably cause a great deal of tension in the barracks.

Stuff like this is always tense. You don't hold back the forwarding of civil rights because it might be tense. Black people aren't forced to keep sitting on the back of the bus because it might be a little tense between them and white people. No, we did it anyway. It's called suck it up and deal with it. That goes for both gays and straights. The tension will eventually go away.

Do you want to take a big communal shower if you know sergeant Lavinsky over there is checking you out? No. Do you really want to deal with the fact that one of your squad might have the hots for you? Not really.

I don't give a shit. Why should it bother me? Why should it bother you? It's just a guy feeling his natural feelings. Am I going to take him out on a date? **** no, I'm not gay, but I don't care what a gay guy is thinking if I'm standing right next to him. It really shouldn't matter.

Soldiers don't need these distractions, and frankly, sexual orientation shouldn't even come up. When these men(and women) are living in a life and death situation, having to consider the sexual orientation of the rest of the room when you are getting dressed shouldn't be an issue.

We don't have guy+girl combo barracks either, and for obvious reasons. Soldiers just don't need the distraction. They don't need to think about any member of their squad as anything but that; a squadmate.

If you're actually considering the sexual orientation of people around the room, ie. you're saying "oh shit is that guy gay? Please tell me he's not gay," then you're homophobic. All the more reason to end this stupid policy. The best way to get people used to someone different, just like how we got white people used to black people, is to force them together and make them interact. If you don't do that, then they'll keep on being racist or homophobic thinking that the other person is sub-human because that's what's convenient for them.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

We don't have guy+girl combo barracks either, and for obvious reasons. Soldiers just don't need the distraction. They don't need to think about any member of their squad as anything but that; a squadmate.

Actually we do, at least in the Army. I know at basic depending on your MOS you could be in a co-ed barracks. Why? Because most people can keep it in their god damn pants, and because barracks in the army now a days your barracks are more like two bedroom hotel rooms. You've got your room, your room-mates room and a kitchen/living area you share.

 

[Neutrino]

Actually we do, at least in the Army. I know at basic depending on your MOS you could be in a co-ed barracks. Why? Because most people can keep it in their god damn pants, and because barracks in the army now a days your barracks are more like two bedroom hotel rooms. You've got your room, your room-mates room and a kitchen/living area you share.

Yup. But for basic at Benning you don't even get walls. ^_^

Anyway, only because your sexual orientation says you like a specific gender, doesn't mean you automatically want to be with everyone of that gender. For example, I am straight. That doesn't mean I'm attracted to everyone of the opposite gender. If you're worried about someone of the same gender liking you just because they prefer your gender, then you need to get over yourself and grow the **** up.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Yup. But for basic at Benning you don't even get walls. ^_^

Anyway, only because your sexual orientation says you like a specific gender, doesn't mean you automatically want to be with everyone of that gender. For example, I am straight. That doesn't mean I'm attracted to everyone of the opposite gender. If you're worried about someone of the same gender liking you just because they prefer your gender, then you need to get over yourself and grow the **** up.

This, exactly.

Why do people think that gay people just want to stick it in every hole they can find?

 

[Viggy]

Why do people think that gay people just want to stick it in every hole they can find?

Well, to be fair, the nature of most gay pride parades isn't exactly helping to debunk that stereotype. >_>

 

[Cailst]

So, assuming this information is reliable... Not only is a policy of intolerance being allowed to go on, but it is also helping people who probably aren't even gay at all to cowardly abandon their duty.

Seriously, Obama needs to hurry up and end this shit.

Wouldn't it be better that a coward leaves before their cowardliness can have a chance at a causing a problem?

 

[Viggy]

Wouldn't it be better that a coward leaves before their cowardliness can have a chance at a causing a problem?

Maybe, but even cowards are better then nothing. A good officer might be able to put some courage into them once they're actually deployed.

If nothing else, the enemy will waste a few bullets on them. :CHappy:

 

[Cailst]

Maybe, but even cowards are better then nothing. A good officer might be able to put some courage into them once they're actually deployed.

If nothing else, the enemy will waste a few bullets on them. :CHappy:

Not if you think they're going to do something that they won't. If a leader doesn't know the morale quality of his own troops, that could either put a damper on what can be done or if he thinks it to be better than it is, it could lead to a serious disaster. Knowing your own forces is half way to winning and if you don't know them, then victory is unlikely. Safety valves which allow uncommitted soldiers to leave can be very helpful.

 

[Niner]

Maybe, but even cowards are better then nothing. A good officer might be able to put some courage into them once they're actually deployed.

If nothing else, the enemy will waste a few bullets on them. :CHappy:

I like you Viggy but I'm afraid I'm going to have to talk about this post.

I plan on being an officer in the USMC, and I'll be damned if I want a man in my squad who might turn tail and run a the sight of danger. You know why? Everyone relies on everyone else. Just one man being a cowards can ruin an entire squad. I would rather have five brave men and take on a legion of soldiers, then have twenty cowards and take on a legion of washer women.

 

[Viggy]

Not if you think they're going to do something that they won't. If a leader doesn't know the morale quality of his own troops, that could either put a damper on what can be done or if he thinks it to be better than it is, it could lead to a serious disaster. Knowing your own forces is half way to winning and if you don't know them, then victory is unlikely. Safety valves which allow uncommitted soldiers to leave can be very helpful.

A valid point. But I believe the US Army prefers to just keep all the troops it can get, and considering they've been suffering losses lately, who can blame them? Besides, 'leaving' translates to 'desertion', which is a crime. And it sounds to me like homophobia is allowing soldiers to easily get away with the crime of desertion, simply by claiming to be gay.

Plus, it's clearly just wrong and unfair to deny openly gay people the right to serve their country - whether the "don't ask don't tell" policy helps to get rid of the uncommitted and cowardly soldiers or not is unimportant in this argument.

I like you Viggy but I'm afraid I'm going to have to talk about this post.

I plan on being an officer in the USMC, and I'll be damned if I want a man in my squad who might turn tail and run a the sight of danger. You know why? Everyone relies on everyone else. Just one man being a cowards can ruin an entire squad. I would rather have five brave men and take on a legion of soldiers, then have twenty cowards and take on a legion of washer women.

Good to know, I like you too. And Niner, I'm not so sensitive that you need to start your post with a disclaimer like that. Go ahead and point it out when I'm wrong! I won't cry or anything, lol.

Anyway, you're right. Keeping cowards out of the military is important. But as I said to Cailst, that doesn't have much to do with the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Stopping soldiers from being cowardly is an issue of recruitment and training.

 

[Ser Yorick]

This, exactly.

Why do people think that gay people just want to stick it in every hole they can find?

Because I'm just so damn sexy, GOSH! Of course the gays are going to want to stick it in my pooper.

 

[Venom]

Wouldn't it be better that a coward leaves before their cowardliness can have a chance at a causing a problem?

I actually completely agree with you. Having a way someone who really doesn't want to be there to easily get out seems like a pretty good idea when they will probably be counted on in a combat situation.

 

[Neutrino]

I actually completely disagree with the idea of letting someone, who signed a contract, cop out at the last second.

Follow orders, do your job, and if you don't want to be deployed badly enough, then do something stupid. Get dishonorably discharged. The end.