wildfirepower
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 508
This thread is on fire.
264,600 may quit military: McCain
- Thread starter wildfirepower
- Start date
So if our soldiers have this much trouble handling working with gays just imagine what these "fine upstanding citizens" will be like when they have to work along side other people when they get out of the military, maybe we should tell them now there are gays in civilian life too.
TheeVagabond
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5
Dadt
Sigh, being prior USMC I can comment on this. I don't see the big deal, military service already makes you gay, because if you can't "take it up the ass?" What good are you?
Sorry, I had to say it.
Sigh, being prior USMC I can comment on this. I don't see the big deal, military service already makes you gay, because if you can't "take it up the ass?" What good are you?
Sorry, I had to say it.
Pericles
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
The main thing I learned from my Army experience is that there are very few problems that occur that could not be rapidly solved by the judicious use of automatic weapons.
Unfortunately, most of the Army recruiting propaganda leads people to think of the Army as a job, competing for labor with the rest of the employment market. There are few "jobs" that may require you to get killed as an expectation of job performance. There are few jobs that may require you to be at work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are some jobs where you give up many of your civil rights as a condition of employment. As a commander, the only limits to my authority to give orders to people in my unit were (A) the missions assigned to me (B) maintaining good order and discipline of my unit. A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. This is a tremendous amount of responsibility and power to entrust to a person. Doing that task well is hard enough as it is.
As a practical matter, you have a number of young people in your unit (except for reserve and HQ units) 90% of which will be under 40 and with a fair number of teens in the mix, the sex drive will be high as a rule. Adding girl GIs to the mix makes the leaders task more difficult (google "queen for a year"). Too much commanders time is used to sort out was it consentual and who was using who. Adding "gay" soldiers to that mix makes commanders (which the Armys is already losing at a rapid rate) jobs even more of a PITA than it already is in getting the real job done.
The reason to have an Army is to defend the country and fight those wars the citizens think necessary. Personnel policies that promote individual career enhancement, and various social objectives either make that Army mission easier or more difficult. Racial integration enhanced efficiency, sexual integration hasn't.
Therefore, comments such as yours don't add much to the debate. You can contribute an opinion as a citizen on what kind of Army you would like to have, but the people who have to deal with the reality of making it happen have a much better understanding of the implications of those decisions.
I've not read the thread, sorry if this has been covered already...
While a US citizen gives up several rights to serve his or her Country, being a homophobe is not a right in and of itself.
Racists serve next to people of other races. Evangelicals serve next to Atheists and non-Abrahamic Theists. Misogynists serve next to women, and militant feminists along side men.
There is no logical, rational reason why gays should be somehow shunned, and forced to hide their natures when they choose to serve this Nation alongside their fellow citizens.
And I seriously doubt that the honorable Mr. McCain's "statistics" are anything but simple hysteria generated to attempt to scare people into keeping the present, out-dated, discriminatory and illegal DADT policy.
While I agree with what you say to an extent , I will say his statistics are probably very realistic .
Perhaps I missed his citation for the source of these numbers?
Even if this satistic was the result of a legitimate poll of armed service members, people talk, especially when change to the status quo is imminent.
I seriously doubt that even a quarter of the nubmer McCain states would "leave early", as if one could annul their enlistment contract. And to be frank, good riddance as those who do leave would probrably be the same fundamentalists that are responsible for prosetylizing in Arab countries and attempting to ship thousands of bibles into Afstan.
Well , there will probably be no changes made , yes , there have been polls taken . The leave early thing would probably be , if changes were made , they would offer an option out ? I think the polls I saw from Army times were people who would not re enlist which closely resembled the data he gave .
I served in Iraq with a aviation support battalion. We had a female bn comander XO, S1, S2 S3 and sgt major. Some joker even listed the Bn in pink on the list for deploying units. A great deal of the admins time was spent trying to prosecute 5 minute stands in the hooches. One of the biggest problems I had was having to quit productive work to take the manditory EEOC, sexual harressment sexual assualt and and other kinder and gentler military classes every little while.The main thing I learned from my Army experience is that there are very few problems that occur that could not be rapidly solved by the judicious use of automatic weapons.
Unfortunately, most of the Army recruiting propaganda leads people to think of the Army as a job, competing for labor with the rest of the employment market. There are few "jobs" that may require you to get killed as an expectation of job performance. There are few jobs that may require you to be at work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are some jobs where you give up many of your civil rights as a condition of employment. As a commander, the only limits to my authority to give orders to people in my unit were (A) the missions assigned to me (B) maintaining good order and discipline of my unit. A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. This is a tremendous amount of responsibility and power to entrust to a person. Doing that task well is hard enough as it is.
As a practical matter, you have a number of young people in your unit (except for reserve and HQ units) 90% of which will be under 40 and with a fair number of teens in the mix, the sex drive will be high as a rule. Adding girl GIs to the mix makes the leaders task more difficult (google "queen for a year"). Too much commanders time is used to sort out was it consentual and who was using who. Adding "gay" soldiers to that mix makes commanders (which the Armys is already losing at a rapid rate) jobs even more of a PITA than it already is in getting the real job done.
The reason to have an Army is to defend the country and fight those wars the citizens think necessary. Personnel policies that promote individual career enhancement, and various social objectives either make that Army mission easier or more difficult. Racial integration enhanced efficiency, sexual integration hasn't.
Therefore, comments such as yours don't add much to the debate. You can contribute an opinion as a citizen on what kind of Army you would like to have, but the people who have to deal with the reality of making it happen have a much better understanding of the implications of those decisions.
Pericles
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
Sorry, but as an Armor guy I have to LMAO at that.
To be quite frank, if someone is so homophobic that they cannot serve their country besides a gay person, they shouldn't be in uniform representing this Nation, IMHO.
As far as the Army Times poll...
The Military Times poll showed that troops generally are satisfied with the current policy banning open service by gays, but that opposition to repeal is steadily dropping.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/military_dontask_survey_070710w/
As I stated, I imagine many are voicing only a halfhearted opposition merely due to the change in the status quo.
The only real threat is combat arms . It is all that matters . In an economy like this , all the gravy jobs that are held by lower enlisted could be filled ( still costs money to do the training ) . Those young E 4 's & E 5's in combat arms with 4 or 5 years experience are the people who would be influenced by this and frankly , the military is not in a position to do without them . How many Liberty People or gays will volunteer for those jobs ? very few . Will the unemployment recover next year ? if it does that would just add to the problem. In the end , this decision should be left to the Generals . They are the only people who will be required to make it work and held accountable . If it was me , I would open up the non combat arms and give it a try .
Look, I'm sorry, but there simply is no reason or rationality to continue a clearly discriminatory policy in the armed forces of a Nation that supposedly prides herself on the ideals of Liberty, Freedom, and Equality. And people's careers have been ruined by the mere accusation of being gay as well.
Will we loose a few people in the military? Sure, and good riddance. If these people are so intolerant that they cannot serve next to gays, they should not be representing our Nation overseas. If they cannot at least serve next to people they hate, how then can they do their jobs effectively in areas with cultures they cannot respect?
Will we cripple our military forces as has been the claim? No, we will not, this is mere hysterical propaganda. Just as when desegregation policies created units of mixed races, there are people who will complain, there are people who will threaten to "leave early" as well, and yes, some will indeed leave.
And we were a better, stronger military for those bigots leaving.
Would people call women bigots if they started leaving the military because they were forced to share showers with men oogling them?
Any other non sequiturs you'd like to bring to the table?
Care to answer the question? You are quick to call people bigots but you don't seem to be able to answer the question.
I didn't bother trying to ask your "question" because it didn't deserve an answer.
If you can locate a movement to force men and women to shower together, bring it into the discussion.
Otherwise, it is completely unrelated to this discussion, and a usual tactic of those who really do not have any standing upon which to base their opinions and arguments, ie the tactic of simple distraction.
The comparison is that you have a movement to move openly gay men and women, into straight military shower facilities. Why do they seperate male and female shower facilities now? For that matter why should taxpayers have to pay for seperate sex restrooms?
A lot of men that might leave may not be bigots as you call them but would rather not share showers with openly gay men oogling them. If men are moved into female showers do you think the women would be bigots because they don't want to be naked in a shower with sex deprived men staring at them? A lot of people are not comfortable being exposed to the opposite sex or the same sex if that person is looking at their naked body with sexual desire. Does that make them bigots? Having spent 20 years in the military I can say I know a little about how things are run.
There already ARE gay men and women in military showers. What, you think gays have separate shower facilities, or that their comrades don't know they are gay already? Kind of difficult for a gay man to hide the fact when he doesn't look at pretty women like his straight buddies do.
This is why your argument just keeps failing, and remains a simple distraction. Being open about one's sexuality does not change day to day behaviors. Gay men won't suddenly all turn flamboyantly gay and put sequins on their uniforms. There wouldn't be a sudden rash of ass grabbing in the showers. There will be a complete absence of roving gangs of gays dragging straights off into the night for a gang rape.
The ONLY things that will change is that people will not have their careers ruined by even accusations of being gay.
BTW, there are two forms of discrimination, justified and unjustified. Separate facilities for women are justified from a simple safety viewpoint.
Forcing a person willing to put their lives on the line to serve their country to live a lie merely because a fraction of the military would be "uncomfortable" is absolutely unjustified. Especially when "openly hetero" behaviors, and relationships (within DOD guidelines) are perfectly acceptable.
And yes, like the word or not, by definition those who would leave because of the repeal of the unconstitutional DADT policy are indeed bigots.
Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
If the word offends you, then perhaps it should.
Similar threads
