Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yahoo News: Pentagon starts clock on lifting gay ban


cedk

Recommended Posts

As long as they enforce the no-fraternization laws which go for opposite sex and same sex relationships, it should be manageable. It will create a period of initial awkwardness and make homophobes and bigots very uncomfortable, but I don't know that we should let them set this country's course. More, as we all know by now gay people have been serving ably, responsibly, and nobly throughout America's history. So, this is a superficial change that might mean a great deal to those baring that particular cross or hiding that particular secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special Investigation is read, "buying time to get stupid conservative Senators to wake up and realize that gays can shoot as well as straights."

Well, it only makes sense that straights would shoot straighter, but if you need to hit an enemy that's hiding around a corner... Well, having a gay with you provides all sorts of trick shot opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Guys fighting in afghanistan and Iraq who's time is about up now have to decide whether they want to continue to server their country along side homosexuals, or resign and let them take the bullets for a change.

I have a feeling this will backfire on morale, recruiting, and retention, and you cannot convince me that opening the military to an infinitesimally small demographic will make up for what it may lose from the current demographics, unless of course you guys want to bring back the draft ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it only makes sense that straights would shoot straighter, but if you need to hit an enemy that's hiding around a corner... Well, having a gay with you provides all sorts of trick shot opportunities.

I probably shouldn't have laughed at that.:ols:....but I did.:(

I was also watching Eddie Izzard's bit on "Dressed to Kill" about why he's not in the Army. I'd post it but parts are NSFW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they enforce the no-fraternization laws which go for opposite sex and same sex relationships, it should be manageable. It will create a period of initial awkwardness and make homophobes and bigots very uncomfortable, but I don't know that we should let them set this country's course. More, as we all know by now gay people have been serving ably, responsibly, and nobly throughout America's history. So, this is a superficial change that might mean a great deal to those baring that particular cross or hiding that particular secret.

You ignore other issues,the same ones that make gender integration difficult.

I guess women that don't wish to share showers,bathrooms and quarters with males are bigots and Feminazi's in your eyes?:ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Guys fighting in afghanistan and Iraq who's time is about up now have to decide whether they want to continue to server their country along side homosexuals, or resign and let them take the bullets for a change.

You know there is stupid and then there is this. I bet you really don't believe that there are gays who have been killed in the armed forces do you?

Gays can't be patriots right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally Obama making some change no one can stop,

Democrats can be proud.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100130/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_gays

First off I am in favor of doing away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But people in favor of ending the policy may want to hold off on popping the champagne corks right now and put that bottle next to the "Close Gitmo" and "Reform Healthcare" bottles. Several year process? Yeah, nothing could possible be changed in that period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know there is stupid and then there is this. I bet you really don't believe that there are gays who have been killed in the armed forces do you?

Gays can't be patriots right?

That is not my point, what does this seriously accomplish? Little if you ask me, very little in deed. frankly I don't care what a persons choice of sexual orientation is. I don't, I think its the wrong move, and I expect the US to be judged for it from on High.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Guys fighting in afghanistan and Iraq who's time is about up now have to decide whether they want to continue to server their country along side homosexuals, or resign and let them take the bullets for a change.

I have a feeling this will backfire on morale, recruiting, and retention, and you cannot convince me that opening the military to an infinitesimally small demographic will make up for what it may lose from the current demographics, unless of course you guys want to bring back the draft ;)

This pretty much sums it up, except you forgot to add those returning home and choosing not to re-up will be called bigots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know there is stupid and then there is this. I bet you really don't believe that there are gays who have been killed in the armed forces do you?

Gays can't be patriots right?

There absolutely have been gays killed in the Armed Forces...at least one right there in your neck of the woods. While I agree that this policy change is the right thing to do it would be foolish to think that there won't be some pretty significant ripples throughout the military. It won't be long before we have the threads talking about the unfriendly environment in the military for homosexuals. And what could leadership have done to prevent.......thread. And no doubt some skilled soldiers will decide to get out of the "new" military. There is a reason why the President didn't choose the executive order route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pretty much sums it up, except you forgot to add those returning home and choosing not to re-up will be called bigots.

I know, I find the practice reprehensible my self, but as long as their lifestyle isn't being flaunted in my face, I could care less what they do in their 'private time'. However, because as a Christian I believe God's word and what it says about homosexuality, I am naturally going to be called a Bigot for speaking what I believe to be the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent news, finally talk turns into action.

And the Guys fighting in afghanistan and Iraq who's time is about up now have to decide whether they want to continue to server their country along side homosexuals, or resign and let them take the bullets for a change.

They already are serving alongside homosexuals, who are already taking bullets.

I have a feeling this will backfire on morale, recruiting, and retention, and you cannot convince me that opening the military to an infinitesimally small demographic will make up for what it may lose from the current demographics, unless of course you guys want to bring back the draft ;)

I'd argue that if bigots and homophobes decline to serve, it would improve overall morale, because they're generally jerks. Plus, it's not quite "infinitesimal":

Between 1997 and 2008, the Defense Department discharged more than 10,500 service members for violating the policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its great isn't it? If you disagree or don't approve of gay lifestyles you are considered either a bigot or a homophobe.

Not approving doesn't necessarily indicate bigotry, and is a personal choice or morality that is fine to hold. But when it turns to banning by law that which you don't approve of, or refusing to serve with them, then I think it's bigotry/homophobia, or at least a very extreme version of "not approving". What term or phrase would you use to describe that reaction?

And is it consistent? Does someone who also doesn't approve of premarital sex want anyone in the Army who does it kicked out? When and why does disaproval turn into outlawing something by law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not bigotry if you choose not to serve with a gay person, its a moral decision. The left will label them bigots and come crying once they realize our military doesn't have enough enrollment to be effective. This will mean having to 1. Make it more attractive through offering higher pay and 2. Signing people up that don't want to be there.

Sounds like a morale booster to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not bigotry if you choose not to serve with a gay person, its a moral decision.

It's intolerance of another person's personal decisions enough that you refuse to be around them, and would prefer they be banned from being around you. That's a very strong "moral stance". Some who hold it may not be classic bigots, but the reaction is indistinguishable from that of a full-blown bigot/homophobe.

The left will label them bigots and come crying once they realize our military doesn't have enough enrollment to be effective. This will mean having to 1. Make it more attractive through offering higher pay and 2. Signing people up that don't want to be there.

Sounds like a morale booster to me.

Most clear-thinking soldiers will get over it. Those that don't feel it's more important that a person whose lifestyle they find immoral not serve alongside them than to serve at all, so I won't be crying if those types quit or don't enroll. They're apparently not serving with national security as their primary reason, so good riddance.

And I'm sure there were similar cries of doom when blacks were integrated too. That seemed to work out okay.

Let's not forget, gays already serve in the military and it functions well. They just don't serve openly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's intolerance of another person's personal decisions enough that you refuse to be around them, and would prefer they be banned from being around you. That's a very strong "moral stance". Some who hold it may not be classic bigots, but the reaction is indistinguishable from that of a full-blown bigot/homophobe.

Mandating the terms of tolerance as well as the nature of volunteerism now?

Can't win for losing if you don't embrace a PC action can ya?:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...