Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   CJCS Adm Mullen to troops: "If you can't serve with gays, then GTFO"   (foxnews.com) divider line 490
    More: Hero, CJCS Adm Mullen, GTFO, ADM, Real Clear Politics, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, military organizations, Senate Armed Services Committee, meritocracy  
•       •       •

20818 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Dec 2010 at 1:03 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



490 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-02 01:45:38 PM  
"I'm ready to fight and kill and die for my country...so long as there aren't any f*ggots. At least none that I know about."

gg patriotism
 
2010-12-02 01:45:44 PM  
treesloth: They're more critical than ever. I assume that the gay men will shower with the straight women and the lesbians will shower with the straight men.

Straight men have been sharing showers with gay men since antiquity. Just as they have been sharing them with Jews and people of other races.

Grow up and get over it already.
 
2010-12-02 01:45:50 PM  
littlebadwolf: Men don't want to live with gay men for the same reason women won't want to live with men. Sharing close quarters is inevitable and nobody seems to be addressing the argument that straight men should be afforded the same courtesy women are (separate quarters/showers/etc...)

The dems just don't get the whole issue either. They have the president and he's the commander in chief. If he were to simply state, "this is how it's going to be." The troops may not like it, but they'll respect it. He needs to lead, not build a consensus.

Having been in the military, I can say that from a performance point of view I'd rather have gay men than women.

/flame on
//not that there's anything wrong with that


Agreed, I'm currently deployed and live in close quarters with 2 other guys. If one of them were openly gay, I'd request a new room. Other than that I'd really have no problem being in the military with gay people. Just keep them out of my bedroom.
 
2010-12-02 01:45:55 PM  
12349876: bodyshots: they dont want pedro checking them out?

they dont want pedro checking them out while in a combat situation?



/best i can do with Paint


Onion did it already. (new window)
 
2010-12-02 01:45:57 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 1. Would a captured openly gay soldier be treated worse by enemy combatants? In areas like Afghanistan, the head-chopping is going to happen regardless of sexual affiliation. However, would enemies try to torture an openly homosexual soldier more than a heterosexual soldier?

It's not going to be on their farking dog tags.
 
2010-12-02 01:46:28 PM  
DantesDiscoInferno
I seem to remember from the history books, though, that a certain other policy regarding racial segregation of troops was ended by act of Congress during WWII, and it can't have been too disruptive because I don't speak German...

Might want to re-read your history books, Friend. Truman's Executive Order 9981. Congress took nearly 20 years after that to get into the game for the rest of 'Merica.
 
2010-12-02 01:46:46 PM  
mark12A: Newsflash... There's a big group of people who want to enlist and serve and haven't been able to.

Newsflash for you, cupcake: This "big group of people" doesn't exist. They're very few in numbers, and they pursue this issue for purely political goals.

And this incessant comparison of gays in the military being equivalent to black integration is invalid. One is appearence, the other behaviour.

When blacks were integrated, they were held to the same performance and appearence standards as the whites, and they suceeded, demonstrating that skin color in basically meaningless, gained the respect of the rest and life went on.

Gays squealing "Ohmygooood" at the firing range when they hit targets, and BDSM gays tying each other up and "disciplining" each other in the barracks in the off hours is going to go over like a grenade in the punchbowl. DON'T TELL ME IT WON'T HAPPEN. When the Navy stationed women onboard, the first ships quickly became know as the LoveBoats, for good reason.

Not to mention the logistical nightmare of basically adding a 3rd and 4th sex to the living arrangements onbase and onboard.

You people are pursuing a political agenda with little regard for the damage you'll cause.



It became known as "the love boat" because of the pregnancies occurred. Maybe you are unaware, but gay and lesbian couples don't have the ability to knock each other up. Factor. ANother big factor is that those straight couples were unable to receive abortions on board (Military won't provide abortion) and there existed no morning after pill. So yeah, both sides of your argument are retarded.
 
2010-12-02 01:46:51 PM  
Seriously THIS. If working with someone that happens to be gay lowers your ability to fight as a soldier, you're not a farking soldier. End of story. You're many things, such as a pussy, bigot, honkey, loser, pathetic, weak, worthy of being publicly ridiculed, probably bad in bed, probably the result of an inferior gene pool, and most definitely not someone to fear by anyone. We don't want you in our military, ya pussy.
 
2010-12-02 01:47:31 PM  
wademh

darkvstar: Why not. The warriors of Sparta were so gay, they dressed their brides up like boys for the wedding night so they could get a woody long enough to discover the joys of heterosexual sex ....and they are the toughest warriors in history.

So tell me, were they all born that way? Was it a choice?



Dude, they were all Greek. Need I say more? ;)
 
2010-12-02 01:47:49 PM  
Biological Ali: dittybopper: Being black isn't defined by your behavior. Being a homosexual is.

Next!


What does that have to do with anything?


The military discriminates based upon behavior. You can't stay in if you eat too much and gain weight. You can't stay in if you steal stuff. You can't stay in if you refuse to obey standards on personal appearance. You can't stay in if you don't maintain a certain level of physical fitness. You can't stay in if you have a drug or alcohol problem.

All of those things are behaviors. You may be genetically predisposed to some of them, but that doesn't give you a free pass to join or stay in the military if you can't control the behavior in question so that it conforms to military standards.

That is completely different than an unchangeable physical characteristic, say, skin color (The late Michael Jackson notwithstanding).

It's not that I'm opposed to them serving, it's just that the analogy of gays in the military being the same situation as blacks in the military back in the 40's and 50's falls flat on the face of it simply because you can't just stop being black by not being black.
 
2010-12-02 01:47:53 PM  
bodyshots: no, i didnt. those in inactive combat are acting like internet badasses, talking shiat about how 'oh homosexuals wont effect how the military functions' while more than half of those in combat said it would have a negative impact.

Actually, it was slightly more than half of Marines in active combat polled who felt that the repeal could have a negative impact. That's according to the info you cited.
 
2010-12-02 01:48:44 PM  
mark12A: Newsflash... There's a big group of people who want to enlist and serve and haven't been able to.

Newsflash for you, cupcake: This "big group of people" doesn't exist.


Huh. That's odd. Because I know several. One is heading to Basic in February and is hoping the question never comes up.
Perhaps reality is a bit different than you wish. For example:

DON'T TELL ME IT WON'T HAPPEN. When the Navy stationed women onboard, the first ships quickly became know as the LoveBoats, for good reason.

Yes - over half of them were pregnant when they arrived on the ships. Unless you're arguing that there's something magical about those ships that allowed women to give birth to full-term babies in only 6 months.
 
2010-12-02 01:49:41 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The only cause(s) for concern for the openly serving factor are:

1. Would a captured openly gay soldier be treated worse by enemy combatants? In areas like Afghanistan, the head-chopping is going to happen regardless of sexual affiliation. However, would enemies try to torture an openly homosexual soldier more than a heterosexual soldier?

2. Would civilian courts recognize military benefits to same-sex couples without a legal definition of marriage?

I say, if the troops (especially combat soldiers) are willing to assume the risk of point 1, and the lawyers are willing to work for a compromise/solution on point 2, let anyone serve openly and equally. That being said, the headline is spot on.


The odious Defense of Marriage Act will prevent gay married people from receiving marriage benefits even if DADT is repealed.
 
2010-12-02 01:49:42 PM  
Nocens: Beeblebrox: Nocens: Troops across Afghanistan sick of the shiat resign the next day...

I don't think everyone can just up and resign from the military. It's not like a job at Arby's.


I dunno, I always get the option to terminate when someone changes the conditions of a contract I've agreed to.


I'm not sure that a change of law governing a portion of the contract is the same thing as a party to the contract changing the conditions.
 
2010-12-02 01:49:46 PM  
bodyshots: /you still havent responded to my comment that those polled in active duty do not want homosexuals serving with them.

That also was not part of the info you cited,
 
2010-12-02 01:51:26 PM  
LavenderWolf: ace in your face: Theaetetus: treesloth: They're more critical than ever. I assume that the gay men will shower with the straight women and the lesbians will shower with the straight men.

Unlikely. Lesbians in the military are at high risk of being raped... by our guys.

Don't you love what pussies men are? It seems to be only men who are being cry babies about this. Here is the real problem- when men are faced with the slightest possibility of being hit on by a man (or raped!) they completely freak the fark out. Yeah, welcome to everyday life for a woman sweetcheeks. Buck up. For the most part, nobody wants to rape you.

/And if you can't stand them in the same bathrooms as you I suggest you stay out of all public bathrooms morans.
//Love that Admiral Mullen. His wife is really sweet too.

wow, way to be guilty of the same crime you accuse men of by being so obviously heteromalephobic.

hint: Not all straight guys are such idiots. In fact very few are.


By no means do I think all men are, my point is that its men who are raising this "big scary gays" issue and not women, who also have to deal with homosexual women. I don't consider myself to have a phobia of men, but I do think that all women grow up with a different world view because of male oppression. Sexual harassment is not something that many men are as used to in the way a majority of women are.
 
2010-12-02 01:51:39 PM  
An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: So are they going to have Fabulous/Softball, Platoons/flights in basic?

grfx.cstv.com
 
2010-12-02 01:51:40 PM  
bodyshots: /you still havent responded to my comment that those polled in active duty do not want homosexuals serving with them.

Yeah, when you called my friends pussies for not being stationed in Iraq, I kind of stopped caring about you, because you're an idiot.

Do you think active duty Marines and soldiers are completely unaware of what combat will be like? Do you think they have this feeling that getting deployed will "never happen to them?"

But ok, skippy, I'll play:

Only 10% of the military is deployed in combat. Of those 10%, a fair number of them could give a fark about filling out a voluntary survey. A lot of the ones, therefore, who do fill out said survey, have strong opinions about this.

FURTHERMORE, "what does the current military think about this" is pretty irrelevant. No one polled them to see if we should invade a random country to deal with George Bush's Daddy issues.
 
2010-12-02 01:51:48 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 1. Would a captured openly gay soldier be treated worse by enemy combatants? In areas like Afghanistan, the head-chopping is going to happen regardless of sexual affiliation. However, would enemies try to torture an openly homosexual soldier more than a heterosexual soldier?

Are you proposing that homosexual soldiers be given different uniforms, or distinctive patches? 'Cause otherwise, I'm not quite sure how the enemies are going to find out. It's not like they're taught to say name, rank, serial number, and sexual preference when captured.
 
2010-12-02 01:52:02 PM  
Raises two questions in my mind:

1. What will the military do if people do "GTFO"? A draft?
2. If you can be "openly gay" in the military - will there be a limit to how much you can "queen it up" before you are you are "disruptive to unit cohesion"?

Looking forward to the people getting reprimanded for being "too gay" - should be some fun talkbacks and lawsuits.
 
2010-12-02 01:52:22 PM  
HamSlammer: littlebadwolf: Men don't want to live with gay men for the same reason women won't want to live with men. Sharing close quarters is inevitable and nobody seems to be addressing the argument that straight men should be afforded the same courtesy women are (separate quarters/showers/etc...)

The dems just don't get the whole issue either. They have the president and he's the commander in chief. If he were to simply state, "this is how it's going to be." The troops may not like it, but they'll respect it. He needs to lead, not build a consensus.

Having been in the military, I can say that from a performance point of view I'd rather have gay men than women.

/flame on
//not that there's anything wrong with that

Agreed, I'm currently deployed and live in close quarters with 2 other guys. If one of them were openly gay, I'd request a new room. Other than that I'd really have no problem being in the military with gay people. Just keep them out of my bedroom.


If you're going to cause those kinds of problems for your leadership because of a personal problem you have, you need to GTFO too.

No separate showers. No separate quarters. Grow the fark up or get out.
 
2010-12-02 01:52:42 PM  
bodyshots: what_now 2010-12-02 01:41:43 PM

So you do feel that our military is comprised almost entirely of "idiots" and "pussies".

Excellent.

/hint: less than 10% of our military is currently deployed in a combat scenario

the ones playing internet badass behind a keyboard while not in active combat zones are indeed pussies.

dont let the facts screw with ya though!

/you still havent responded to my comment that those polled in active duty do not want homosexuals serving with them.
//which is the bullshiat i called you out on
///which you topic-deflected from.


What was the rate of acceptance among active combat duty service members that had served with someone they knew or suspect was gay?
 
2010-12-02 01:52:43 PM  
Theaetetus: Are you proposing that homosexual soldiers be given different uniforms, or distinctive patches?

Oh God, don't go there...
 
2010-12-02 01:52:49 PM  
bodyshots: what_now 2010-12-02 01:16:33 PM
bodyshots: good luck with alienating over half your military force, dumbass.

Allow me to repeat myself:

There is literally no way for anyone to be opposed to this without exposing themselves as an ignorant bigot. There are NO objections that this study doesn't overrule.

The interviewed thousands of soldiers. They don't give a fark, as long as the guy next to them shoots the bad guys.

you mean, all those soldiers NOT IN COMBAT?

the story is a lot different when you ask those in active combat zones you retard.


You're going to want to be careful throwing the retard word around, bub. If you were reading carefully, you'd find that it's not soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines in combat ZONES who are polling more negatively, it's those in combat BRANCHES/MOSs (in other words, combat arms jobs). Infantry, armor, field artillery, Marines, etc. Those areas rely heavily on unit cohesion, for obvious reasons, and there is concern that due to some pretty heavy and open prejudice against gays in these branches, unit cohesion would temporarily suffer if gays were serving openly. The same could easily be said during integration of African-Americans into those same areas during WWII, and in fact, was said by my own grandfather when we had that discussion 20-odd years ago.

The fact that some guys don't want to serve next to someone who is homosexual is not good enough reason to continue to discriminate against certain individuals, just as it was not justification to discriminate against African-Americans or women when this very same argument came up for those groups. No one is saying it's going to be easy, but it's going to be done, so we all should just get on board and get it done with the least amount of BS as possible.
 
2010-12-02 01:53:03 PM  
mark12A: And this incessant comparison of gays in the military being equivalent to black integration is invalid. One is appearence, the other behaviour.

It is comparable. Racists don't like blacks because they honestly believe that they are inferior, not because they have an ultra-tan. They think that blacks can't fight, that they would run at the first sign of danger, would be constantly goofing off, etc. In other words, pretty much the same arguments against gays today.

There are gays in the military right now. Are they running around doing the things you say they will? No? That's because they are busy behaving like farking soldiers, not the deviants you have convinced yourself they are.
 
2010-12-02 01:53:17 PM  
what_now

FURTHERMORE, "what does the current military think about this" is pretty irrelevant. No one polled them to see if we should invade a random country to deal with George Bush's Daddy issues.


Oh, snap.
 
2010-12-02 01:53:39 PM  
DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 2. If you can be "openly gay" in the military - will there be a limit to how much you can "queen it up" before you are you are "disruptive to unit cohesion"?

You know how I know you don't actually know very many gay people?
 
2010-12-02 01:53:55 PM  
So the Army and the Marines dont want teh ghey. Luckily the Navy made up the difference.
 
2010-12-02 01:54:03 PM  
What was that Mr. Barry Goldwater once said? "It doesn't matter if you're straight in the military. As long you can shoot straight." Something like that.
 
2010-12-02 01:54:07 PM  
NEDM: Nocens: Beeblebrox: Nocens: Troops across Afghanistan sick of the shiat resign the next day...

I don't think everyone can just up and resign from the military. It's not like a job at Arby's.


I dunno, I always get the option to terminate when someone changes the conditions of a contract I've agreed to.

1: Gay people (and your opinion thereof) are not mentioned in an enlistment contract.
2: Guess what? Military enlistment contracts are a bit different that regular contracts. Shocking, I know.


1: Yup, it's not mentioned
2: It's no different, but you do agree they can change it however they want to while you're in and can't do shiat about it.
 
2010-12-02 01:54:39 PM  
Theaetetus: Yes - over half of them were pregnant when they arrived on the ships. Unless you're arguing that there's something magical about those ships that allowed women to give birth to full-term babies in only 6 months.

Duh. They crossed the international date line several times. And the equator. It's the time zones!
 
2010-12-02 01:54:47 PM  
mark12A: Gays squealing "Ohmygooood" at the firing range when they hit targets, and BDSM gays tying each other up and "disciplining" each other in the barracks in the off hours... DON'T TELL ME IT WON'T HAPPEN.

Heh... all right, sparky. I won't say anything to ruin the moment for you. Enjoy yourself.
 
2010-12-02 01:54:53 PM  
www.bloggercises.com

Finally, they don't have to pretend to be crazy to dress up for a night on the town.

Yeah, yeah. I'm playing up a stereotype, but I love M.A.S.H.
 
2010-12-02 01:55:05 PM  
DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 1. What will the military do if people do "GTFO"? A draft?

For what? Our military is giant. Do you honestly believe that we need 53,000 service members in Germany?

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 2. If you can be "openly gay" in the military - will there be a limit to how much you can "queen it up" before you are you are "disruptive to unit cohesion"?

Is there a limit to the amount of sex jokes and bragging about strippers you've banged?
 
2010-12-02 01:55:12 PM  
HamSlammer: If one of them were openly gay, I'd request a new room.

Are we talking openly gay, like if you asked him he would tell you, or are we talking the Richard Simmons kind of openly gay? And why are we suddenly only talking about gay men? In fact, how loosely hypothetical are you planning to take this?
 
2010-12-02 01:55:13 PM  
Doc Daneeka: dittybopper: Being black isn't defined by your behavior. Being a homosexual is.

Being homosexual isn't defined by your behavior any more than being straight is.

I certainly knew I was straight for years before I ever had the opportunity to put that into action. If I never had sex again, I would still be straight.

In short, you are wrong. Sexual orientation is an ingrained and immutable biological trait, not a set of behaviors.


Someone who is attracted to the same (or different) sex but who doesn't act upon that attraction is no different than someone genetically predisposed to alcoholism (or any other behavior) who doesn't act upon it.

In other words, the military can kick out alcoholics, but it can't kick out people for being alcoholics *IF THEY DON'T DRINK*. They can't kick out people genetically predisposed to be overweight if they keep their weight in check.

Anyone can not engage in sexual behavior (just ask anyone who's been married long enough!). All it takes is willpower. A black person can't use willpower to make their skin a lighter shade.

Let them serve openly, or not at all, but get rid of DADT which is the worst of both worlds.
 
2010-12-02 01:55:21 PM  
dittybopper: Biological Ali: dittybopper: Being black isn't defined by your behavior. Being a homosexual is.

Next!


What does that have to do with anything?

The military discriminates based upon behavior. You can't stay in if you eat too much and gain weight. You can't stay in if you steal stuff. You can't stay in if you refuse to obey standards on personal appearance. You can't stay in if you don't maintain a certain level of physical fitness. You can't stay in if you have a drug or alcohol problem.

All of those things are behaviors. You may be genetically predisposed to some of them, but that doesn't give you a free pass to join or stay in the military if you can't control the behavior in question so that it conforms to military standards.

That is completely different than an unchangeable physical characteristic, say, skin color (The late Michael Jackson notwithstanding).

It's not that I'm opposed to them serving, it's just that the analogy of gays in the military being the same situation as blacks in the military back in the 40's and 50's falls flat on the face of it simply because you can't just stop being black by not being black.


Being fat affects readiness in a way homosexuality does not. False comparison.

hasty ambush: Sexy Republican Girl: mark12A: When the Navy stationed women onboard, the first ships quickly became know as the LoveBoats, for good reason..

And that still happens and we still let them serve together you farking moran.

The reason is called political correctness, turning the military into a job corps for single moms.


Since you have to have an outlined plan for where your children go should you deploy- so the fark what? Is it your contention there no single fathers in the military? (lols).
 
2010-12-02 01:55:22 PM  
bodyshots: you really think adding a simple adjective to the majority will change things?

the majority dont want it. deal with it or get off your ass and farking serve.


/too old to serve
//medical condition (flat feet of all things) prohibits me from serving
///and being the last surviving male in my family also


Your data does not back your opinions. The majority of MARINES serving in active combat said there MIGHT be a negative impact. That does not speak to desire, nor speak to the MAJORITY of troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You don't get to choose who you serve with.
 
2010-12-02 01:55:28 PM  
Remember when they started allowing women in the combat units and all the men just quit at once?

Imagine, a country founded on ideas like liberty, blasting around the world trying to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun all the while banning its own law-abiding citizens from working alongside them because they're "icky". Moral authority? Not much as it stands.
 
2010-12-02 01:55:35 PM  
gulogulo: You know how I know you don't actually know very many gay people?

I dunno, I've know a pretty flamboyant man in my time.

/Biblical sense?
 
2010-12-02 01:55:49 PM  
mark12A: Newsflash... There's a big group of people who want to enlist and serve and haven't been able to.

Newsflash for you, cupcake: This "big group of people" doesn't exist. They're very few in numbers, and they pursue this issue for purely political goals.

And this incessant comparison of gays in the military being equivalent to black integration is invalid. One is appearence, the other behaviour.

When blacks were integrated, they were held to the same performance and appearence standards as the whites, and they suceeded, demonstrating that skin color in basically meaningless, gained the respect of the rest and life went on.

Gays squealing "Ohmygooood" at the firing range when they hit targets, and BDSM gays tying each other up and "disciplining" each other in the barracks in the off hours is going to go over like a grenade in the punchbowl. DON'T TELL ME IT WON'T HAPPEN. When the Navy stationed women onboard, the first ships quickly became know as the LoveBoats, for good reason.

Not to mention the logistical nightmare of basically adding a 3rd and 4th sex to the living arrangements onbase and onboard.

You people are pursuing a political agenda with little regard for the damage you'll cause.


But, but, but....FEAR!!!!
 
2010-12-02 01:56:01 PM  
DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Raises two questions in my mind:

1. What will the military do if people do "GTFO"? A draft?
2. If you can be "openly gay" in the military - will there be a limit to how much you can "queen it up" before you are you are "disruptive to unit cohesion"?

Looking forward to the people getting reprimanded for being "too gay" - should be some fun talkbacks and lawsuits.


1. As has been cited above, only 10% of the force is in combat. The whole "the military is strained by the two wars" thing is pure and total bullshiat. Our military doesn't know what strain is yet. When 19 year old PFCs are company commanders because everyone else is dead like in WWII, then they're strained.
 
2010-12-02 01:56:19 PM  
DontMakeMeComeBackThere:
/too old to serve
//medical condition (flat feet of all things) prohibits me from serving
///and being the last surviving male in my family also


No, that's things that prevent you from being DRAFTED.

You can walk your chickenhawk ass down to the enlistment station any time you wanted and sign on the dotted line with no problems.
 
2010-12-02 01:56:20 PM  
bodyshots: you mean, all those soldiers NOT IN COMBAT?

the story is a lot different when you ask those in active combat zones you retard.


Wow, you seem to have a lot of rage. Maybe you should go have some gay sex. I hear it's fabulous and stress-relieving.

/Sarah Palin wants a word with you.
 
2010-12-02 01:56:36 PM  
bodyshots: good luck with alienating over half your military force, dumbass.

all so a few homosexuals can claim all kinds of new discrimination cases against you.

/you really through this cunning plan through, didnt you?


You know how I know I could beat you in anything?
 
2010-12-02 01:56:36 PM  
DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 2. If you can be "openly gay" in the military - will there be a limit to how much you can "queen it up" before you are you are "disruptive to unit cohesion"?

I'm guessing they will be allowed to deviate from the norm exactly as much as straight soldiers.
 
2010-12-02 01:56:44 PM  
bodyshots: the majority dont want it.

They didn't want to serve with colored folks in 1947 either. Should we still have segregated troops.
 
2010-12-02 01:56:47 PM  
bodyshots: //medical condition (flat feet of all things) prohibits me from serving

Uh, flat feet don't prohibit you from serving. The basic training info even includes instructions on how to measure your arch and what orthotics to put in your boots. Maybe you're just a bigoted coward.
 
2010-12-02 01:57:05 PM  
dittybopper:
The military discriminates based upon behavior. You can't stay in if you eat too much and gain weight. You can't stay in if you steal stuff. You can't stay in if you refuse to obey standards on personal appearance. You can't stay in if you don't maintain a certain level of physical fitness. You can't stay in if you have a drug or alcohol problem.

. . .

It's not that I'm opposed to them serving, it's just that the analogy of gays in the military being the same situation as blacks in the military back in the 40's and 50's falls flat on the face of it simply because you can't just stop being black by not being black.


And you can't stop being gay either. Just like you can't stop being straight. Being gay or straight isn't about what you're doing at some particular moment, it's about who you are.

You seem to be missing the point ever so slightly - the link you're thinking of (or should be, at any rate) isn't between behaviour and homosexuality... it's between behaviour and sexual orientation. A straight soldier can engage in inappropriate behaviour, as can a gay soldier - and they can be punished for that behaviour according to whatever rules there are.

Now if the rules were limited only to regulating behaviour (and as such would apply equally to all regardless of sexual orientation), then that would be fine. But a rule that prohibits one segment of the population from simply acknowledging who they are is something else entirely. And the latter is indeed quite analogous to discrimination based on race or any other immutable characteristic.
 
2010-12-02 01:57:08 PM  
DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Raises two questions in my mind:

1. What will the military do if people do "GTFO"? A draft?


The military will shrink, and then it will grow when the gays who want to serve actually sign up.

2. If you can be "openly gay" in the military - will there be a limit to how much you can "queen it up" before you are you are "disruptive to unit cohesion"?

The military already has regulations on behavior and appearance, both in and out of uniform. I highly doubt it will change much, if at all, when DADT goes away.

Looking forward to the people getting reprimanded for being "too gay" - should be some fun talkbacks and lawsuits.
 
Displayed 50 of 490 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report