• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Obama to end Don't ask, Don't tell

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a homosexual medic attached to me (insert jokes here). He was one of the best medics I ever had (insert more jokes). I didn't know he was gay until he outed himself and left the military. When I found out I didn't really care (I'm not a homophobe). I've also deployed in an Infantry unit with female MP's attached. I will say they, for the most part, performed admirably but the problems we faced on the FOB really made me question if it was worth making the unit co-ed as we didn't perform any missions that really required them. I guess if a combat unit had multiple gays in it it could lead to the same type of problems we faced. The who's screwing who this week type BS. It can be, and was, distracting.
 
suicide 7 said:
I had a homosexual medic attached to me (insert jokes here). He was one of the best medics I ever had (insert more jokes). I didn't know he was gay until he outed himself and left the military. When I found out I didn't really care (I'm not a homophobe). I've also deployed in an Infantry unit with female MP's attached. I will say they, for the most part, performed admirably but the problems we faced on the FOB really made me question if it was worth making the unit co-ed as we didn't perform any missions that really required them. I guess if a combat unit had multiple gays in it it could lead to the same type of problems we faced. The who's screwing who this week type BS. It can be, and was, distracting.
Click to expand...

Please take a good, close look at your words. "really made me question if it was worth making the unit co-ed as we didn't perform any missions that really required them".

Them? As in who? The "Them" were not really required due to mission? What was the mission, and why was "Them" not required? Not trying to be a buster...just trying to understand mindset....and circumstances.
 
I will speak for him. I THINK the point he was trying to make is they created problems in the REAR. If they couldn't keep themselves from creating problems in the rear would you want them patrolling with you? Undiciplined is undiciplined rear or forward it doesn't matter.
 
Jim said:
They wouldn't be if the other marines were gay. [rofl]

Think about it...I believe I just scored a point on you there, Derek. [smile]
Click to expand...

Grin...wonderfull. New recruit gets assigned to a platoon of gay marines.

No offense, I know (think) you were joking. I just don't think when it comes down to nitty/gritty that its a joking matter. Perhaps my bad? [grin]
 
derek said:
I will speak for him. I THINK the point he was trying to make is they created problems in the REAR. If they couldn't keep themselves from creating problems in the rear would you want them patrolling with you? Undiciplined is undiciplined rear or forward it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No offense Derek, but who are you speaking for?....And what in the world are you responding to? Am I totally out of synch?...and missed a whole mess of stuff?
 
Them as in MP's (females). Our mission was diplomatic security. We never needed to frisk female civilians therefore we didn't need female soldiers (that was the reason they were attached to an Infantry unit). Our unit had multiple article 15's and a host of investigations all stemming from inappropriate male/female relations. Don't get me wrong, the female soldiers performed their duties to and above standard. But I just question was it worth making a unit co-ed to have those types of distractions. I realize that co-ed units function very well, I just am not sure if it's a good idea to take a combat arms unit and make it co-ed if there is no reason to. I've friends in medic units and I have the HIGHEST regards for all soldiers, both male and female, but when they (the medics)tell me stories of this soldier sleeping with this one and that one, well I just think it can be distracting and counterproductive in the combat arms.
 
I don't understand why you would ever get rid of DADT...I mean, I don't care if you're in a combat situation or training or whatever, there is no need for a person's sexual orientation to come into play, and if they bring it up that is their own fault. I personally believe that open homosexuality would have an awful impact on unit cohesion etc...I have no problem with someone being a homosexual, but to be honest, I don't feel the need to have people know that I am a heterosexual, so I really don't understand the desire of a homosexual for others to know, especially when it is a situation in which their sexuality might be a stumbling block for others.

I just think DADT was the exact level of discretion that is needed for this situation, because if nobody knows, body cares. As soon as you start letting people know, you're bound to find someone who cares, and the focus of a unit should be elsewhere at all times.

I realize that there are homosexuals who might be excellent at any of a host of things, but the bottom line is that the unit has to function, and for that to happen guys have to be clicking. One does not need to create a rift between gay soldiers and straight soldiers when the unit is at its most effective functioning as a fluid unit.

Just my $.02, but DADT was as much, if not more, for the other soldiers in the unit.
 
jerryrigger said:
I don't understand why you would ever get rid of DADT...I mean, I don't care if you're in a combat situation or training or whatever, there is no need for a person's sexual orientation to come into play, and if they bring it up that is their own fault. I personally believe that open homosexuality would have an awful impact on unit cohesion etc...I have no problem with someone being a homosexual, but to be honest, I don't feel the need to have people know that I am a heterosexual, so I really don't understand the desire of a homosexual for others to know, especially when it is a situation in which their sexuality might be a stumbling block for others.

I just think DADT was the exact level of discretion that is needed for this situation, because if nobody knows, body cares. As soon as you start letting people know, you're bound to find someone who cares, and the focus of a unit should be elsewhere at all times.

I realize that there are homosexuals who might be excellent at any of a host of things, but the bottom line is that the unit has to function, and for that to happen guys have to be clicking. One does not need to create a rift between gay soldiers and straight soldiers when the unit is at its most effective functioning as a fluid unit.

Just my $.02, but DADT was as much, if not more, for the other soldiers in the unit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the agenda of "in your face" is in play? Most folks I know could care less, but when something is shoved in their face, they react.
 
suicide 7 said:
Them as in MP's (females). Our mission was diplomatic security. We never needed to frisk female civilians therefore we didn't need female soldiers (that was the reason they were attached to an Infantry unit). Our unit had multiple article 15's and a host of investigations all stemming from inappropriate male/female relations. Don't get me wrong, the female soldiers performed their duties to and above standard. But I just question was it worth making a unit co-ed to have those types of distractions. I realize that co-ed units function very well, I just am not sure if it's a good idea to take a combat arms unit and make it co-ed if there is no reason to. I've friends in medic units and I have the HIGHEST regards for all soldiers, both male and female, but when they (the medics)tell me stories of this soldier sleeping with this one and that one, well I just think it can be distracting and counterproductive in the combat arms.
Click to expand...
Sons unit (Combat Engineer) as all male to do MP duties now the unit they attached to wasn't the same and yes had some of the same male /female issues.
 
Jim said:
Interesting update. I wonder how the israelis, the english and others are able to have fully functioning militaries with gays that serve openly? What is it they know that we don't? We must be missing something... [thinking]
Click to expand...

Really? So you know people in the Israeli military and know that gays don't present problems?
 
Jim said:
You're really lame at being sarcastic, greaser. [rolleyes]

It seems like the israelis do have it under control. So what do they know that we don't? What are we missing? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Please tell me who you have spoken with in the Israeli military that says everyone is alright with it and it doesn't create problems.
 
Um... Ted Kennedy is sponsoring the bill? OK, I need to rethink my opinion, then. Frankly, I can't think of anything that that fat drunk is for that I agree with, so following Heinlein's advice* makes me think that I shouldn't start now.

Jim said:
Interesting update. I wonder how the israelis, the english and others are able to have fully functioning militaries with gays that serve openly? What is it they know that we don't? We must be missing something... [thinking]
Click to expand...

I would say that it's because they don't have the sick society that we do in regards to sexual matters. Consider Hollywood and the FCC, for example. You can show someone getting murdered in High Def, catching every gory second of the knife sliding in (and there's a HUGE industry that does just that, and the movies are rated, at most, PG or R)... but a man and a woman making love? Hell, NO!! That's pornography, and only perverts want to see that.

Something wrong there. Me, I blame that fact that we were settled by the Puritans. [wink]


* From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long: "If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires."
 
Jim said:
Netanyahu. He called me last night and we covered it in detail. [laugh]
Click to expand...

Ben Ben... He is a wuss. I was hoping you at least had a seance with Ariel Sharon's spirit lost in between valhalla and the corporeal world.[smile]
 
The SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal of DADT

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/08/supreme-court-turns-challenge-dont-ask-dont-tell/

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January.

Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.
The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.

The case is Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824.
Click to expand...
 
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed with the Obama administration and refused to review Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was established in 1993. President Bill Clinton had to abandon efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces after facing strong resistance from the military and members of Congress.
 
hmm let's think about this, shit the policy has worked for how long? and oh wait how long has our military been around for? honestly leave shit the way it is, if its working alright i see no reason to mess it up now.
 
please dont put your life style in my face keep to your self, imho does not make others around them happy campers from old school.
 
Interesting... a completely unscientific poll of some of my friends is running overwhelmingly to "who cares?". Some of the respondents: my cousin (CPO in the CG Reserve, age 46), my coworker (USA, ret, age ~50 or so), my Lodge brother (CSM, USAR, ret - age 60)...

Doesn't mean anything, of course, other than that my friends and relatives don't care what someone's sexual orientation is. Perhaps that merely says that I befriend people who think like me.
 
dwarven1 said:
Doesn't mean anything, of course, other than that my friends and relatives don't care what someone's sexual orientation is. Perhaps that merely says that I befriend people who think like me.
Click to expand...

I'm not bothered by other people's sexual orientations, but I think the issue is that in the military, you're putting people in a position where they will eat, sleep, shower, and do everything else together 24/7. Unit cohesion is a big deal when your life is on the line, and if the majority of people don't get along with the openly homosexual (right or wrong), it doesn't make sense to try and force a social experiment.
 
GSG said:
It doesn't make sense to try and force a social experiment.
Click to expand...
I am firmly in the camp of "I don't give a rats ass", but I can understand the issues people claim WRT to unit cohesion...

I say "understand", but that's not really right, can see how it makes sense to them and understand why they feel so strongly about it (as much as mixed gender bunking at the age that most would be in that situation).

However, the military as I know it (admittedly only 2nd hand from family members) is about putting your personal crap in a foot locker and doing a job for your country.

So, racism, religious bigotry, sexism etc... are stowed and you either learn to trust the guy/gal next to you based on skill and skill alone or you have one less person watching your back when it matters(and that's not a good thing).

"Conduct unbecoming", is just that regardless of who does what to whom... Seems to me that should take care of just about anything that needs taking care of WRT to the 24/7 proximity...

Either you can do the job, or you can't. That's all that should matter to the military and the unit. Seems to me anyone who can't get that through their head is the problem in the unit...

I'm sure the democrats will just add a box to the recruiter's form that specifies your gender and gender identity and we can have 3 sets of barracks... [laugh]
 
They should simply punish any soldier that facilitates hostility, either heterosexuals or homosexuals. Let gays serve in the armed forces. What's next, are we going to disallow all non-whites from serving?
 
derek said:
Gays are allowed to serve. [thinking]
Click to expand...

I think his point was that how are you going to have a DADT policy WRT race? [laugh][grin] I guess people could run around acting like Stephen Colbert and claiming they are "color blind". With race, either you allow it or you don't. The only way this policy works, is openly gay individuals can't serve in the military, only people who speak nothing of their sexuality can.
 
Well so far that makes one thing I agree with that Obama plans to do. If your of sound body and mind and want to fight, give em a frigan gun there's plenty of tree hugging hippies that wont fight so we can use the help.
 
Business said:
Well so far that makes one thing I agree with that Obama plans to do. If your of sound body and mind and want to fight, give em a frigan gun there's plenty of tree hugging hippies that wont fight so we can use the help.
Click to expand...

They can still serve, just not openly, then it's automatic discharge. One of my Sgt's was blatently gay that I served with. I didn't care, he did his job and what he did on his off time was his business.
Leave things alone, don't need it flaunted in our faces. God knows I get enough of it in Northampton.[angry]
Let the policy stay, they want to serve fine, open your mouth and take your discharge.
Simple.
 
Last edited:
Business said:
Well so far that makes one thing I agree with that Obama plans to do. If your of sound body and mind and want to fight, give em a frigan gun there's plenty of tree hugging hippies that wont fight so we can use the help.
Click to expand...

What branch and unit did you serve with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Two birthdays to remember today...
Replies
1
Views
276
M60
M60
Crayola looking to enter the Entertainment business
Replies
1
Views
344
Andy in NH
Andy in NH
Anniversary of Aug 7,1967 Hau Nai Provence, Vietnam lost to history not me
Replies
13
Views
502
Rat187
Rat187
Sgt Nicole Gee laid to rest; Honoring Our Fallen steps up
Replies
7
Views
753
Andy in NH
Andy in NH
Don't Forget
Replies
2
Views
431
SS1
SS1
Back
Top Bottom