General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 2)
16 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on May 31, 2010

Cikomyr

I didn't know being Black, or Mexican, or Puerto Rican was a lifestyle


Well, depends on what you define as a "lifestyle".

Gay isn't a lifestyle, it's a sexual orientation. It's with who you sleep, not the way you live your life. It might influence the culture you will be exposed to and your political inclination, but then again, so does being black, mexican, or puerto rican.

What is sex if not part of how one lives? But since you need a qualifier, here goes... "I lead a heterosexual lifestyle".

Here's something you might not be exposed to. I live in a mixed neighborhood, all the peoples mentioned above (and more) live on my street. They mow their lawns, check their mail, wash their cars just like I do. I'm really not seeing any major cultural differences. Even the political supports are from different backgrounds, it isn't rubbing off. Maybe if we were all from different countries, culture would be a factor.

here's a definition (Encarta), I believe my usage falls into this category:

Lifestyle - manner of living. The way of life characteristic of a particular person, group, or culture

on Jun 01, 2010

 

ut new problems will arise never the less, that is undeniable. Anything that takes more resources in supervisors time away from the mission is not, IMO, a good thing. If you understood the amount of whatever you want to call it, nurturing, coddling, or baby sitting, is provided in the military you would see my point. Too many people, regardless of sexual preference, have a hard time believing they are their to perform a job.

So, gays shouldn't be in the military because there's already jackasses in the military and gays in the military will distract the jackasses? 

 

Never mind that the article is about getting input from the services, that doesn't fit with what you want to talk about

What input do you expect from the military?  I mean look, want them to publish some studies?  Great.  Give us some opinions?  Awesome.  I like opinions.  But this remains a demand of the modern era. 

 

and because the report should contain info about the real issue of homosexuality which would make the military absolutely nuts for forcing soldiers to bond with open homosexuals in military life. I think it's a no brainer that this simply does not
The Armed Forces are our warriors and when off duty, they need down time to relax and recharge. Can't do that when they have to be on constant sexual alert.
work. If it passes, I will not encourage my son to go into the military.

Ya, there, but not OUT while there. Big, big difference.

Those Veterans whom I would deem are voices of experience have already given some of those valid arguments.

 

 

 

Lula: 

A few notes: 

 

1.  What is the 'real' issue of homosexuality?  Please share.  I would like to find out more about this 'real issue'.

2.  What is the big problem with folks being out? 

3.  Then don't encourage your son to join the military.  In fact, don't encourage your son to go to college, get a job, or ever travel outside your home. There will be gay people there too.  And the gays will spread fairy dust on him and make him the gay too.  They have this fairy dust.  I've seen it described in their homosexual agenda.  It's 5000 pages long and it describes in detail how to make the stuff.  Very scary. 

 

 

The other part is enforcing the highest moral principles of discipline, valor, uprightness as well as personifying self-sacrifice. Our soldiers are willing to die for others. This is why, in my view, in order for the public to keep its faith and trust in the the Military, it must continue to operate in an atmosphere where evil and good are clearly defined and keep relativism out ..out of its policies, out of its practices and out of its life.

What clear evil and good are you talking about?  What moral relativism are you referring to? What exactly precludes a gay person from living in the 'highest moral principles of discipline, valor, uprightness"? 

 

Incidentally, if you already agree that there are LGB folks in the military who aren't out, do these LGB folks not exhibit "highest moral principles of discipline, valor, uprightness as well as personifying self-sacrifice."?  Or do you believe that by being out they will no longer exhibit "highest moral principles of discipline, valor, uprightness as well as personifying self-sacrifice."

Please.  Share with me these answers. 

I'm also curious as to what you mean by 'constant sexual alert'? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 01, 2010

Despite the discussion, I see Nitro's point.  Simply put, why ask for input on an issue if you have no intention of listening to it?  And that is the hallmark of the Obama administration.  This is not the first time he has done it, nor will it be the last.

But the DADT policy is stupid in any regards.  It was stupid with Clinton instituted it, and it is stupid now.  Grunts know that their opinion and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee.  The very discipline of the military tells them that they are no longer in a democracy.  So if Obama wanted an openly gay policy for the military, they have no say in it.  Getting rid of the policy then is pure politics, and one the military has no say in.  And they should get rid of it.  The policy should be yes or no, not maybe.  And for the past 16 years, it has been maybe.

If the purpose is to allow gays to serve in the military openly, then make it the policy.  If the purpose is to bar them from serving, then make it the policy.  But whatever the intent is, MAKE IT THE POLICY.  Not this abortion called maybe they have had to work with for all these years.

on Jun 01, 2010

So, gays shouldn't be in the military because there's already jackasses in the military and gays in the military will distract the jackasses?

Your not too bright in debating are you? When did I say gays shouldn't be in the military? I believe I stated, "they are and have always been". Since you speak with authority on exactly what constitutes administrative burdens in todays military, why don't you explain how this will have a negligible impact on that burden? You obviously spent a lot of time in the military to have such a grasp on its inner workings. I'm always interested in a colleagues experiences, to help expand my view on an issue.

What input do you expect from the military? I mean look, want them to publish some studies? Great. Give us some opinions? Awesome. I like opinions.

Yes their input. That is what I've been saying to each of your responses. Maybe we are getting somewhere.

Glad you want studies and opinions, but it seems you really don't care want the service members want. You made up your mind (indicated by your statement below), and why not? It's nothing you have to deal with now day to day, right?

But this remains a demand of the modern era.

Demand by who? You or I? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?

on Jun 01, 2010

But the DADT policy is stupid in any regards. It was stupid with Clinton instituted it, and it is stupid now.

Having served both prior to and after DADT, I agree Doc, it was not necessary. Not much really changed day to day for the average service person, due to lack of publicized incidences. But their were obvious policy changes. Prior, if two guys were in a broom closet with their trousers around their ankles, they were discharged. Same scenario with DADT, they were just getting a second opinion on the location for a future tatoo...as long as they didn't say the 3 words "I am gay". This effectively allowed gays to continue serving.

Grunts know that their opinion and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee.

Exactly! Believe me I fully understand the need of discipline in the military. However, since this involves intimate privacy issues, I feel the opinion of those serving is sole opinion of importance. Nobody knows how many homosexuals are serving in the US Military, so my question is how many people would this bill be accommodating. 10,000, 100,000? I don't know, but there is a way to find out...ask. It's not like they have to ask directly. It could be as simple as, "Do you support gays openly serving in the military". I'm sure everyone that is gay would say yes, as well as many that aren't bothered.

If it turns out it's just a ploy to advance an agenda, by exploiting the silent military, we should know that too. I'm tired of this rushing bills through without regard for the outcome or costs. They push bad bills knowing they won't be reversed.

on Jun 01, 2010

Your not too bright in debating are you?

 

Well.  I am bright enough to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.Really, personal rimshots are uncalled for. 

 

Since you speak with authority on exactly what constitutes administrative burdens in todays military, why don't you explain how this will have a negligible impact on that burden?

I don't need to.  This burden is entirely a work of either your perception or a complete fantasy.  You can't even articulate it to the point where it's even in the vicinity of cogent.   I may not be 'too bright in a debate' like you, but I'm aware that it's not my onus validate your  argument with some ancillary derived  point. 

 

Glad you want studies and opinions, but it seems you really don't care want the service members want. You made up your mind (indicated by your statement below), and why not? It's nothing you have to deal with now day to day, right?

Actually, I don't call it 'dealing with it on a day to day basis'.  I call it 'going to work' and 'going about my day'.  The private sector has long embraced LGBT folks.  Living in a major urban area, there are plenty of LGBT folks that I'd interact with on a daily basis. 

Frankly Nitro, they can have whatever opinions they want.  Much like I'm sure you could find somebody with plenty of opinions on integration in the military prior to somebody having to sign an executive order to move that one ahead. 

 

Demand by who? You or I? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?

It's a demand of modern views of modern people.  Look around ya man, gay folks aren't exactly sitting squarely in a closet any more.  These folks are god fearing Americans who pay taxes and cut their lawns; some of them want to open businesses and some of them want to serve their country.  Sexual orientation shouldn't be a barrier and there's not a single good reason for them to have to hide who they are in any profession of choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 01, 2010

Believe me I fully understand the need of discipline in the military. However, since this involves intimate privacy issues, I feel the opinion of those serving is sole opinion of importance.

 

Oh that's just fantastic.  So, since it involves 'intimate privacy issues' it should be subject to public opinion? 

 

 

on Jun 01, 2010

Exactly! Believe me I fully understand the need of discipline in the military. However, since this involves intimate privacy issues, I feel the opinion of those serving is sole opinion of importance.

I do not disagree, but I was stating reality, not intelligence.  I quite frankly did not state an opinion on gays serving, because I did not serve.  I merely opined that there should be a policy one way or the other, not this crap we have lived with since Clinton created it.

 

on Jun 01, 2010

Glad you want studies and opinions, but it seems you really don't care want the service members want.

Oh man, there's just so much comedic potential on this whole idea. 

--------

5 Star General (to subordinates):  Men, it's come to my attention that our guys aren't in as good of shape as we need them to be.  I'd like to increase some of the physical requirements at bootcamp. 

Colonel:  Sir, we can't just do that.  We have to do a survey of opinions first.  After all, we need to get to the people who deal with this on a daily basis. 

------

 

---------

President: General, we have credible of Osama Bin Laden's location.  We know exactly where he's at, we know exactly what their number strength are, and we've already arranged for travel through Pakistani air space.  We need you to act. 

General:  I don't know Mr. President.  I'll have to survey the men first and see what they think.   It's really simple---just a 5 point lickert scale. Once we're done with the survey, we'll have some retired veterans pipe up.  After that, the left will get some skuzzy 501C3's and the right will get their skuzzy 501C3's and they'll give us their opinions.  Once the smoke settles, I'll let you know. 

 

-------

 

 

 

on Jun 01, 2010

But since you need a qualifier, here goes... "I lead a heterosexual lifestyle".

Here's something you might not be exposed to. I live in a mixed neighborhood, all the peoples mentioned above (and more) live on my street. They mow their lawns, check their mail, wash their cars just like I do. I'm really not seeing any major cultural differences. Even the political supports are from different backgrounds, it isn't rubbing off. Maybe if we were all from different countries, culture would be a factor.

What do you entail by "Here's something you might not be exposed to"?

And pry tell me why it's impossible for an homosexual to live in a mixed neighborhood. Mow their lawns, check their mail, waash their cars just like you do.

You know, except if they get thrown eggs by homophobic peoples, have their property vandalised and receive treaths. But then again, these kind of actions against them are not of their fault, and these kind of action actually prevent homosexual couples to live what you define as "heterosexual" lifestyle.

It's a fallacy. What you call "heterosexual" is simply you average suburb lifestyle. Who or what you fuck has no direct influence of wether or not that kind of lifestyle is what appeals to you on the long run.

Being gay changes one's lifestyle for about the same reason than one being black, or latino, or muslim, or jewish: if you feel repressed, you will be forced to live around your own because you feel safer. It's not necessarely them who chose to live like they do, it's us not giving them the chance to be anything else.

on Jun 01, 2010

Well. I am bright enough to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.Really, personal rimshots are uncalled for.

Hey you get a cookie. We occasionally get grammar Nazi's here from time to time. Welcome. As for the "rim shot" you want to take this to some anti-gay issue, when it is not. My article, my responsibility to keep it on topic, especially when you twist the discussion to suit you with your "Jackass" comment. Glad you support their voice. I wish to support the military voice. Sorry if you don't like that.

I may not be 'too bright in a debate' like you, but I'm aware that it's not my onus validate your argument with some ancillary derived point.

Yet you keep commenting. Why? I'm not asking to you to validate anything you don't wish too. You seem focused on the end results not the impact or management.

You can't even articulate it to the point where it's even in the vicinity of cogent. I may not be 'too bright in a debate' like you, but I'm aware that it's not my onus validate your argument with some ancillary derived point.

Sorry you don't understand but not my problem. Yet somehow you feel the need to continue to comment. I understand you want gays to serve openly in the military - you have no idea about what that would entail in administrative man-hours - and to the point you could not care less that military has a say, that matters anyway, in any of it. Thanks for you opinion.

The private sector has long embraced LGBT folks.

Sure, the private sector doesn't have to wake up next to a LGBT folks each morning. They don't have to file reports, for the most part, when there is an incident. The military and the private sector are two different animals. There is little time for a blood test when a transfusion is needed on a battlefield when you don't know who the donor slept with last week (Yes I know, heteros can pass disease too, but I'd take my chance with a lower risk group, thank you).

Look around ya man, gay folks aren't exactly sitting squarely in a closet any more.

Great, I wish pedophiles (a sexual preference) would come out of the closet too. It would make it much easier for law enforcement. You still seem to believe I'm anti-gay, that's your problem.

Oh that's just fantastic. So, since it involves 'intimate privacy issues' it should be subject to public opinion?

No it should involve the people it is impacting. 

on Jun 01, 2010

You know, except if they get thrown eggs by homophobic peoples, have their property vandalised and receive treaths. But then again, these kind of actions against them are not of their fault, and these kind of action actually prevent homosexual couples to live what you define as "heterosexual" lifestyle.

You must have missed the actions of the LGBT group in San Francisco recently.  It seems violence is not restricted to sexual preferences.

 

on Jun 01, 2010

You must have missed the actions of the LGBT group in San Francisco recently. It seems violence is not restricted to sexual preferences.

It's not. But saying that it's not restricted doesn't mean that it's never related either.

on Jun 01, 2010

lula posts 11

Like I said,
The Armed Forces are our warriors and when off duty, they need down time to relax and recharge. Can't do that when they have to be on constant sexual alert.

This is no way to run the military.

dan_I posts:

I'm also curious as to what you mean by 'constant sexual alert'?

I'll let Sergeant Major Brian Jones explain:

Sergeant Major Brian Jones, Ret., in testimony before Congress in 2008 regarding the repeal of the ban made a similar argument, saying: "The presence of openly gay men ... would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale." 

on Jun 01, 2010

lula posts:

and because the report should contain info about the real issue of homosexuality which would make the military absolutely nuts for forcing soldiers to bond with open homosexuals in military life. I think it's a no brainer that this simply does not  work. If it passes, I will not encourage my son to go into the military.

Ya, there, but not OUT while there. Big, big difference.

 

 

Dan_I posts:

Lula:

A few notes:

1. What is the 'real' issue of homosexuality? Please share. I would like to find out more about this 'real issue'.

2. What is the big problem with folks being out?

 

Your #2 answers #1 question.

The real issue is homosexuality itself:

http://www.frc.org/insight/homosexual-assault-in-the-military

 

 

16 Pages1 2 3 4  Last