Well, I'm glad I was able to shed some light, even if its a dim light to the situation.
Obama supports repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"
- Thread starter myp
- Start date
I agree with Commander Smallwood. Those women getting pregnant, causing them to be transfered to shore duty could effect the mission of the ship.
Gays/Women in the Military!
My thought is that gays and women should not serve in the military alongside ordinary men. In the case of women, they shouldn't serve at all. Unsurprisingly, what happened in the few wars where women served? Of course, some were taken prisoner - and yes, they were raped.
I am sure the feminists never had that in mind when they pressed the Carter administration for the right to serve.
As for gays, I am not anti-homosexual. I am glad they like their own, free's up more ladies for me. That said if their presence causes a distributive influence to the hetero-sexual men, then they are more of a liability than a plus. So why not let them have their own gay division or brigade - or whatever the army calls a battalion these days.
Send in the gay battalion may indeed become a war cry to fear, but hopefully only for enemy troops!
My thought is that gays and women should not serve in the military alongside ordinary men. In the case of women, they shouldn't serve at all. Unsurprisingly, what happened in the few wars where women served? Of course, some were taken prisoner - and yes, they were raped.
I am sure the feminists never had that in mind when they pressed the Carter administration for the right to serve.
As for gays, I am not anti-homosexual. I am glad they like their own, free's up more ladies for me. That said if their presence causes a distributive influence to the hetero-sexual men, then they are more of a liability than a plus. So why not let them have their own gay division or brigade - or whatever the army calls a battalion these days.
Send in the gay battalion may indeed become a war cry to fear, but hopefully only for enemy troops!
My thought is that gays and women should not serve in the military alongside ordinary men. In the case of women, they shouldn't serve at all. Unsurprisingly, what happened in the few wars where women served? Of course, some were taken prisoner - and yes, they were raped.
I am sure the feminists never had that in mind when they pressed the Carter administration for the right to serve.
As for gays, I am not anti-homosexual. I am glad they like their own, free's up more ladies for me. That said if their presence causes a distributive influence to the hetero-sexual men, then they are more of a liability than a plus. So why not let them have their own gay division or brigade - or whatever the army calls a battalion these days.
Send in the gay battalion may indeed become a war cry to fear, but hopefully only for enemy troops!
Because segregation and discrimination are illegal.
<Filler> <Filler>
My thought is that gays and women should not serve in the military alongside ordinary men. In the case of women, they shouldn't serve at all. Unsurprisingly, what happened in the few wars where women served? Of course, some were taken prisoner - and yes, they were raped.
I am sure the feminists never had that in mind when they pressed the Carter administration for the right to serve.
As for gays, I am not anti-homosexual. I am glad they like their own, free's up more ladies for me. That said if their presence causes a distributive influence to the hetero-sexual men, then they are more of a liability than a plus. So why not let them have their own gay division or brigade - or whatever the army calls a battalion these days.
Send in the gay battalion may indeed become a war cry to fear, but hopefully only for enemy troops!
The blacks didn't enjoy being sent to the front lines in their segregated units lol.
When it comes to women serving in the military, I don't have an issue with it. Except for one thing, if they want to be able to do anything the men can do as far as infantry goes, they need to be able to pick up a wounded soldier and carry them out of harms way. I'm sorry ladies, but I haven't seen too many that can lift a 180+ guy and move them out of the way of fire.
Because segregation and discrimination are illegal.
<Filler> <Filler>
Only illegal if you get caught, right?
+1
I realize that people have the capacity to change, but you still have a lot of creeps who will take it upon themselves to still be openly anti-gay. White supremest groups haven't disappeared despite race relations improving substantially since the civil rights movement, so I don't expect you'll see a disappearance of anti gay sentiment, though they may become a minority.
I'll never support it myself, but I don't believe in dictating what personal decisions people come to either so... hopefully repealing the law helps, but if doesn't it's over the long term, not the immediate future.
A woman in South Africa has developed a female condom to prevent rape. The condom has teeth, and when the woman is penetrated the teeth bite into the male's manhood and it is apparently very painful. So if woman troops wear this device, at least that might make them less prone to being raped. But the issue of them carrying a 180lb person off the battlefield remains.
Not to be too crass, but, if the women got the teeth in the men can get them out.
Not that rape is trivial at all, but with the Americans the biggest issue is discipline.
Not that rape is trivial at all, but with the Americans the biggest issue is discipline.
No idea how much rape happens in the US military. I'd be interested to see statistics on rape cases in 3rd world countries.
What is with the consistent POV that all Americans are just arrogant snobs that think they can do whatever they want?
How is the US Military not disciplined?
Well cause they are.
The military is not disciplined very well due in large part to the interference imposed on them by Clinton.
18 Year old enlistees are not disciplined cause they are punk kids.
The military is not disciplined very well due in large part to the interference imposed on them by Clinton.
18 Year old enlistees are not disciplined cause they are punk kids.
Not even close to settling anything. You shower and live with these people. There’s more to relations then just sex. Love is blind, yeah? Well, that clouding of judgment. Not good there. Trust, right or wrong, you as a member of a unit must be trusted, if are thought to be a bit too much of a buddy with another, rightly or wrongly, trust will be an issue. The whole thing breeds major complications to training and discipline that can be very costly for all soldiers.
The problem is the Military does not feel obliged to(I dont blame them) explain there reasoning, which has only made the problem worse as it attacked be people that dont understand why the Military has the postion it has.
Theres quite a large group of americans that want to chalk up any oppostion to there ideas as racists or prejudice, primarily cause the accuation is hard to defend against. Cheap tacitics.
The problem is the Military does not feel obliged to(I dont blame them) explain there reasoning, which has only made the problem worse as it attacked be people that dont understand why the Military has the postion it has.
Theres quite a large group of americans that want to chalk up any oppostion to there ideas as racists or prejudice, primarily cause the accuation is hard to defend against. Cheap tacitics.
Originally, I didn't know to what extent the DADT policy hampered a gay person's rights after they were discharged. That, to me, is where the problem is. Why would you want to kick someone out of the service, then go the extra effort to remove all their benefits - particularily after they served their country honorably?!? That, to me, is plain spite.
I have know many people in the military in the last 20 years, and they typically know who is and who isn't gay. And so long as they aren't propositioned by this gay person, they don't much care.
Why can't the gov't have that same type of attitude?
If gays are booted for coming out and then the military goes that extra yard.... yeah, that's spite and I think it reprehensible.
They should receive a general discharge... unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as a sexual assualt charge, that warrant dishonorable discharge and elimination of benefits.
There is a sticky wicket though. My brother is on the service and has served in many combat zones on the George Washington and Carl Vinson. When things got harrier onboard the number of female sailors getting pregnant went up. They ha a regular flight out for them (can't recall what they called it but sent him a TM). This policy could be used by men wishing to leave the service when they otherwise couldn't. So giving a dishonorable discharge may be the means of avoiding abusing the policy?
Gays have always been in the service and I suspect that they've mostly been treated just like you describe.
At the end of the day though, while I am sympathetic to equal treatment regardless of sexual preference the military is sui generis and frankly those rights do not and should not be given full force there. If allowing gays to serve opening harms the military's mission(s) it should be disallowed.
Agreed. However, I don't think that would be the case.
There are unique individuals everywhere and they will never be happy and/or always be suspicious of others. But overall, I think the majority of the military is adult enough to accept anyone helping them - gay or not - when the "going gets tough".
my brother is LCDR and tells me he's served with openly gay men and had no problem at all with them. I've no reason to doubt him
you are right that people (on either side) who'll never be happy regardless of the policy
I was making a simple point, although greatly symnpathetic to homosexuals when faced with discrimination, the military is sui generis and the feelings of certain classes of people, be they gay, asexual, purple or god forbid... left handed are secondary importance
Similar threads
