Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1 "Carl Levin (D-Mich)." He Supports Repealing Law that Bans Homosexuals from Military 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Senate Armed Service Chairman Says He Supports Repealing Law that Bans Homosexuals from Military
    "Carl Levin (D-Mich.) "

    "Opening the military to lose thousands of career people !""Remember the Soros plan,right on schedule !"


    The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told CNSNews.com Friday that he supports overturning the law that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military. Speaking at a news briefing Friday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that he has always supported overturning a law that says homosexuality is incompatible with military service. “That’s been my position consistently,” Levin said, when asked whether he would support repealing the ban. “Whether and how we get to that is an open issue.” Levin would not say whether he will introduce legislation to overturn the ban. But he did say he would be “exploring,”...

    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=42807
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,711
    It's going to happen, they've got the votes to overturn it.


    I guess military members will have to decide whether they love serving their country more than they hate gays.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It's going to happen, they've got the votes to overturn it.


    I guess military members will have to decide whether they love serving their country more than they hate gays.
    It should be more like "Now the gays can do to the military what they are in the process of doing with marriage"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars1701a View Post
    It should be more like "Now the gays can do to the military what they are in the process of doing with marriage"
    They should be very cautious that they don't go too far and reap a whirlwind of outrage and anger. As of now with all of their millitancy they are well on their way !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It's going to happen, they've got the votes to overturn it.
    I guess military members will have to decide whether they love serving their country more than they hate gays.
    Ahhh... That's the problem! We're just a bunch of homophobic bigots. Damn! I thought that my opposition to gays serving openly in the military was based on my observations of the corrosive effects of sexual conduct between servicemembers that followed the massive influx of women into the regular forces, not to mention the incredible diversion of resources to deal with sexual issues such as assault, harassment and privacy that accompanies putting young, stressed out men and women in close quarters, far from home. Obviously, my concerns that these problems will be exacerbated by the introduction of openly gay Soldiers into this environment is based, not on 21 years of service and my concerns for good order and discipline and the effectiveness of our military to fight wars and protect those who think of us as troglodytes, but rather on my own narrow-minded prejudices. What could I have been thinking? It's much better to force 1.5 million service members to accept behavior that will cause dissention in the ranks and disrupt unit cohesion and morale than to hurt the feelings of a few hundred gay servicemembers. Thank you for enlightening me, oh kind liberal.

    If I needed any further proof of the liberals' contempt for the armed forces...:mad:

    BTW, I addressed this at length in another post. Feel free to expose yourself to further bigotry here.
    Last edited by Odysseus; 02-03-2009 at 10:51 AM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Ahhh... That's the problem! We're just a bunch of homophobic bigots. Damn! I thought that my opposition to gays serving openly in the military was based on my observations of the corrosive effects of sexual conduct between servicemembers that followed the massive influx of women into the regular forces, not to mention the incredible diversion of resources to deal with sexual issues such as assault, harassment and privacy that accompanies putting young, stressed out men and women in close quarters, far from home. Obviously, my concerns that these problems will be exacerbated by the introduction of openly gay Soldiers into this environment is based, not on 21 years of service and my concerns for good order and discipline and the effectiveness of our military to fight wars and protect those who think of us as troglodytes, but rather on my own narrow-minded prejudices. What could I have been thinking? It's much better to force 1.5 million service members to accept behavior that will cause dissention in the ranks and disrupt unit cohesion and morale than to hurt the feelings of a few hundred gay servicemembers. Thank you for enlightening me, oh kind liberal.

    If I needed any further proof of the liberals' contempt for the armed forces...:mad:

    BTW, I addressed this at length in another post. Feel free to expose yourself to further bigotry here.

    I actually think that the military personnel are above that kind of hatred, and are more than capable of handling having openly gay people serving with them. To say otherwise is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of our armed forces. Gay people love our country, too, and want to be able to serve as much as straight people do-some gay people appreciate that they live in a nation where they don't face capital punishment for their sexual orientation. Some of them are grateful enough that they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their nation. Gays are hired in pretty much every other sector of our economy-business, manufacturing, retail, education, sports, entertainment, and every other department within the government.

    It's a different generation than yours or mine that is currently serving in the military. The younger generations are more accepting of gays than the previous ones. It might not be as difficult as the transition when women first entered the military. It was a different time, and gender roles were rigidly defined in the era immediately prior to that.

    There is a military code of conduct that applies to male/female relationships, and the same standards should apply to gay relationships and conduct. If those standards are applied across the board, then there really shouldn't be any problems with openly gay service members. I assume that since the whole Tailhook thing, that sexual harrassment of anyone by anyone is not allowed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I guess military members will have to decide whether they love serving their country more than they hate gays.
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I actually think that the military personnel are above that kind of hatred, and are more than capable of handling having openly gay people serving with them. To say otherwise is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of our armed forces.
    Which is why I considered my intelligence and integrity insulted by your first post, and am having it insulted again by your second, in which you are trying to deny what you previously said. Which is it? Are we above that kind of hatred, or do we need to decide whether we love serving our country more than we hate gays?

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    Gay people love our country, too, and want to be able to serve as much as straight people do-some gay people appreciate that they live in a nation where they don't face capital punishment for their sexual orientation. Some of them are grateful enough that they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their nation. Gays are hired in pretty much every other sector of our economy-business, manufacturing, retail, education, sports, entertainment, and every other department within the government.
    The issue isn't their desire to serve, it's what effect their personal conduct or orientation would have on the units that they serve in. Sexual tension in the ranks, whether gay or straight, is corrosive to unit morale and cohesion. It's not bigotry or sexism to say that, but it does open one up to being accused of it because those who don't have a response choose the easy comeback rather than address the real issues, and because military readiness is less important to them than politically correct sloganeering and social engineering.
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It's a different generation than yours or mine that is currently serving in the military. The younger generations are more accepting of gays than the previous ones. It might not be as difficult as the transition when women first entered the military. It was a different time, and gender roles were rigidly defined in the era immediately prior to that.
    I am currently serving. It's not a different generation, it's my generation. My observations are based on the reality on the ground now, not my recollections of some dim past. The Soldiers that I serve with daily have to deal with the fallout from ill-considered policies imposed by those who don't think through the implications of what they want. Since you obviously didn't read my previous response in another thread on the subject (which is what the link was for), here is the text, in response to a query about what problems the repeal of DADT would cause:

    Pretty much the same problems that we see now in mixed male/female units, only more so. What people don't get about the military is that you do things for your fellow Soldiers because it's neccesary for the unit, whether it's hauling somebody's gear when they're hurt, taking a duty shift or, God forbid, taking a bullet. If, however, you throw in sexual attraction, everything gets colored by whether or not someone is trying to get into someone else's pants, especially if it's a subordinate and a senior. I've seen too many situations where male and female Soldiers had to distance themselves from friends of the opposite sex, not because they were doing anything wrong, but because their friendship sparked rumors that eroded their standing in the unit. When I was a lieutenant, I got into a conversation with a female mechanic and the next day was told that a couple of the enlisted troops thought that I was trying to pick her up. I just wanted to know when I could have my track back, but just the fact that I spoke to her, in plain sight, started a rumor. And the cases of actual malfeasance are worse. We had a CSM who went into theater and came back as an E4 because of his improper conduct with a female subordinate (he had it coming, but it wouldn't have happened in an all-male unit), and even that's the tip of the iceberg. Think about the various sex scandals that you've heard about over the years, from the basic training company at FT Jackson to Tailhook, and ask yourself if those would have happened in an all-male force. We now have unit victim advocates, sexual harassment classes, sexual assault awareness classes and a host of other requirements in order to make up for the fact that we have young men and women living and serving together under stressful conditions and didn't think the consquences through. Now, throw in an openly gay member of a squad or team, and you make the fear of being perceived as fraternizing even more extreme, as will the perception of favoritism and the fear of being hit on. The more sexual tension you throw into a unit, the more tension you introduce.
    In other words, we would have to continue to divert scarce resources (scarcer, now that Obama is asking DOD to cut 10% of its next budget request) to dealing with a problem that we don't have to address, because people who are, at best, not familiar with the culture and norms of the military or, at worst, openly hostile to them, are framing this issue backwards because they're more concerned with a vocal minority than they are with the readiness of the force. The question that you should be asking is whether the admission of openly gay troops will bring anything of value to the force, and if so, is that sufficient to make up for the diversion of time, training resources and personnel that will be necessary to accomodate that change.
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    There is a military code of conduct that applies to male/female relationships, and the same standards should apply to gay relationships and conduct. If those standards are applied across the board, then there really shouldn't be any problems with openly gay service members. I assume that since the whole Tailhook thing, that sexual harrassment of anyone by anyone is not allowed.
    And yet, sexual harassment, as well as sexual assault, does occur, even though it isn't allowed. Hence the appointment of Unit Victim Advocates, Equal Opportunity Officers and a host of other unit positions to facilitate the interactions of male and female Soldiers. More importantly, bogus accusations also proliferate (I know one female officer whose response to every poor evaluation report was an EO complaint, even against other females), and they are difficult to disprove. USN Commander Robert Stumpf, the former CO of the Blue Angels, was present at the Tailhook convention that started the scandal. He literally flew in to accept an award, then left, did not do anything that could be remotely considered inappropriate, and was cleared of any wrongdoing, but still denied promotion to captain, just because he was listed as an attendee. The Navy lost hundreds of skilled aviators, at a training cost of millions per, because of a scandal that turned out to have been largely fabricated. In the middle of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with minimal time, money and equipment to fight that war, and the promise of even less in the future, we're now being asked to divert scarce resources to a problem that nobody cares about except for a few activists and the beneficiaries of their campaign contributions. That's beyond absurd, it's corrupt and despicable. At least Clinton wasn't in the middle of a shooting war when he tried to take on the issue.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The issue isn't their desire to serve, it's what effect their personal conduct or orientation would have on the units that they serve in. Sexual tension in the ranks, whether gay or straight, is corrosive to unit morale and cohesion. It's not bigotry or sexism to say that, but it does open one up to being accused of it because those who don't have a response choose the easy comeback rather than address the real issues, and because military readiness is less important to them than politically correct sloganeering and social engineering.
    Speaking from experience. I'm not too keen on people being openly homosexual in the Army...but let's not fool ourselves that you don't know any closet lesbians in the Service.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Speaking from experience. I'm not too keen on people being openly homosexual in the Army...but let's not fool ourselves that you don't know any closet lesbians in the Service.
    I'm sure that I do. But as long as they're discreet about it, I'm not going to go looking for them. The issue is whether or not the open practice of homosexuality is going to be an issue, and I believe that it is, to the detriment of the service.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    193
    Plenty of gays serve in the military under the radar. I have no problem with it if they keep their personal affairs in order and off duty activities discreet. Quartering/housing (privacy) might be an issue though.



    Does being outed as gay in the military still carry the possibility of a dishonorable discharge?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •