Gays in the Military

[B_OtterJoq]

Thank you, Playinpitt. Your words are appreciated...and necessary.

 

[musictomyears]

What I'm about to say is 75% serious and 25% tongue in cheek. It is also 100% NOT MEANT to offend anyone (except homophobic people...I want to offend them as much as they offend me).

As a gay man, I have always wondered why the straight world DOESN'T want us in the military. With as much hate as there is out there for us, you would think that the homophobes would want us in the military so we could be shipped overseas to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, put on the most dangerous missions, AND BE THE FIRST ONES TO BE KILLED. What a great way to rid America (land of the free...HA) of this terrible sickness and evilness...let gay people serve openly, put them in special gay units, send those special gay units to the most dangerous places, AND LET THEM BE KILLED! Soon, the gay population will be mostly killed off and the problem will be solved!

I am so tired of the double standards in this country.

 

[punk09]

No. That is not a lawful order.

Perhaps exposure to all of that depleted uranium has depleted your cognitive function.

The word "if" is used to signify a conditional, not a certainty.

IF Congress passed a law that mandated subordinates take cock up their ass the way that they mandate that service members are able to legally be exposed to deadly combat, then you'd do it, no questions asked.

When the US military was defeated in Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not erect a statute of US service members for their valor because it was an unwilling, poor conscript army.

When Alexander the Great defeated the Sacred Band of Thebes, 300 soldiers who paired up with their buddies in homosexual relationships, he was so impressed with their valor that he erected a statue in honor of them on the battlefield where he demolished them.

If the US military is a tradition bound organization, then it need look no further than these two examples for its narrow mindedness, and it is little more htan a social welfare program for narrow minded southern crackers.

 

[punk09]

My husband and I visited friends in Portland Oregon a few years ago. After the flight, he had to have a smoke. Turns out that there was a racist skinhead gathering in town, and there were tattooed racist hicks from Texas having a smoke as well. An asian guy did not realize this, and asked the racists for a light for his cig. They sneered at him and did not offer up flame. My husband did.

The question is who is more racist, my husband who helped an Asian guy get cancer or the racists who denied him a light and might have helped lenghthen his life had my husband not intervened....

What I'm about to say is 75% serious and 25% tongue in cheek. It is also 100% NOT MEANT to offend anyone (except homophobic people...I want to offend them as much as they offend me).

As a gay man, I have always wondered why the straight world DOESN'T want us in the military. With as much hate as there is out there for us, you would think that the homophobes would want us in the military so we could be shipped overseas to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, put on the most dangerous missions, AND BE THE FIRST ONES TO BE KILLED. What a great way to rid America (land of the free...HA) of this terrible sickness and evilness...let gay people serve openly, put them in special gay units, send those special gay units to the most dangerous places, AND LET THEM BE KILLED! Soon, the gay population will be mostly killed off and the problem will be solved!

I am so tired of the double standards in this country.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Perhaps exposure to all of that depleted uranium has depleted your cognitive function.

The word "if" is used to signify a conditional, not a certainty.

IF Congress passed a law that mandated subordinates take cock up their ass the way that they mandate that service members are able to legally be exposed to deadly combat, then you'd do it, no questions asked.

When the US military was defeated in Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not erect a statute of US service members for their valor because it was an unwilling, poor conscript army.

When Alexander the Great defeated the Sacred Band of Thebes, 300 soldiers who paired up with their buddies in homosexual relationships, he was so impressed with their valor that he erected a statue in honor of them on the battlefield where he demolished them.

If the US military is a tradition bound organization, then it need look no further than these two examples for its narrow mindedness, and it is little more htan a social welfare program for narrow minded southern crackers.

No, it is not a lawful order even IF Congress passed it because it is a violation of the Constitution.

And from your comments you are are incredible ignorant when it comes to Vietnam.

FACTS:
The US won over 90% of all engagements in Vietnam.
The fall of Saigon happened 2 YEARS AFTER US forces left Vietnam. North Vietnam broke the peace agreement we signed 27JAN1973.
3/4ths of the US Army in Vietnam were volunteers, compared to only 1/3rd in WW2. And only 38% of those killed were Draftees. 70% of WW2 dead were draftees.
Drug use was not rampant during Vietnam. Complete fabrication. Those small few who did use drugs were in relatively safe bases as support personnel.

On top of that 91% of Vietnam veterans are glad they served and 74% would serve again knowing the outcome.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There are simply too many percentage signs in this thread.

 

[punk09]

The damage I saw in guys I worked with when I was younger who did time in Vietnam was life changing. My first boss, the AAC Colonel, shared his experiences with me without varnish, relating that war is something you don't do unless you've exhausted every option. For you all, it is nothing more than a job and a profit center.

Back during Vietnam they used to show military engagements on TV weeks delayed because the film was all flown back. Automatic weapons fire shot from Hueys, guys on stretchers being hauled into the copters under weapons fire cover. Body count numbers proving that we were "winning."

I grew older seeing that shit on TV and heaved a sigh of relief when I saw that last helicopter flee from the embassy roof at age 13. Even communist socialist liberals like General McArthur knew about the stupidity of getting involved in a land war in Asia.

I can understand how someone would want to find strength by finding something of value in the otherwise unjustifiable after going through that hell, and whatever gets those folks through the night is fine by me for them. But given the scale of the carnage, civilian control over the military is a feature not a bug.

Since the 1980s, this entitled white christian conservative demographic prevalent within the military that sees the military as their cultural bastion and essentially threatens civilian society into funding it on its terms in alliance with gargantuan businesses which use massive sums of taxpayer funds to produce products which add no value to the economy.

This militaristic hostility to civilians is demonstrated at home and abroad. Most critically, the US exceptionalist doctrine abroad and the use of the military to secure economic goals is a significant contributing factor to creating the base conditions where civilian populations are willing to give cover to those who would use asymmetrical warfare techniques against our own civilian populations. So civilians get soaked coming and going, but the military still gets paid. Nice work if you can get it and can put aside your compassion and humanity for yer day job.

It is not like the government ever authorized service members to sexually abuse prisoners during "interrogation," so I would not be so hasty to say what is and is not a lawful order if the law reads that way. I mean seriously, given the propensity of right wing christian republican electeds to be on whatever their equivalent of the down low is, I wouldn't put it past them to institutionalize the practice.

All you would able to do at that point would be to man up and take it.

No, it is not a lawful order even IF Congress passed it because it is a violation of the Constitution.

And from your comments you are are incredible ignorant when it comes to Vietnam.

FACTS:
The US won over 90% of all engagements in Vietnam.
The fall of Saigon happened 2 YEARS AFTER US forces left Vietnam. North Vietnam broke the peace agreement we signed 27JAN1973.
3/4ths of the US Army in Vietnam were volunteers, compared to only 1/3rd in WW2. And only 38% of those killed were Draftees. 70% of WW2 dead were draftees.
Drug use was not rampant during Vietnam. Complete fabrication. Those small few who did use drugs were in relatively safe bases as support personnel.

On top of that 91% of Vietnam veterans are glad they served and 74% would serve again knowing the outcome.

 

[B_lrgeggs]

This is just to give a little perspective regarding what is expected of a Soldier (circa 1608). I found this in Michener's Novel Chesapeake (p. 54) . And while this is historic fiction. He was quite thorough when doing research.

"The little captain [James Smith] then wheeled to address the entire company. 'If I demand that you conduct yourselves carefully, I have done the same. I have never drunk spirits, nor diced, nor gamed, nor smoked, nor uttered an oath, nor dallied with women, nor in anyway diminished myself. I am a soldier and I hold myself always to be one...."

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

The Secretary of Defense is not a potted plant.

Well, at least the current one isn't. :smile:

 

[dickman45885]

Retired military here. I served 2 years Active Duty from 1967-1969 and 24 years National Guard from 1984-2008. Serving is a priviledge and honor, not a right.

The US Military has one purpose and one purpose only, to defeat our (US) enemies and preserve our way of life. When we join we freely give up many rights civilians take for granted. We do this so others, civilians, can enjoy the benefits our country has to offer.
We work as a team...TEAM. Together Everyone Achieves Mission. In the case of the military team the mission is protection of our nation and its ideals and values. Anything compromising the TEAM effort needs to be dealt with.

As a Senior Noncommissioned Officer deciding policy was not up to me. However, carrying out policy was up to me. When in uniform we carry out the decisions and orders of those above us.

As for being the best and the model. I have trained soldiers from foreign armies and the US Army is involved in training soldiers in foreign armies. I have soldiers I have trained training some of these foreign soldiers.

 

[the_reverend]

but is it a privilege and honor that should be denied a citizen because of one element of who they are that in no way impacts their ability to serve?

 

[patronpk]

but is it a privilege and honor that should be denied a citizen because of one element of who they are that in no way impacts their ability to serve?

Gays in the Military: worn out argument - time to move on & leave gays alone - it seems the majority of scandals come from the straight community & nobody seems to be heading up a campaign to keep straight assholes out of Congress, the military, etc. Good God people, get on with life!!:redface:

 

[mke75]

In the April 2010 Details magazine. Theres a small snippet stating there is a estimate of more than 66,000 gay/lesbian serving the U.S. Military to date.


As many as 66,000 gay men and women may be serving in the U.S. military, about 2.2 percent of all personnel, including 13,000 on active duty, according to a study by the Williams Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law