End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

No, he has a very valid point about the physical limitations of women in the military. You need to sack up and argue it. I do not share his view of gays, but this one is a very legitimate issue. Women have different physical standard, their qualifying run time is a FULL 3 minutes slower than the guy’s qualifier. In addition they are only required to do 19 push-ups to pass, whereas a guy is required to perform 43 push-ups.
[/quote]

He has no point. He’s an idiot and has made that abundantly clear.

I have been in the Army five years, I know what the requirements are for females in the PT test.

I know while deployed, the females that the guys in my unit worked with while running convoys had no issues mounting 50 cals on their vehicles and serving as gunners. Hell, some of the biggest weaklings I have seen in the Army were males.

[quote]
There is only one goal for the military–thing people and break stuff as efficiently as possible. There is absolutely no rational basis for a double standard except to play political correctness so that feminists will not foam at the mouth for a supposed discrimination on females. Well I have news for you kiddo, females are physically not as strong as men on average. Sorry. It is a biological fact. And it hurts the military’s goal if a female can’t carry heavy ammo boxes or a fallen comrade out of fire because she’s TOO FUCKING PHYSICALLY WEAK to save a life.[/quote]

I have had command time before, brah, so spare me the third degree. I know what female Soldiers are capable of doing.

And, low and behold, we had female medics because they obviously aren’t strong enough to handle wounded personnel, right?

182

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

No, he has a very valid point about the physical limitations of women in the military. You need to sack up and argue it. I do not share his view of gays, but this one is a very legitimate issue. Women have different physical standard, their qualifying run time is a FULL 3 minutes slower than the guy’s qualifier. In addition they are only required to do 19 push-ups to pass, whereas a guy is required to perform 43 push-ups.
[/quote]

He has no point. He’s an idiot and has made that abundantly clear.

I have been in the Army five years, I know what the requirements are for females in the PT test.

I know while deployed, the females that the guys in my unit worked with while running convoys had no issues mounting 50 cals on their vehicles and serving as gunners. Hell, some of the biggest weaklings I have seen in the Army were males.

You’ve had command time? Damn, leadership like that makes me glad I’m out.

183

Dustin I have to disagree with you, about female soldiers having the same physical ability as males. Like Jimmy said there are some that are able to meet the same standards as a male pt test but that is the very minority. Maybe you had one of the rare few females able to ruck 10 miles with the saw and be lead while not getting help. But in my whole time in the military, it was always the woman holding up the company until one of the better male soldier was made to carry her gear so we can make time, I know cause I always had to carry the gear. But I did not mind I like a challenge. But if we where in a real situation with flying bullets, hmm that female would be dead women walking.

Also your mounting a 50 while in rest and checking gear not in real time action. I had to carry to 60s before just some damn women felt like fainting. In your defense there a few women capable but thats rare my friend.

184

Melanie I am not against gays its just a bad situation it lets the few have the majority power. Also this could lead to some beatings of fags and lesbos. If a gay is a sorry pos soldier as an NCO his ass would be on detail all the time, could he not claim I was being anti-gay instead of anti- lazy?

Whats next incest marriage or a man being able to marry 5 wives? ( Which I may support…lol) DADT law was fine before I do not know why they want to mess what is fine at the moment.
Also is not one of the Commies goals is degenerate the moral fabric of America through gayness and separating families, just saying?

185

[quote]iflyboats wrote:
It should be entirely up to military officials to decide whether they think they can operate efficiently with gays in the service. Serving in the military is no more a right than having a job at Microsoft. The purpose of the military is to conduct military operations, not to serve as a bastion of egalitarianism. The reason we have a military is so that all people, including gays, can enjoy freedom in civilian life. The reason we have a military is not to have soldiers galloping around on little pink social justice unicorns. [/quote]

[quote]iflyboats wrote:
It should be entirely up to military officials to decide whether they think they can operate efficiently with gays in the service. Serving in the military is no more a right than having a job at Microsoft.[/quote]

That’s a poor analogy. You cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation IN CERTAIN STATES (it is not one of the original “seven protected classes” referred to in the housing industry). Even if Microsoft has offices in states where discrimination based on sexual orientation is NOT illegal, I doubt the company would want the potentially devastating PR of an angry gay applicant being turned down based on his/her sexual orientation. Especially not since the company is A) massive, B) publicly traded.

Plus, the snide remark about pink unicorns tells us that you are pretty anti-gay (anti-gay marriage, anti-repeal, etc) to begin with, likely on the basis of some faith-based moral argument. I thought we were trying to argue using only logic here.

H4M,

Out of curiosity, what’s another reason for being in favor of DADT, besides the “double standard” argument you’re using about not allowing men and women to bunk in the same room? Are you saying that, if men and women were allowed to bunk together, you would be in favor of the repeal? Because I didn’t see you argue anything else in favor of DADT and, frankly, that’s a poor argument (re: men and women not bunking); seems like a “convenient” argument to mask ulterior motive. No offense.

And I’m trying to keep this civil. Just curious.

By the way, I don’t have your email (can’t PM) and was going to ask you a few other questions about training. Check my profile, please.

186

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Good words on DADT.[/quote]

Good words?

“The Consequences of Eroticizing Philia
What will be the result once the military has been compromised by disordered love? What will happen when an 18-year-old recruit finds himself in an unequal power differential with a superior officer who wants something more than push-ups? Whatâ??s likely to happen when brotherhood is tested on the field in the midst of battle?”

That (lame) hypotheical the author uses is textbook sexual harassment. I’m not sure how severely that is dealt with in the military (between opposite sexes) but, if there’s any sort of precedent favorable to the victim, this hypothetical is just stupid.

Why is something like this almost always pushed as the “potential threat of homosexuality” by the religious right?

187

[quote]jre67t wrote:

Whats next incest marriage or a man being able to marry 5 wives? [/quote]

Yes, that will be next as sure as I am typing you this post. One aberration will most certainly lead to another, just as don’t ask don’t tell has lead to homosexuals serving openly.

188

Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job.

189

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.

190

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.[/quote]

Name the “special rights” civilian homosexuals get.

191

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.[/quote]

Name the “special rights” civilian homosexuals get.

[/quote]

When laws are changed to include homosexual couples they are getting special rights, as prior to that it was one man one woman. When a homosexual man is fired and then later claims it was because he was a homosexual (even though the employer may have not even known the man was a homosexual) he is given a free lawyer via the EEOC.

Basically elevating special minority status to homosexuals is giving them special rights. And it’s something that every law abiding American should be against - But most of them are either too busy with their own lives, or watching American Idol to pay full attention to this problem. That is actually pretty much how we lose most of our rights. Little by little one by one -POOF

http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-controversial-recess-appointment-to-eeoc-lesbian-chai-feldblum.html

Many states have enacted the same federal statutes regarding homosexuals. It’s a simple power grab and they won’t stop until the tables are tipped in their direction. Ditching DADT is symptomatic of a far more insidious agenda.

192

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.[/quote]

Name the “special rights” civilian homosexuals get.

[/quote]

When laws are changed to include homosexual couples they are getting special rights, as prior to that it was one man one woman. When a homosexual man is fired and then later claims it was because he was a homosexual (even though the employer may have not even known the man was a homosexual) he is given a free lawyer via the EEOC.

Basically elevating special minority status to homosexuals is giving them special rights. And it’s something that every law abiding American should be against - But most of them are either too busy with their own lives, or watching American Idol to pay full attention to this problem. That is actually pretty much how we lose most of our rights. Little by little one by one -POOF

http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-controversial-recess-appointment-to-eeoc-lesbian-chai-feldblum.html

Many states have enacted the same federal statutes regarding homosexuals. It’s a simple power grab and they won’t stop until the tables are tipped in their direction. Ditching DADT is symptomatic of a far more insidious agenda.[/quote]

Wait, you can marry a man, right?

You would also get a lawywer if you claimed that you were discriminated against?

So, how are these rights special?

193

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.[/quote]

Name the “special rights” civilian homosexuals get.

[/quote]

When laws are changed to include homosexual couples they are getting special rights, as prior to that it was one man one woman. When a homosexual man is fired and then later claims it was because he was a homosexual (even though the employer may have not even known the man was a homosexual) he is given a free lawyer via the EEOC.

Basically elevating special minority status to homosexuals is giving them special rights. And it’s something that every law abiding American should be against - But most of them are either too busy with their own lives, or watching American Idol to pay full attention to this problem. That is actually pretty much how we lose most of our rights. Little by little one by one -POOF

http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-controversial-recess-appointment-to-eeoc-lesbian-chai-feldblum.html

Many states have enacted the same federal statutes regarding homosexuals. It’s a simple power grab and they won’t stop until the tables are tipped in their direction. Ditching DADT is symptomatic of a far more insidious agenda.[/quote]

Come on Zeb, seriously? Its not “special rights” for gay couples to want the opportunities straight couples have, its caled “equal rights”.

194

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.[/quote]

Name the “special rights” civilian homosexuals get.

[/quote]

When laws are changed to include homosexual couples they are getting special rights, as prior to that it was one man one woman. When a homosexual man is fired and then later claims it was because he was a homosexual (even though the employer may have not even known the man was a homosexual) he is given a free lawyer via the EEOC.

Basically elevating special minority status to homosexuals is giving them special rights. And it’s something that every law abiding American should be against - But most of them are either too busy with their own lives, or watching American Idol to pay full attention to this problem. That is actually pretty much how we lose most of our rights. Little by little one by one -POOF

http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-controversial-recess-appointment-to-eeoc-lesbian-chai-feldblum.html

Many states have enacted the same federal statutes regarding homosexuals. It’s a simple power grab and they won’t stop until the tables are tipped in their direction. Ditching DADT is symptomatic of a far more insidious agenda.[/quote]

Wait, you can marry a man, right?

You would also get a lawywer if you claimed that you were discriminated against?

So, how are these rights special?

[/quote]

They are special rights granted for homosexuals. Just like the rights that they have with the EEOC. It’s total nonsense.

195

[quote]jre67t wrote:
fags and lesbos.[/quote]

Well, there goes any respect you could have had.

196

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hungry4more, I hear what you’re saying, but think about the effects of DADT beyond your own experience. It requires gay soldiers to lie about who they are, and makes them hostage to anyone with an ax to grind.

More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

And prior to DADT people like forlife were very much in favor of it. “This will give them a chance to serve along side other Americans” was their plea. They push the ball down the field and say and do anything to achieve that end. In 10 more years time we will be treated to a barrage of protestors demanding special rights for homosexuals who are in the military. Why not? Civilian homosexuals get them now from the government. Are homosexual military personnel second class citizens?

Can’t you just hear it? The slippery slope continues to slide along.[/quote]

Name the “special rights” civilian homosexuals get.

[/quote]

When laws are changed to include homosexual couples they are getting special rights, as prior to that it was one man one woman. When a homosexual man is fired and then later claims it was because he was a homosexual (even though the employer may have not even known the man was a homosexual) he is given a free lawyer via the EEOC.

Basically elevating special minority status to homosexuals is giving them special rights. And it’s something that every law abiding American should be against - But most of them are either too busy with their own lives, or watching American Idol to pay full attention to this problem. That is actually pretty much how we lose most of our rights. Little by little one by one -POOF

http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-controversial-recess-appointment-to-eeoc-lesbian-chai-feldblum.html

Many states have enacted the same federal statutes regarding homosexuals. It’s a simple power grab and they won’t stop until the tables are tipped in their direction. Ditching DADT is symptomatic of a far more insidious agenda.[/quote]

Wait, you can marry a man, right?

You would also get a lawywer if you claimed that you were discriminated against?

So, how are these rights special?

[/quote]

They are special rights granted for homosexuals. Just like the rights that they have with the EEOC. It’s total nonsense. [/quote]

Can you marry a man, yes or no?

197

Lol to cappedandplanit, its just what I use like I said I have nothing against them. Its the slang I grew up with just like I say the N word, its not what you say its how you say it, plain and simple my friend. So please get over it.
Also to note on the special rights, I can recall one major one. Which I do not have a problem but there was a double standard. I worked at Starbucks and when I was eligible for insurance, I put my family in it but I had to send in my marriage cert because I put wife in the check box. Now this other fellow gay guy put partner in his check box and did not require him to send in any proof. Its just the hypocrisy that gets me on that. Also starbucks is a great place to work at for benefits.
Can gays be placed under the Affirmative Action category? Just wondering
In my personal opinion this will only make it worse for them in the military, it just opens up a lot of doors for discrimination.

198

[quote]iflyboats wrote:
It should be entirely up to military officials to decide whether they think they can operate efficiently with gays in the service. Serving in the military is no more a right than having a job at Microsoft. The purpose of the military is to conduct military operations, not to serve as a bastion of egalitarianism. The reason we have a military is so that all people, including gays, can enjoy freedom in civilian life. The reason we have a military is not to have soldiers galloping around on little pink social justice unicorns. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree more. The military is a tool and many of the US population are discriminated against because our ultimate goal is operational efficiency. I have no issues serving with someone who is gay, provided they are capable, but some will, and that will lead to a less effective fighting force. The military is not a place to conduct social experiments, the capital expended is human lives.

I also find it interesting that so many have opinions, yet how many of those with opinions have served…?

199

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Lol to cappedandplanit, its just what I use like I said I have nothing against them. Its the slang I grew up with just like I say the N word, its not what you say its how you say it, plain and simple my friend. So please get over it. [/quote]

Ah, the ivory tower mentality of whites who have never had to deal with discrimination and bigotry. Weeeee.

200

[quote]forlife wrote:
More broadly, it affects every U.S. citizen to the extent that it weakens our military capability. If thousands of gay soldiers, translators, etc. are evicted from the military due to their sexual orientation, that makes our military less able to do its job. [/quote]

It “weakens” our military? How exactly? Have you served?

Cue Col Jessup’s speech

In all seriousness, each branch has met and exceeded it’s recruiting goals for the past several years. I don’t think manning is an issue.