U.S. Senate repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly to end America's ban on openly-gay military service, setting the stage for a major advancement of civil rights.
He is not a wise ex-soldier...he's a politician who keeps getting more disgusting by the month. And I almost voted for this bastard 2 years ago...
(Ment, 20 December 2010 21:40)
Thanks, that does not look good at all. Flip-flop...
One sentence did catch my attention:
"Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
My question: who on Earth did authorize ANYONE to ask about sexual orientation? IMO, it's just not anyone's business.
It becomes more difficult because on one side I am opposed to the military being open for both "mixed" troops and gays serving in the same troop as their gender (purely because of the safety reason) - on the other hand no one should be authorized to ask any question regarding social orientation.
I think I successfully did bite into my own leg.
OK, at the end of the day I got totally confused and beaten by everyone except Xenofobus, I mean, Xerxes. Thanks everyone, my next vacation is at home, LOL.
The "homo" topic is like a hand grenade. If thrown, the damage is difficult to contain, fragments of the explosion fly in every direction. Distracts everyone. After explosion and in the middle of the confusion trolls emerge to scavenge on the remains of dead.
Strategically, however, the effects are over-estimated. Good defense tactic:
places like Serbia (which is probably the worst non-muslim country in the world for gay rights),
(Danilo, 20 December 2010 09:37)
Let's not exaggerate too much. These guys are all good Christians - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/02/gayrights.gender - as is much of Africa. Maybe Serbia should be looking to its Orthodox brothers in Greece for an alternative example. Their culture is steeped in homosexuality and always has been, yet life goes on and people still go to church.
Why shouldn't the same apply to straight people if their sexuality is also found out? Double standards?
(Ian, UK, 20 December 2010 06:58)
No double standard. Of course it should apply to straight the same way. This is what I am saying probably the fifth time - but no one tells me, what's wrong with it.
Jez, you're not quite right. Our friend Leonidas and his compatriots already led the way in this area, to very good effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
This is good news for the world. Even though the US is behind the rest of the developed world in this regard, any social developments like this in the developed world show an example to less developed places - like Serbia.
When places like Serbia (which is probably the worst non-muslim country in the world for gay rights), see that the sky doesn't fall when equal rights are extended to citizens of another country, tiny, tiny steps can be made here too.
But Ian, in an armed forces environment why would anyone need to know whether others serving are gay or straight? It's completely irrelevant.
If someone is victimised for being gay then should be protected by their superiors, but why does it need to be advertised?
Armed forces are not your usual worplace environment and you cannot transfer basic principles of one to the other.
You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
(kate, 19 December 2010 16:10)
I know that if you're serving in the armed forces it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, but why should gay people be discharged from the armed forces if their sexuality is found out? Why shouldn't the same apply to straight people if their sexuality is also found out? Double standards? You say you're more interested in asking people from poor backgrounds what they think, however you do realise that when surveyed several times well over 80% of the people in the US armed forces didn't care about the issue of homosexual people openly serving. Also surely you must know that a lot people from poor backgrounds in the US have a very backwards way of life and a very backwards way of thinking; why would you want to incorporate these backwards views into the US armed forces?
I know I'm safe and warm at university in the UK and we don't experience conscription here, however the US doesn't either... so what's your point?
Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
(Amer, 19 December 2010 22:22)
The funny side.
Russians have a joke about American "political correctness" and fear of "racial and sexual discrimination"
One day the American secret service decide to "inject" a spy in a small Russian town. The spy was trained for years, got fake Russian documents. He was selected as the most gifted person and indeed, he spoke the language better than the natives and knew the geography and history of the area better than the elders of the town.
He did hide his parachute into a secret place, took an old, dirty Russian bicycle and slowly cycled towards the town. First whom he met was a group of boy scouts. They looked at him and begun to yell: "police, police, there is an American spy here!"
The police came and took the guy. During the interrogation he expressed disbelief, how come he was discovered so quickly - he was trained to be a native for years and he was the best among the other candidates.
- "You know... the boys discovered you because there is no other black person in 1000 km radius."
This is a generational thing - younger people don't see any problem, while older ones (Sen. McCain, e.g.) fear the unknown. Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
(Amer, 19 December 2010 22:22)
Hey, I was beaten here in the ground an kicked in the asset - understand why - but how you did manage to get three negatives?
Regarding your comment I would rather say - McCain may have zero experience with how to chose his running mate for the Oval Office. But if it's about policy in military I would rather bow to his opinion or of Colin's opinion than of politicians who never seen anything more serious than 9mm softpoint Saturday Special.
I did not see even that, only Czechslovakian sportsgun which uses compressed air.
I would appreciate tough if someone patiently explains to me, what is wrong with my argument. My argument even more simplified: "A", "B", "C" are in the air, each of them piloting a fighter jet. "C" is the commander, "A" and "B" are lovers.
I believe, "A" and "B" would rather protect each other than the commander and adding an extra risk to the mission. At least, it's what I would do for 100%.
Amer, thank you, that's a genuinely interesting perspective.
Jez: "You are a fighter pilot. So is your lover. You did not know her till both of you did not meet at your fighter unit... No one knows about your relationship but both of you already have marriage plans."
That was the exact scenario I used to have when I was 12 with combat action man and barbie... except marriage wasn't involved.
All I know is that a segment of American society that was previously denied the right to be shipped off to some God-forsaken part of the world to fight and die ill-equipped in some senseless and endless war now have that opportunity that others so long enjoyed. Democracy marches on.
(Mike, 19 December 2010 17:38)
Not quite right. They could do that before if they were quiet. Now they don't need to be quiet. Let's see who drops the soap first.
"You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
(kate, 19 December 2010 16:10) "
We don't have conscription in the US, either. As for what the troops think, they don't for the most part foresee any problem - the Armed Forces conducted a major study to determine the opinion of the people who would be most affected by the change. (The Marines were less certain of this than the other forces, and if the policy is implemented on a rolling basis, they'll probably be the last to make the change.) It's not that gays haven't been serving along with straights for years, since they have been. The problem has been that if they were accused of being gay, and answered honestly, they had - under DADT - to be discharged. The regulations against fraternization and sexual harassment will remain in place.
This is a generational thing - younger people don't see any problem, while older ones (Sen. McCain, e.g.) fear the unknown. Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
And here I was all ready to spread our news to the readers/posters at b92. late, not for the first time. of course if i were living in Pris...
anyway, here's the deal (trying so very hard to ignore the usual idiocy):lgbt people have always served in our military forces. absolutely nothing new there.
a frnd of ours, no longer alive, did a major historical work on gays serving in the US military in ww2. it was unbelievable what sh-t they had to deal with, aside, of course, from the nazis, fascist army of the japanese,etc. I think it's called "coming out under fire." so many careers destroyed, lives wasted, because of this insane and bizarre homophobia.
this current battle ag homophobia in the military has been going on, in one form or another, since at least the 70s. you can say some 40 years, more or less along the timeline of the modern lgbt movement. but most of us thought we'd never live to see this day (actually, yesterday.) my frnds are pleased as punch, it is an incredible victory for civil rights, for human rights.
naturally, until the very last mminute, that nice johm mc cain and his ilk fought it tooth and nail. mr. I-was-a-POW martyr... every time i think about the possibility of he and palin as heads of state, it makes me physically ill.
"Don't ask, don't tell" -- this was NEVER what clinton desired. at the beginning of his 1st term, he very bravely attempted to overturn the ridiculous ban on gays in the military, where gays were permitted to serve when they were absolutely needed, then thrown to the wayside when perceived to be not so needed. the homophobes in congress (both parties) and in the military put up such a fuss, it threatned to destroy the whole of clinton's agenda (here's where you can throw in the stupid jokes about his very hetero extra-curricular activities.)
so, "don't ask, don't tell" became the so-called compromise. which in reality ended up even worse for lgbt people than the policy it replaced. talk about irony.
also -- there are some (a few) lgbt people who really don't care about this issue, such as my pal/colleague M, who is originally from germany. she is fully anti-military, doesn't want anyone to serve in the military, much less lgbt people. so that is one, albeit minority position.
but most of us are utterly ecstatic about this great civil rights victory -- our govt owes many, many lgbt people a huge apology (not to mention $$$ damages; just wait...)
having said all that, we need to bring the troops home from iraq and Afghanistan, yesterday.
cheers! especially to any and all of our lgbt colleagues around the world.
First of all fraternization is not just frowned on in the US military but it is a courtmarshall offense. While husband and wives may serve in the military, they cannot deploy to battle fronts together.
This change in law is not going to change that. Personnel who are intimately involved be it m/m, m/f, f/f will still have to keep their relationship under wraps in order to remain in the same unit.
Saying that people do not have to hide their orientation does not mean they can make out in the foxholes.
(get it "straight", 19 December 2010 14:34)
Yes... and how do you guarantee that "X" and "Y" won't get romantic at one point... Tie a knot
That means nothing, what has this to do with homosexual people serving in the army? Just because homosexual are now allowed to openly serve in the army doesn't mean they're all going to start having sex with each other. Women serve in the army, it doesn't mean that that heterosexual men are going to have sex with them. The same applies to two homosexual men serving in the army.
(Ian, UK, 19 December 2010 15:28)
You completely misunderstand and I would ban mixed sex units, too. What I am saying is (homo)sexually neutral: ARMY = NO SEX.
Explanation/1.
You are a fighter pilot. So is your lover. You did not know her till both of you did not meet at your fighter unit. No one knows about your relationship but both of you already have marriage plans.
Now you, her and your commander are on a mission and your job is to protect your commander. You are a healthy guy who is totally obsessed with his future wife as it should be.
Question: whom you will protect during the mission: your commander or your future wife?
If you say, you are going to protect your commander - either I won't trust your words or I would say, you have to see a marriage therapist doctor before you marry.
Because if it would be me - all my attention would be towards my girl and the commander (thus the mission) would get zero.
The next question: does this behavior benefit the army? The answer if obvious. And nothing, really nothing can be done because the sexual bond is the strongest, stronger than any friendship or being a relative. This is how we are made, I guess on purpose - to make more babies.
After this all you need is to apply the same logic to homosexual relationships. I really have no idea how they work but if they work a similar way like I just described - than just substitute the female pilot with the male in my above example and you get the same results.
Explanation/2.
Show me a relationship - OK, man-woman only which had no underwater rocks, no "side-steps", no "ups" and "downs". Even in the office there could be problems. Show me anyone who wasn't at one point courting his/her classmate or colleague. Under normal situation things are going to be resolved. Int the school or at the workplace Schoolteachers and supervisors sometimes have headache and that's it (yea!!! guilty as hell in many counts here!)
But army is a different place, here everyone has a deadly weapon and everyone is exposed to extreme dangers. What is a headache for a supervisor or a teacher can become a nightmare or a tragedy for the superior officer.
I believe, army and love/family life are 100% incompatible things and have to be kept as separate as possible. So I am consistent: no "homo", no "hetero". And to enforce that (because we are all humans!) it means: no "mixed" troops, either woman-only or man-only units. As for gays... that should be consistent with the above.
All I know is that a segment of American society that was previously denied the right to be shipped off to some God-forsaken part of the world to fight and die ill-equipped in some senseless and endless war now have that opportunity that others so long enjoyed. Democracy marches on.
But Ian, in an armed forces environment why would anyone need to know whether others serving are gay or straight? It's completely irrelevant.
If someone is victimised for being gay then should be protected by their superiors, but why does it need to be advertised?
Armed forces are not your usual worplace environment and you cannot transfer basic principles of one to the other.
You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
Guys, this is ARMY and not a normal workplace. Even at the workplace supervisors are cautious to deal with a couple (again, no difference between straight or gay). It is an extra challenge in the team, but still much easier to deal with than the battlefield.
On the battlefield strictly no sex, regardless straight, not straight, between people, between hedgehogs, does not matter.
(Je¿ nieseksualny, 19 December 2010 12:43)
That means nothing, what has this to do with homosexual people serving in the army? Just because homosexual are now allowed to openly serve in the army doesn't mean they're all going to start having sex with each other. Women serve in the army, it doesn't mean that that heterosexual men are going to have sex with them. The same applies to two homosexual men serving in the army.
AND THE FRENCH DO IT RIGHT!!!
(Je¿ homoseksualny, 19 December 2010 11:57)
Recommend (0)Poor comment (-8)
First of all fraternization is not just frowned on in the US military but it is a courtmarshall offense. While husband and wives may serve in the military, they cannot deploy to battle fronts together.
This change in law is not going to change that. Personnel who are intimately involved be it m/m, m/f, f/f will still have to keep their relationship under wraps in order to remain in the same unit.
Saying that people do not have to hide their orientation does not mean they can make out in the foxholes.
@ Jez - I agree with what you are saying ie. that the battlefield is not your standard workplace and the same rules should not necessarily apply.
But protecting human rights for soldiers is obviously important, and that includes for everyone. If a soldier is prepared to fight for his or her country and happens to be homosexual, I can't see it being a problem. They are as brave as any other soldier. I'm sure they wouldn't be camping it up on the front!
They should be treated with equal respect and rights, but the armed forces is the one place where I think there should be a policy of keeping your sexuality to yourself. It shouldn't be relevant.
Jez: "Imagine, someone and his girlfriend enlist into army and they land up in the same unit. Later, she is killed in the action. Her B/f most likely will ignore any command and will just go ballistic on the opponent."
What about if they are enlisted in the same unit as their brother, sister or best friend? The same argument could be made.
Finally, I have to share these few excellent sketches of the well known British RAF pilots who speak teenage lingo and frequently talk about their rights 'blood' – hope to create a few smiles:
This is a change, there is an improvement in civil liberties/ human rights in the US; it is usually the other way round.
(Ian, UK, 19 December 2010, 11:32)
A decision by Congress which actually satisfies me. Nice to see that we're moving out of the stone age, finally.
(Ari Gold, 19 December 2010, 12:14)
Guys, this is ARMY and not a normal workplace. Even at the workplace supervisors are cautious to deal with a couple (again, no difference between straight or gay). It is an extra challenge in the team, but still much easier to deal with than the battlefield.
On the battlefield strictly no sex, regardless straight, not straight, between people, between hedgehogs, does not matter.
Let me explain, why and let's stay at "hetero" cases. Forget "homo" completely. It's irrelevant.
Imagine, someone and his girlfriend enlist into army and they land up in the same unit. Later, she is killed in the action. Her B/f most likely will ignore any command and will just go ballistic on the opponent.
Because in the war - if done according the rules of chivalry - there is NO ENEMY, only OPPONENT. The job of the soldier is do his job regardless, as it is described in the rules he was briefed before joining the unit.
Now back to the same-gender thing. It's not any different. So think twice - does an officer want a potential drama in the army barrack - or even worse at the battle-field - or not.
I think, everyone agrees that most professional army on Planet Earth is French Foreign Legion. They have completely different approach than the "laissez-faire" policy of the regular French army. At the "Légion étrangère" homosexuality is not only actively discouraged during the recruitment process, but that a soldier is discharged should it be found out that he is gay.
@ Jez - I agree with what you are saying ie. that the battlefield is not your standard workplace and the same rules should not necessarily apply.
But protecting human rights for soldiers is obviously important, and that includes for everyone. If a soldier is prepared to fight for his or her country and happens to be homosexual, I can't see it being a problem. They are as brave as any other soldier. I'm sure they wouldn't be camping it up on the front!
They should be treated with equal respect and rights, but the armed forces is the one place where I think there should be a policy of keeping your sexuality to yourself. It shouldn't be relevant.
Jez: "Imagine, someone and his girlfriend enlist into army and they land up in the same unit. Later, she is killed in the action. Her B/f most likely will ignore any command and will just go ballistic on the opponent."
What about if they are enlisted in the same unit as their brother, sister or best friend? The same argument could be made.
Finally, I have to share these few excellent sketches of the well known British RAF pilots who speak teenage lingo and frequently talk about their rights 'blood' – hope to create a few smiles:
And here I was all ready to spread our news to the readers/posters at b92. late, not for the first time. of course if i were living in Pris...
anyway, here's the deal (trying so very hard to ignore the usual idiocy):lgbt people have always served in our military forces. absolutely nothing new there.
a frnd of ours, no longer alive, did a major historical work on gays serving in the US military in ww2. it was unbelievable what sh-t they had to deal with, aside, of course, from the nazis, fascist army of the japanese,etc. I think it's called "coming out under fire." so many careers destroyed, lives wasted, because of this insane and bizarre homophobia.
this current battle ag homophobia in the military has been going on, in one form or another, since at least the 70s. you can say some 40 years, more or less along the timeline of the modern lgbt movement. but most of us thought we'd never live to see this day (actually, yesterday.) my frnds are pleased as punch, it is an incredible victory for civil rights, for human rights.
naturally, until the very last mminute, that nice johm mc cain and his ilk fought it tooth and nail. mr. I-was-a-POW martyr... every time i think about the possibility of he and palin as heads of state, it makes me physically ill.
"Don't ask, don't tell" -- this was NEVER what clinton desired. at the beginning of his 1st term, he very bravely attempted to overturn the ridiculous ban on gays in the military, where gays were permitted to serve when they were absolutely needed, then thrown to the wayside when perceived to be not so needed. the homophobes in congress (both parties) and in the military put up such a fuss, it threatned to destroy the whole of clinton's agenda (here's where you can throw in the stupid jokes about his very hetero extra-curricular activities.)
so, "don't ask, don't tell" became the so-called compromise. which in reality ended up even worse for lgbt people than the policy it replaced. talk about irony.
also -- there are some (a few) lgbt people who really don't care about this issue, such as my pal/colleague M, who is originally from germany. she is fully anti-military, doesn't want anyone to serve in the military, much less lgbt people. so that is one, albeit minority position.
but most of us are utterly ecstatic about this great civil rights victory -- our govt owes many, many lgbt people a huge apology (not to mention $$$ damages; just wait...)
having said all that, we need to bring the troops home from iraq and Afghanistan, yesterday.
cheers! especially to any and all of our lgbt colleagues around the world.
But Ian, in an armed forces environment why would anyone need to know whether others serving are gay or straight? It's completely irrelevant.
If someone is victimised for being gay then should be protected by their superiors, but why does it need to be advertised?
Armed forces are not your usual worplace environment and you cannot transfer basic principles of one to the other.
You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
Let me explain, why and let's stay at "hetero" cases. Forget "homo" completely. It's irrelevant.
Imagine, someone and his girlfriend enlist into army and they land up in the same unit. Later, she is killed in the action. Her B/f most likely will ignore any command and will just go ballistic on the opponent.
Because in the war - if done according the rules of chivalry - there is NO ENEMY, only OPPONENT. The job of the soldier is do his job regardless, as it is described in the rules he was briefed before joining the unit.
Now back to the same-gender thing. It's not any different. So think twice - does an officer want a potential drama in the army barrack - or even worse at the battle-field - or not.
I think, everyone agrees that most professional army on Planet Earth is French Foreign Legion. They have completely different approach than the "laissez-faire" policy of the regular French army. At the "Légion étrangère" homosexuality is not only actively discouraged during the recruitment process, but that a soldier is discharged should it be found out that he is gay.
Guys, this is ARMY and not a normal workplace. Even at the workplace supervisors are cautious to deal with a couple (again, no difference between straight or gay). It is an extra challenge in the team, but still much easier to deal with than the battlefield.
On the battlefield strictly no sex, regardless straight, not straight, between people, between hedgehogs, does not matter.
(Je¿ nieseksualny, 19 December 2010 12:43)
That means nothing, what has this to do with homosexual people serving in the army? Just because homosexual are now allowed to openly serve in the army doesn't mean they're all going to start having sex with each other. Women serve in the army, it doesn't mean that that heterosexual men are going to have sex with them. The same applies to two homosexual men serving in the army.
All I know is that a segment of American society that was previously denied the right to be shipped off to some God-forsaken part of the world to fight and die ill-equipped in some senseless and endless war now have that opportunity that others so long enjoyed. Democracy marches on.
The "homo" topic is like a hand grenade. If thrown, the damage is difficult to contain, fragments of the explosion fly in every direction. Distracts everyone. After explosion and in the middle of the confusion trolls emerge to scavenge on the remains of dead.
Strategically, however, the effects are over-estimated. Good defense tactic:
This is a change, there is an improvement in civil liberties/ human rights in the US; it is usually the other way round.
(Ian, UK, 19 December 2010, 11:32)
A decision by Congress which actually satisfies me. Nice to see that we're moving out of the stone age, finally.
(Ari Gold, 19 December 2010, 12:14)
Guys, this is ARMY and not a normal workplace. Even at the workplace supervisors are cautious to deal with a couple (again, no difference between straight or gay). It is an extra challenge in the team, but still much easier to deal with than the battlefield.
On the battlefield strictly no sex, regardless straight, not straight, between people, between hedgehogs, does not matter.
places like Serbia (which is probably the worst non-muslim country in the world for gay rights),
(Danilo, 20 December 2010 09:37)
Let's not exaggerate too much. These guys are all good Christians - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/02/gayrights.gender - as is much of Africa. Maybe Serbia should be looking to its Orthodox brothers in Greece for an alternative example. Their culture is steeped in homosexuality and always has been, yet life goes on and people still go to church.
Why shouldn't the same apply to straight people if their sexuality is also found out? Double standards?
(Ian, UK, 20 December 2010 06:58)
No double standard. Of course it should apply to straight the same way. This is what I am saying probably the fifth time - but no one tells me, what's wrong with it.
"You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
(kate, 19 December 2010 16:10) "
We don't have conscription in the US, either. As for what the troops think, they don't for the most part foresee any problem - the Armed Forces conducted a major study to determine the opinion of the people who would be most affected by the change. (The Marines were less certain of this than the other forces, and if the policy is implemented on a rolling basis, they'll probably be the last to make the change.) It's not that gays haven't been serving along with straights for years, since they have been. The problem has been that if they were accused of being gay, and answered honestly, they had - under DADT - to be discharged. The regulations against fraternization and sexual harassment will remain in place.
This is a generational thing - younger people don't see any problem, while older ones (Sen. McCain, e.g.) fear the unknown. Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
This is good news for the world. Even though the US is behind the rest of the developed world in this regard, any social developments like this in the developed world show an example to less developed places - like Serbia.
When places like Serbia (which is probably the worst non-muslim country in the world for gay rights), see that the sky doesn't fall when equal rights are extended to citizens of another country, tiny, tiny steps can be made here too.
Jez, you're not quite right. Our friend Leonidas and his compatriots already led the way in this area, to very good effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
AND THE FRENCH DO IT RIGHT!!!
(Je¿ homoseksualny, 19 December 2010 11:57)
Recommend (0)Poor comment (-8)
First of all fraternization is not just frowned on in the US military but it is a courtmarshall offense. While husband and wives may serve in the military, they cannot deploy to battle fronts together.
This change in law is not going to change that. Personnel who are intimately involved be it m/m, m/f, f/f will still have to keep their relationship under wraps in order to remain in the same unit.
Saying that people do not have to hide their orientation does not mean they can make out in the foxholes.
Amer, thank you, that's a genuinely interesting perspective.
Jez: "You are a fighter pilot. So is your lover. You did not know her till both of you did not meet at your fighter unit... No one knows about your relationship but both of you already have marriage plans."
That was the exact scenario I used to have when I was 12 with combat action man and barbie... except marriage wasn't involved.
That means nothing, what has this to do with homosexual people serving in the army? Just because homosexual are now allowed to openly serve in the army doesn't mean they're all going to start having sex with each other. Women serve in the army, it doesn't mean that that heterosexual men are going to have sex with them. The same applies to two homosexual men serving in the army.
(Ian, UK, 19 December 2010 15:28)
You completely misunderstand and I would ban mixed sex units, too. What I am saying is (homo)sexually neutral: ARMY = NO SEX.
Explanation/1.
You are a fighter pilot. So is your lover. You did not know her till both of you did not meet at your fighter unit. No one knows about your relationship but both of you already have marriage plans.
Now you, her and your commander are on a mission and your job is to protect your commander. You are a healthy guy who is totally obsessed with his future wife as it should be.
Question: whom you will protect during the mission: your commander or your future wife?
If you say, you are going to protect your commander - either I won't trust your words or I would say, you have to see a marriage therapist doctor before you marry.
Because if it would be me - all my attention would be towards my girl and the commander (thus the mission) would get zero.
The next question: does this behavior benefit the army? The answer if obvious. And nothing, really nothing can be done because the sexual bond is the strongest, stronger than any friendship or being a relative. This is how we are made, I guess on purpose - to make more babies.
After this all you need is to apply the same logic to homosexual relationships. I really have no idea how they work but if they work a similar way like I just described - than just substitute the female pilot with the male in my above example and you get the same results.
Explanation/2.
Show me a relationship - OK, man-woman only which had no underwater rocks, no "side-steps", no "ups" and "downs". Even in the office there could be problems. Show me anyone who wasn't at one point courting his/her classmate or colleague. Under normal situation things are going to be resolved. Int the school or at the workplace Schoolteachers and supervisors sometimes have headache and that's it (yea!!! guilty as hell in many counts here!)
But army is a different place, here everyone has a deadly weapon and everyone is exposed to extreme dangers. What is a headache for a supervisor or a teacher can become a nightmare or a tragedy for the superior officer.
I believe, army and love/family life are 100% incompatible things and have to be kept as separate as possible. So I am consistent: no "homo", no "hetero". And to enforce that (because we are all humans!) it means: no "mixed" troops, either woman-only or man-only units. As for gays... that should be consistent with the above.
First of all fraternization is not just frowned on in the US military but it is a courtmarshall offense. While husband and wives may serve in the military, they cannot deploy to battle fronts together.
This change in law is not going to change that. Personnel who are intimately involved be it m/m, m/f, f/f will still have to keep their relationship under wraps in order to remain in the same unit.
Saying that people do not have to hide their orientation does not mean they can make out in the foxholes.
(get it "straight", 19 December 2010 14:34)
Yes... and how do you guarantee that "X" and "Y" won't get romantic at one point... Tie a knot
All I know is that a segment of American society that was previously denied the right to be shipped off to some God-forsaken part of the world to fight and die ill-equipped in some senseless and endless war now have that opportunity that others so long enjoyed. Democracy marches on.
(Mike, 19 December 2010 17:38)
Not quite right. They could do that before if they were quiet. Now they don't need to be quiet. Let's see who drops the soap first.
This is a generational thing - younger people don't see any problem, while older ones (Sen. McCain, e.g.) fear the unknown. Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
(Amer, 19 December 2010 22:22)
Hey, I was beaten here in the ground an kicked in the asset - understand why - but how you did manage to get three negatives?
Regarding your comment I would rather say - McCain may have zero experience with how to chose his running mate for the Oval Office. But if it's about policy in military I would rather bow to his opinion or of Colin's opinion than of politicians who never seen anything more serious than 9mm softpoint Saturday Special.
I did not see even that, only Czechslovakian sportsgun which uses compressed air.
I would appreciate tough if someone patiently explains to me, what is wrong with my argument. My argument even more simplified: "A", "B", "C" are in the air, each of them piloting a fighter jet. "C" is the commander, "A" and "B" are lovers.
I believe, "A" and "B" would rather protect each other than the commander and adding an extra risk to the mission. At least, it's what I would do for 100%.
Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
(Amer, 19 December 2010 22:22)
The funny side.
Russians have a joke about American "political correctness" and fear of "racial and sexual discrimination"
One day the American secret service decide to "inject" a spy in a small Russian town. The spy was trained for years, got fake Russian documents. He was selected as the most gifted person and indeed, he spoke the language better than the natives and knew the geography and history of the area better than the elders of the town.
He did hide his parachute into a secret place, took an old, dirty Russian bicycle and slowly cycled towards the town. First whom he met was a group of boy scouts. They looked at him and begun to yell: "police, police, there is an American spy here!"
The police came and took the guy. During the interrogation he expressed disbelief, how come he was discovered so quickly - he was trained to be a native for years and he was the best among the other candidates.
- "You know... the boys discovered you because there is no other black person in 1000 km radius."
But Ian, in an armed forces environment why would anyone need to know whether others serving are gay or straight? It's completely irrelevant.
If someone is victimised for being gay then should be protected by their superiors, but why does it need to be advertised?
Armed forces are not your usual worplace environment and you cannot transfer basic principles of one to the other.
You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
(kate, 19 December 2010 16:10)
I know that if you're serving in the armed forces it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, but why should gay people be discharged from the armed forces if their sexuality is found out? Why shouldn't the same apply to straight people if their sexuality is also found out? Double standards? You say you're more interested in asking people from poor backgrounds what they think, however you do realise that when surveyed several times well over 80% of the people in the US armed forces didn't care about the issue of homosexual people openly serving. Also surely you must know that a lot people from poor backgrounds in the US have a very backwards way of life and a very backwards way of thinking; why would you want to incorporate these backwards views into the US armed forces?
I know I'm safe and warm at university in the UK and we don't experience conscription here, however the US doesn't either... so what's your point?
He is not a wise ex-soldier...he's a politician who keeps getting more disgusting by the month. And I almost voted for this bastard 2 years ago...
(Ment, 20 December 2010 21:40)
Thanks, that does not look good at all. Flip-flop...
One sentence did catch my attention:
"Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
My question: who on Earth did authorize ANYONE to ask about sexual orientation? IMO, it's just not anyone's business.
It becomes more difficult because on one side I am opposed to the military being open for both "mixed" troops and gays serving in the same troop as their gender (purely because of the safety reason) - on the other hand no one should be authorized to ask any question regarding social orientation.
I think I successfully did bite into my own leg.
OK, at the end of the day I got totally confused and beaten by everyone except Xenofobus, I mean, Xerxes. Thanks everyone, my next vacation is at home, LOL.
Let me explain, why and let's stay at "hetero" cases. Forget "homo" completely. It's irrelevant.
Imagine, someone and his girlfriend enlist into army and they land up in the same unit. Later, she is killed in the action. Her B/f most likely will ignore any command and will just go ballistic on the opponent.
Because in the war - if done according the rules of chivalry - there is NO ENEMY, only OPPONENT. The job of the soldier is do his job regardless, as it is described in the rules he was briefed before joining the unit.
Now back to the same-gender thing. It's not any different. So think twice - does an officer want a potential drama in the army barrack - or even worse at the battle-field - or not.
I think, everyone agrees that most professional army on Planet Earth is French Foreign Legion. They have completely different approach than the "laissez-faire" policy of the regular French army. At the "Légion étrangère" homosexuality is not only actively discouraged during the recruitment process, but that a soldier is discharged should it be found out that he is gay.
places like Serbia (which is probably the worst non-muslim country in the world for gay rights),
(Danilo, 20 December 2010 09:37)
Let's not exaggerate too much. These guys are all good Christians - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/02/gayrights.gender - as is much of Africa. Maybe Serbia should be looking to its Orthodox brothers in Greece for an alternative example. Their culture is steeped in homosexuality and always has been, yet life goes on and people still go to church.
This is a change, there is an improvement in civil liberties/ human rights in the US; it is usually the other way round.
(Ian, UK, 19 December 2010, 11:32)
A decision by Congress which actually satisfies me. Nice to see that we're moving out of the stone age, finally.
(Ari Gold, 19 December 2010, 12:14)
Guys, this is ARMY and not a normal workplace. Even at the workplace supervisors are cautious to deal with a couple (again, no difference between straight or gay). It is an extra challenge in the team, but still much easier to deal with than the battlefield.
On the battlefield strictly no sex, regardless straight, not straight, between people, between hedgehogs, does not matter.
Jez, you're not quite right. Our friend Leonidas and his compatriots already led the way in this area, to very good effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
But Ian, in an armed forces environment why would anyone need to know whether others serving are gay or straight? It's completely irrelevant.
If someone is victimised for being gay then should be protected by their superiors, but why does it need to be advertised?
Armed forces are not your usual worplace environment and you cannot transfer basic principles of one to the other.
You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
This is a generational thing - younger people don't see any problem, while older ones (Sen. McCain, e.g.) fear the unknown. Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
(Amer, 19 December 2010 22:22)
Hey, I was beaten here in the ground an kicked in the asset - understand why - but how you did manage to get three negatives?
Regarding your comment I would rather say - McCain may have zero experience with how to chose his running mate for the Oval Office. But if it's about policy in military I would rather bow to his opinion or of Colin's opinion than of politicians who never seen anything more serious than 9mm softpoint Saturday Special.
I did not see even that, only Czechslovakian sportsgun which uses compressed air.
I would appreciate tough if someone patiently explains to me, what is wrong with my argument. My argument even more simplified: "A", "B", "C" are in the air, each of them piloting a fighter jet. "C" is the commander, "A" and "B" are lovers.
I believe, "A" and "B" would rather protect each other than the commander and adding an extra risk to the mission. At least, it's what I would do for 100%.
Amer, thank you, that's a genuinely interesting perspective.
Jez: "You are a fighter pilot. So is your lover. You did not know her till both of you did not meet at your fighter unit... No one knows about your relationship but both of you already have marriage plans."
That was the exact scenario I used to have when I was 12 with combat action man and barbie... except marriage wasn't involved.
That means nothing, what has this to do with homosexual people serving in the army? Just because homosexual are now allowed to openly serve in the army doesn't mean they're all going to start having sex with each other. Women serve in the army, it doesn't mean that that heterosexual men are going to have sex with them. The same applies to two homosexual men serving in the army.
(Ian, UK, 19 December 2010 15:28)
You completely misunderstand and I would ban mixed sex units, too. What I am saying is (homo)sexually neutral: ARMY = NO SEX.
Explanation/1.
You are a fighter pilot. So is your lover. You did not know her till both of you did not meet at your fighter unit. No one knows about your relationship but both of you already have marriage plans.
Now you, her and your commander are on a mission and your job is to protect your commander. You are a healthy guy who is totally obsessed with his future wife as it should be.
Question: whom you will protect during the mission: your commander or your future wife?
If you say, you are going to protect your commander - either I won't trust your words or I would say, you have to see a marriage therapist doctor before you marry.
Because if it would be me - all my attention would be towards my girl and the commander (thus the mission) would get zero.
The next question: does this behavior benefit the army? The answer if obvious. And nothing, really nothing can be done because the sexual bond is the strongest, stronger than any friendship or being a relative. This is how we are made, I guess on purpose - to make more babies.
After this all you need is to apply the same logic to homosexual relationships. I really have no idea how they work but if they work a similar way like I just described - than just substitute the female pilot with the male in my above example and you get the same results.
Explanation/2.
Show me a relationship - OK, man-woman only which had no underwater rocks, no "side-steps", no "ups" and "downs". Even in the office there could be problems. Show me anyone who wasn't at one point courting his/her classmate or colleague. Under normal situation things are going to be resolved. Int the school or at the workplace Schoolteachers and supervisors sometimes have headache and that's it (yea!!! guilty as hell in many counts here!)
But army is a different place, here everyone has a deadly weapon and everyone is exposed to extreme dangers. What is a headache for a supervisor or a teacher can become a nightmare or a tragedy for the superior officer.
I believe, army and love/family life are 100% incompatible things and have to be kept as separate as possible. So I am consistent: no "homo", no "hetero". And to enforce that (because we are all humans!) it means: no "mixed" troops, either woman-only or man-only units. As for gays... that should be consistent with the above.
Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
(Amer, 19 December 2010 22:22)
The funny side.
Russians have a joke about American "political correctness" and fear of "racial and sexual discrimination"
One day the American secret service decide to "inject" a spy in a small Russian town. The spy was trained for years, got fake Russian documents. He was selected as the most gifted person and indeed, he spoke the language better than the natives and knew the geography and history of the area better than the elders of the town.
He did hide his parachute into a secret place, took an old, dirty Russian bicycle and slowly cycled towards the town. First whom he met was a group of boy scouts. They looked at him and begun to yell: "police, police, there is an American spy here!"
The police came and took the guy. During the interrogation he expressed disbelief, how come he was discovered so quickly - he was trained to be a native for years and he was the best among the other candidates.
- "You know... the boys discovered you because there is no other black person in 1000 km radius."
All I know is that a segment of American society that was previously denied the right to be shipped off to some God-forsaken part of the world to fight and die ill-equipped in some senseless and endless war now have that opportunity that others so long enjoyed. Democracy marches on.
First of all fraternization is not just frowned on in the US military but it is a courtmarshall offense. While husband and wives may serve in the military, they cannot deploy to battle fronts together.
This change in law is not going to change that. Personnel who are intimately involved be it m/m, m/f, f/f will still have to keep their relationship under wraps in order to remain in the same unit.
Saying that people do not have to hide their orientation does not mean they can make out in the foxholes.
(get it "straight", 19 December 2010 14:34)
Yes... and how do you guarantee that "X" and "Y" won't get romantic at one point... Tie a knot
@ Jez - I agree with what you are saying ie. that the battlefield is not your standard workplace and the same rules should not necessarily apply.
But protecting human rights for soldiers is obviously important, and that includes for everyone. If a soldier is prepared to fight for his or her country and happens to be homosexual, I can't see it being a problem. They are as brave as any other soldier. I'm sure they wouldn't be camping it up on the front!
They should be treated with equal respect and rights, but the armed forces is the one place where I think there should be a policy of keeping your sexuality to yourself. It shouldn't be relevant.
Jez: "Imagine, someone and his girlfriend enlist into army and they land up in the same unit. Later, she is killed in the action. Her B/f most likely will ignore any command and will just go ballistic on the opponent."
What about if they are enlisted in the same unit as their brother, sister or best friend? The same argument could be made.
Finally, I have to share these few excellent sketches of the well known British RAF pilots who speak teenage lingo and frequently talk about their rights 'blood' – hope to create a few smiles:
And here I was all ready to spread our news to the readers/posters at b92. late, not for the first time. of course if i were living in Pris...
anyway, here's the deal (trying so very hard to ignore the usual idiocy):lgbt people have always served in our military forces. absolutely nothing new there.
a frnd of ours, no longer alive, did a major historical work on gays serving in the US military in ww2. it was unbelievable what sh-t they had to deal with, aside, of course, from the nazis, fascist army of the japanese,etc. I think it's called "coming out under fire." so many careers destroyed, lives wasted, because of this insane and bizarre homophobia.
this current battle ag homophobia in the military has been going on, in one form or another, since at least the 70s. you can say some 40 years, more or less along the timeline of the modern lgbt movement. but most of us thought we'd never live to see this day (actually, yesterday.) my frnds are pleased as punch, it is an incredible victory for civil rights, for human rights.
naturally, until the very last mminute, that nice johm mc cain and his ilk fought it tooth and nail. mr. I-was-a-POW martyr... every time i think about the possibility of he and palin as heads of state, it makes me physically ill.
"Don't ask, don't tell" -- this was NEVER what clinton desired. at the beginning of his 1st term, he very bravely attempted to overturn the ridiculous ban on gays in the military, where gays were permitted to serve when they were absolutely needed, then thrown to the wayside when perceived to be not so needed. the homophobes in congress (both parties) and in the military put up such a fuss, it threatned to destroy the whole of clinton's agenda (here's where you can throw in the stupid jokes about his very hetero extra-curricular activities.)
so, "don't ask, don't tell" became the so-called compromise. which in reality ended up even worse for lgbt people than the policy it replaced. talk about irony.
also -- there are some (a few) lgbt people who really don't care about this issue, such as my pal/colleague M, who is originally from germany. she is fully anti-military, doesn't want anyone to serve in the military, much less lgbt people. so that is one, albeit minority position.
but most of us are utterly ecstatic about this great civil rights victory -- our govt owes many, many lgbt people a huge apology (not to mention $$$ damages; just wait...)
having said all that, we need to bring the troops home from iraq and Afghanistan, yesterday.
cheers! especially to any and all of our lgbt colleagues around the world.
This is good news for the world. Even though the US is behind the rest of the developed world in this regard, any social developments like this in the developed world show an example to less developed places - like Serbia.
When places like Serbia (which is probably the worst non-muslim country in the world for gay rights), see that the sky doesn't fall when equal rights are extended to citizens of another country, tiny, tiny steps can be made here too.
Guys, this is ARMY and not a normal workplace. Even at the workplace supervisors are cautious to deal with a couple (again, no difference between straight or gay). It is an extra challenge in the team, but still much easier to deal with than the battlefield.
On the battlefield strictly no sex, regardless straight, not straight, between people, between hedgehogs, does not matter.
(Je¿ nieseksualny, 19 December 2010 12:43)
That means nothing, what has this to do with homosexual people serving in the army? Just because homosexual are now allowed to openly serve in the army doesn't mean they're all going to start having sex with each other. Women serve in the army, it doesn't mean that that heterosexual men are going to have sex with them. The same applies to two homosexual men serving in the army.
"You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
(kate, 19 December 2010 16:10) "
We don't have conscription in the US, either. As for what the troops think, they don't for the most part foresee any problem - the Armed Forces conducted a major study to determine the opinion of the people who would be most affected by the change. (The Marines were less certain of this than the other forces, and if the policy is implemented on a rolling basis, they'll probably be the last to make the change.) It's not that gays haven't been serving along with straights for years, since they have been. The problem has been that if they were accused of being gay, and answered honestly, they had - under DADT - to be discharged. The regulations against fraternization and sexual harassment will remain in place.
This is a generational thing - younger people don't see any problem, while older ones (Sen. McCain, e.g.) fear the unknown. Or they remember how they treated women soldiers, and are aghast at being treated that way themselves?
The "homo" topic is like a hand grenade. If thrown, the damage is difficult to contain, fragments of the explosion fly in every direction. Distracts everyone. After explosion and in the middle of the confusion trolls emerge to scavenge on the remains of dead.
Strategically, however, the effects are over-estimated. Good defense tactic:
AND THE FRENCH DO IT RIGHT!!!
(Je¿ homoseksualny, 19 December 2010 11:57)
Recommend (0)Poor comment (-8)
First of all fraternization is not just frowned on in the US military but it is a courtmarshall offense. While husband and wives may serve in the military, they cannot deploy to battle fronts together.
This change in law is not going to change that. Personnel who are intimately involved be it m/m, m/f, f/f will still have to keep their relationship under wraps in order to remain in the same unit.
Saying that people do not have to hide their orientation does not mean they can make out in the foxholes.
He is not a wise ex-soldier...he's a politician who keeps getting more disgusting by the month. And I almost voted for this bastard 2 years ago...
(Ment, 20 December 2010 21:40)
Thanks, that does not look good at all. Flip-flop...
One sentence did catch my attention:
"Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
My question: who on Earth did authorize ANYONE to ask about sexual orientation? IMO, it's just not anyone's business.
It becomes more difficult because on one side I am opposed to the military being open for both "mixed" troops and gays serving in the same troop as their gender (purely because of the safety reason) - on the other hand no one should be authorized to ask any question regarding social orientation.
I think I successfully did bite into my own leg.
OK, at the end of the day I got totally confused and beaten by everyone except Xenofobus, I mean, Xerxes. Thanks everyone, my next vacation is at home, LOL.
Why shouldn't the same apply to straight people if their sexuality is also found out? Double standards?
(Ian, UK, 20 December 2010 06:58)
No double standard. Of course it should apply to straight the same way. This is what I am saying probably the fifth time - but no one tells me, what's wrong with it.
All I know is that a segment of American society that was previously denied the right to be shipped off to some God-forsaken part of the world to fight and die ill-equipped in some senseless and endless war now have that opportunity that others so long enjoyed. Democracy marches on.
(Mike, 19 December 2010 17:38)
Not quite right. They could do that before if they were quiet. Now they don't need to be quiet. Let's see who drops the soap first.
But Ian, in an armed forces environment why would anyone need to know whether others serving are gay or straight? It's completely irrelevant.
If someone is victimised for being gay then should be protected by their superiors, but why does it need to be advertised?
Armed forces are not your usual worplace environment and you cannot transfer basic principles of one to the other.
You are safe and warm at university and we do not experience conscription in the UK. I would be more interested to ask all those young guys from poor backgrounds who go off to hell holes what they think about this.
I am sure that they have much more immediate concerns about the rights extended to all troops, rather then just speaking about this issue.
(kate, 19 December 2010 16:10)
I know that if you're serving in the armed forces it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, but why should gay people be discharged from the armed forces if their sexuality is found out? Why shouldn't the same apply to straight people if their sexuality is also found out? Double standards? You say you're more interested in asking people from poor backgrounds what they think, however you do realise that when surveyed several times well over 80% of the people in the US armed forces didn't care about the issue of homosexual people openly serving. Also surely you must know that a lot people from poor backgrounds in the US have a very backwards way of life and a very backwards way of thinking; why would you want to incorporate these backwards views into the US armed forces?
I know I'm safe and warm at university in the UK and we don't experience conscription here, however the US doesn't either... so what's your point?
IMAGE SOURCE
28 Komentari
Sortiraj po: