Poll: Troops oppose repeal of "don’t ask don't tell"

[Peikko 1,575]

I should clarify, I don't care what you think about me, and what I might or might not do, nor is it particularly relevant as to whether pretending there are no gays in the military is a sensible and sustainable policy.

[alienlovechild 75]

What's the point of saying 'may' at all? Your implication, which you are now trying to shy away from, was obvious, having people who are not scared of having 'gays' in the 'village' will lower the quality of the armed forces. May, may not? If it is not 'likely' there is no point in even mentioning, so well, why did you?

Ah, there are no studies done on the impact of having openly gay soldiers; thus, I use the word "may" to describe possible effects. I'm not changing my words, I'll leave you to misconstrue them as usual with your oddball inferences. Of course you're willing to change the policy because it doesn't affect you and you'll be willing gamble with institutions you probably don't approve of anyway and you could care less about the military as human rights are your main focus.

Oh, there aren't many "villages" in the U.S. and if you knew the the what the "don't ask, don't tell" policy you'd be able to formulate a more informed opinion. For example, even if a soldier hangs out in a "village" gay bar, the military can't use it to prove he's gay. They aren't allowed to ask about that sort of thing. Believe me, some "villagers" are bloodsuckers looking to make a buck off a soldier whether's he straight or gay so it's not issue of off post acceptance.

As for the rest of your accusations, I don't care what you think.

Lucky me. I'm spared your opinion on an issue for once.

Edited January 13, 2009 by alienlovechild

[jundp 191]

I don't know who the primary participants in this poll were, but I don't have any problem with teh gheys serving. And, I really don't see any operational repercussions with it either.

The only legitimate objection would be that it may perhaps be cultural barriers to it in other countries, but even then, we are occupying countries where men are running around giving each other piggy back rides. So gheyness is pretty much accepted. Women, on the other hand, is another story. Women are lower than dogs in some of these countries. And if a female soldier were to be separated from her team, it would be unlikely that she could receive any help from the locals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would the openly gay soldiers need to be subject to study?

Surely they would be doing the exact same jobs, the only difference would be that they wouldn't need to conceal their private lives from other soldiers. Surely the issue that needs to be studied is the reaction by other soldiers and how they would interact with each other - having the knowledge that one or two people in their unit are gay.

Still its pretty dubious reasoning that the military should be an exception to the rule that workplace discrimination is generally considered unlawful. Surely we should be looking to weed out the people who have discriminatory attitudes towards race and sexual preference - especially considering that our troops are required to interface with members of other nationalities and cultures.

[Peikko 1,575]

What's the point of saying 'may' at all? Your implication, which you are now trying to shy away from, was obvious, having people who are not scared of having 'gays' in the 'village' will lower the quality of the armed forces. May, may not? If it is not 'likely' there is no point in even mentioning, so well, why did you?

Ah, there are no studies done on the impact of having openly gay soldiers; thus, I use the word "may" to describe possible effects. I'm not changing my words, I'll leave you to misconstrue them as usual with your oddball inferences. Of course you're willing to change the policy because it doesn't affect you and you'll be willing gamble with institutions you probably don't approve of anyway and you could care less about the military as human rights are your main focus.

Oh, there aren't many "villages" in the U.S. and if you knew the the what the "don't ask, don't tell" policy you'd be able to formulate a more informed opinion. For example, even if a soldier hangs out in a "village" gay bar, the military can't use it to prove he's gay. They aren't allowed to ask about that sort of thing. Believe me, some "villagers" are bloodsuckers looking to make a buck off a soldier whether's he straight or gay so it's not issue of off post acceptance.

As for the rest of your accusations, I don't care what you think.

Lucky me. I'm spared your opinion on an issue for once.

Ah yes, make up your own opinions about my opinions and construct your argument from that position. Excellent.

As for your little wandering down 'village' life, it was a joke that, clearly you don't get, nor are you ever likely to - because of course, us libruls are allowed to make jokes about minorities where you right wingnuts clearly are not

[alienlovechild 75]

My parting shots on this thread. Gotta hit the gym and watch some obscure 70s SF movie.

Ah yes, make up your own opinions about my opinions and construct your argument from that position. Excellent.

As for your little wandering down 'village' life, it was a joke that, clearly you don't get, nor are you ever likely to - because of course, us libruls are allowed to make jokes about minorities where you right wingnuts clearly are not

If you could express yourself clearly and read others' post with some comprehension, people wouldn't have to guess at what you're trying to say. For example, not explaining what "village" life means to you doesn't make you seem more intelligent. It's means either you don't know either or you're a sophist hoping to dazzle others with your obscure wit. In either case, it has nothing to do with the subject nor does it further your argument except the usual descent to the gutter with schoolyard taunts- classy.

Okay alien, but come on. You can't mince words by qualifying them with wiggle-words like "may" and not expect someone to address that point. You have some pretty well constructed arguments, even though I don't agree with them, but it's pretty disingenuous to tell someone they're misconstruing you because you left yourself a small out.

Everyone has the right to to defend what they write here. They don't have to but misquoting someone on a simple point can't go noticed. There's nothing tricky about the word "may" and is entirely appropriate when speculating about possible outcomes to policy changes.

Why would the openly gay soldiers need to be subject to study?

Not having any to study kinda ruins the study.

Still its pretty dubious reasoning that the military should be an exception to the rule that workplace discrimination is generally considered unlawful. Surely we should be looking to weed out the people who have discriminatory attitudes towards race and sexual preference - especially considering that our troops are required to interface with members of other nationalities and cultures.

They only weed out the overtly disruptive folks with racist or criminal behavior. They try to do with criminal background tests, drug tests and during training but some slip through. How many businesses need a huge amount of young people who will work in sometimes risky conditions for relatively modest pay far from their hometowns and unable to go about as they please? You're not going to get the cream of the crop and the objective to make a fighting force not a hugfest. There's relatively high turnover and the military must balance appealing to the recruiting pool not the general public. In short, the military is entirely different world from the military and the standards are different; in fact, even the laws governing troops is different than the public.

Too bad you didn't go into the military. You may not have liked it (a lot don't) but it would have given you some insight. I thought I knew plenty before I joined as an old man (28) and got put in my place quickly but it was an experience that I wouldn't have had later on in life.

[Peikko 1,575]

I post for my own enjoyment, not for yours alien. I don't give a flying squirrel how my posts are 'construed' by anyone who reads them. Nevertheless, saying how your input is so much more insightful than anyone else's merely because you have been in the military is well, typical and equally meritless.

The facts are very clear, there are already gay people in the military - the only thing they can not do is ADMIT that they are gay. How utterly pointless to get all strung out over something that changes not one wit should one actually admit that gays exist. Oh, sorry, one thing does change, those who find the idea of homosexuality 'scary' get to openly exhibit their phobia by leaving the forces. What a sensible way to run things, to allow these fears a form of reality which renders such behaviour acceptable.

[Ban Hammer 14,572]

a "war story" for those who don't know - III corps headquarters, stationed at ft hood tx - one could always tell where that unit had set up in the field. if one made a large circle around the perimeter after the unit had departed the location, you'd find used condoms all over the place. and i'm not talking about a dozen or so...i'm talking hundreds.

The troops at III Corps must be the center of command and control and love nest. I was in the field a lot at Fort Hood and never saw beyond 2AD and 4ID HQs in the field. The Caltrop was really a symbol for a three way?

that was about early 83, had to do a sweep of the area for classified as part of the opsec m&e team. i was in all 3 macoms: III corps (81-83), 2 ad (83-86), 1 cav (90-94). i enjoyed 2 ad the most.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

a "war story" for those who don't know - III corps headquarters, stationed at ft hood tx - one could always tell where that unit had set up in the field. if one made a large circle around the perimeter after the unit had departed the location, you'd find used condoms all over the place. and i'm not talking about a dozen or so...i'm talking hundreds.

The troops at III Corps must be the center of command and control and love nest. I was in the field a lot at Fort Hood and never saw beyond 2AD and 4ID HQs in the field. The Caltrop was really a symbol for a three way?

that was about early 83, had to do a sweep of the area for classified as part of the opsec m&e team. i was in all 3 macoms: III corps (81-83), 2 ad (83-86), 1 cav (90-94). i enjoyed 2 ad the most.

the best thing about being a civilian is posts like that throw fatal exceptions when passed through my brains internal compiler................

[Ban Hammer 14,572]

a "war story" for those who don't know - III corps headquarters, stationed at ft hood tx - one could always tell where that unit had set up in the field. if one made a large circle around the perimeter after the unit had departed the location, you'd find used condoms all over the place. and i'm not talking about a dozen or so...i'm talking hundreds.

The troops at III Corps must be the center of command and control and love nest. I was in the field a lot at Fort Hood and never saw beyond 2AD and 4ID HQs in the field. The Caltrop was really a symbol for a three way?

that was about early 83, had to do a sweep of the area for classified as part of the opsec m&e team. i was in all 3 macoms: III corps (81-83), 2 ad (83-86), 1 cav (90-94). i enjoyed 2 ad the most.

the best thing about being a civilian is posts like that throw fatal exceptions when passed through my brains internal compiler................

noob!

[DeadPoolX 9]

It seems to me that the anti-gay movement (such as it is) would benefit from allowing homosexuals into the military. If gays are called into battle, there's always the chance they could die. Henceforth, less gays to "pollute" our society. Plus, the homosexual community couldn't complain since they were allowed to be gay in the military. People getting killed is a risk.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals be used as a "human shield" of sorts, but for those who dislike gays and everything about them, this would seem to be a viable solution.

[Ban Hammer 14,572]

It seems to me that the anti-gay movement (such as it is) would benefit from allowing homosexuals into the military. If gays are called into battle, there's always the chance they could die. Henceforth, less gays to "pollute" our society. Plus, the homosexual community couldn't complain since they were allowed to be gay in the military. People getting killed is a risk.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals be used as a "human shield" of sorts, but for those who dislike gays and everything about them, this would seem to be a viable solution.

then there would probably be complaints that gays are dying in disproportionate numbers to the straights

[HannahP 119]

Haven't read most of the replies, don't care to.

My sister's partner is in the reserves -- has been for over a decade. She did two tours in Iraq and is now in Kosovo. (Certainly more than the anti-homosexual civilians, yes?)

She's actually won quite a few important awards for training cadets, leadership skills.

My sister was recently diagnosed with stage four (finally decided!) breast cancer.

I guess what bothers me is that my sister's SO -they've been "married" for ten years - would not be allowed leave if my sister were dying.

There are a lot of military-spouse support groups that my sister cannot officially can access to.

[HannahP 119]

It seems to me that the anti-gay movement (such as it is) would benefit from allowing homosexuals into the military. If gays are called into battle, there's always the chance they could die. Henceforth, less gays to "pollute" our society. Plus, the homosexual community couldn't complain since they were allowed to be gay in the military. People getting killed is a risk.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals be used as a "human shield" of sorts, but for those who dislike gays and everything about them, this would seem to be a viable solution.

then there would probably be complaints that gays are dying in disproportionate numbers to the straights

Ahhh, Charles!

It's only hilarious when you've spent your entire life in a sheltered bubble of conservative-ness.

[Ban Hammer 14,572]

It seems to me that the anti-gay movement (such as it is) would benefit from allowing homosexuals into the military. If gays are called into battle, there's always the chance they could die. Henceforth, less gays to "pollute" our society. Plus, the homosexual community couldn't complain since they were allowed to be gay in the military. People getting killed is a risk.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals be used as a "human shield" of sorts, but for those who dislike gays and everything about them, this would seem to be a viable solution.

then there would probably be complaints that gays are dying in disproportionate numbers to the straights

Ahhh, Charles!

It's only hilarious when you've spent your entire life in a sheltered bubble of conservative-ness.

actually, i was quite the leftist in my teen years. then i grew up.