In the news today

[Animeniax]

Gates against changing 'don't ask don't tell' until review

"I hope Congress will not do so (implement the repeal of DTDA before it is up for review), as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and consequence for them and their families"

That's because their views, concerns, and perspectives DO NOT MATTER. When it comes to the Constitution, I don't give a rat's ass if 100% of people support homophobia, your voice DOES NOT MATTER. If a heterosexual soldier doesn't want to serve next to a gay soldier, he can feel free to abandon the armed forces and face the consequences.

Stop railroading this legislation you pussies.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what army life is like. All I can say is, if they repeal DADT, there will be a lot of harassment claims, lawsuits, assaults and possibly deaths due to friendly fire. Homosexuality is not so mainstream and accepted that you can just ignore it as a source of conflict within your own ranks.

If they allow openly homosexual enlistees, they might as well allow open Muslim worshipers too. They might survive longer than the homosexuals.

[Sapphire]

Agreed with Ani, though I didn't know much about Coleman as a person.

RIP

[Pandadice]

they might as well allow open Muslim worshipers too. They might survive longer than the homosexuals.

they.. they don't alreayd allow Muslims in the army?

[XanBcoo]

Spoken like someone who has no idea what army life is like.

If they allow openly homosexual enlistees, they might as well allow open Muslim worshipers too. They might survive longer than the homosexuals.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know any gay people.

The cool part about baseless arguments like yours is that they can be countered by similar anecdotal evidence by people who have also served and abhor such a ridiculous policy.

Edit: The most retarded thing about that Gates quote is the hypocrisy of it.

Suddenly the government gives a shit about what the servicemen feel about certain issues because it's convenient and makes an emotional appeal, regardless of how untrue it may be (and overwhelmingly is).

It wasn't insensitive when they are sent to go kill brown people without asking them how they felt about it. Why the sudden show of empathy?

Anyway, I won't myself be a hypocrite, so here is some factual evidence indicating that everything you said is basically wrong:

http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_in.../gays-military

[Ryllharu]

Spoken like someone who has no idea what army life is like. All I can say is, if they repeal DADT, there will be a lot of harassment claims, lawsuits, assaults and possibly deaths due to friendly fire. Homosexuality is not so mainstream and accepted that you can just ignore it as a source of conflict within your own ranks.

The cool part about baseless arguments like yours is that they can be countered by similar anecdotal evidence by people who have also served and abhor such a ridiculous policy.

Similar anecdotal evidence? Easily accomplished:

I was listening to talk radio on my way home from work. Every single caller discussed DADT. Three of them served (one disabled vet, one currently, and one from Vietnam). All of them said that they didn't care who or what anyone was, so long as they knew that the other soldier had their back. Black, gay, Arab, etc, didn't matter, so long as they did their job and were trustworthy. The guy from Vietnam commanded soldiers he knew were gay, and he said they were some of the best men he commanded. The one currently serving is gay and he and his fellow officers all agreed that it didn't matter.

As the disabled vet said, if a gay soldier, "has his back," he didn't care.

[samsonlonghair]

Rest in Peace Gary Coleman. Perhaps now you know what Willis was talkin' 'bout.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Spoken like someone who has no idea what army life is like. All I can say is, if they repeal DADT, there will be a lot of harassment claims, lawsuits, assaults and possibly deaths due to friendly fire. Homosexuality is not so mainstream and accepted that you can just ignore it as a source of conflict within your own ranks.

If they allow openly homosexual enlistees, they might as well allow open Muslim worshipers too. They might survive longer than the homosexuals.

What a ridiculous pile of spam. Firstly the last time I checked, there wasn't a religious litmus test to join the armed forces. Secondly, maybe it would be best to weed out the ignoramuses now. If a soldier is too consumed with the homophobic fear that he's going to get a dick in his ass (people who have this constant fear are SO often closet gays), get him out of the AF. He's dangerous, he can't overcome his personal feelings to do his job, and in a unit as tight as any of the U.S. armed forces, that kind of weak link could bring devastation to an entire platoon.

There are many gay soldiers who have fought and given their lives for the American people. To suggest that treating them like second-class citizens is the answer really speaks volumes about you.

By the way, you can already tell which soldiers are gay. They're the ones who aren't talking about how much underage snatch they got in their lives. But I guess if heterosexuals want to bring their personal lives to the forefront, that's acceptable. Right.

[XanBcoo]

There are many gay soldiers who have fought and given their lives for the American people. To suggest that treating them like second-class citizens is the answer really speaks volumes about you.

In Animeniax's defense, I think he was making the argument that everyone else is bigoted, not that he himself believes that gays should be treated differently.

I mean, he's still objectively wrong. Just misguided and characteristically conservative in his reasoning.

[Animeniax]

I haven't served but I've worked with/for the military and I work among gays as well (so yes I do know some gay people. I'll make a point to get their views and post them here). It's true, the majority of gays would like nothing better than to all be "outed" and open about their sexuality, but the fact remains it just isn't safe to do so, even in this age of sexual ambiguity, metro-sexuality, and social progress.

You guys are citing quotes and beliefs from people who represent the minority and who are stating what's P.C. and acceptable in these times. If you show dislike towards any group or cause, you're a bigot or conservative pundit. I'm neither, I just know what's out in the world. Whether that's from age or experience or some enlightenment I'm privy to, I can't say. But keep listening to your talk radio to learn your life lessons, they'll get you far.

@Heretic Azazel: no, there is no religious litmus test, same as there is/was DADT. Do you think a US soldier who has to take 5 breaks a day to pray to Allah won't cause some concern among his fellow soldiers, particularly in a combat zone in the Middle East? Keep smoking, rational though will seep in eventually.

@Xan: exactly right, I'm not against gays, I have gay friends and they are some of the best people (so easy to talk to, like talking to chicks but without the sexual tension on my part). I also know what the real world is like, and being gay in an institution like the military is like being a minority in any hostile environment. It's bad news and better avoided since confronting it will only result in ugliness.

[Ryllharu]

You guys are citing quotes and beliefs from people who represent the minority and who are stating what's P.C. and acceptable in these times. If you show dislike towards any group or cause, you're a bigot or conservative pundit. I'm neither, I just know what's out in the world. Whether that's from age or experience or some enlightenment I'm privy to, I can't say. But keep listening to your talk radio to learn your life lessons, they'll get you far.

I also know what the real world is like, and being gay in an institution like the military is like being a minority in any hostile environment. It's bad news and better avoided since confronting it will only result in ugliness.

I think you're overestimating it. The majority of Americans under the age of 30 don't even understand why this is such a big deal. Most other countries do not have a similar policy, and they have next to no problems at all.

Just keep telling yourself you "know more" than everyone else as if you've been struck by some divine knowledge. That you know more about how "real" the world really is...

EDIT:

I should really compliment you on you choice of rhetoric. By pointing out that age and a certain enlightenment exists that only you are privy to, anything we might say is clearly wrong because we're just ignorant.

As for the whole "political correctness minority" that we keep supposedly quoting, maybe we should just find out what happens when we stop being polite... and start getting real, like you are.

[XanBcoo]

Yeah Ani, your arguments are 100% founded on an irrational fear of change. The existence of homophobes is not a strong argument here, given the evidence that their opinions have no bearing on the outcome.

I'm neither, I just know what's out in the world. Whether that's from age or experience or some enlightenment I'm privy to, I can't say. But keep listening to your talk radio to learn your life lessons, they'll get you far.

Man...lol

[Animeniax]

Yeah Ani, your arguments are 100% founded on an irrational fear of change. The existence of homophobes is not a strong argument here, given the evidence that their opinions have no bearing on the outcome.


Man...lol

Hardly irrational, and it's not a personal fear of change, it's knowledge of the shit storm that accompanies change that people aren't ready for at this point in time. Plenty of change is already afoot, how about we take a step back and tackle some of the more pressing current issues before addressing DADT?

The problem isn't with the opinions of the handful of homophobes in the military (yeah right, handful) in the matter of whether or not DADT is necessary or right, it's the structure and mindset of the military that makes the military work. The military is a man's world. Living quarters are tight, showers and restrooms are communal. It seems like what you're saying is that the politicians and decision makers should ignore the will of the soldiers (the homophobes, and this is regardless of whether they were homophobes before joining the military) and make decisions from the safety and comfort of their offices in Washington. The men and women in the field will have to live and serve according to these decisions. Their opinions should count for more.

I think you're overestimating it. The majority of Americans under the age of 30 don't even understand why this is such a big deal. Most other countries do not have a similar policy, and they have next to no problems at all.

Just keep telling yourself you "know more" than everyone else as if you've been struck by some divine knowledge. That you know more about how "real" the world really is...

EDIT:

I should really compliment you on you choice of rhetoric. By pointing out that age and a certain enlightenment exists that only you are privy to, anything we might say is clearly wrong because we're just ignorant.

As for the whole "political correctness minority" that we keep supposedly quoting, maybe we should just find out what happens when we stop being polite... and start getting real, like you are.

"The majority of Americans under the age of 30 don't even understand why this is such a big deal." Did you take a poll about this or extrapolate from some data set? Have the majority of Americans ever served in the military and know what it's like to live the military lifestyle? I'm guessing you learned all you need to know about the world in college textbooks and from watching the news (and listening to radio talk shows).

This coming weekend should tell you all you need to know about America and it's understanding of military service. Memorial Day is all about barbecues, parties, and trips to the beach. The people serving in the military will have to deal with the decisions people like you make between bottles of beer. Hope you have fun this weekend, Ryllharu.

[XanBcoo]

The problem isn't with the opinions of the handful of homophobes in the military (yeah right, handful) in the matter of whether or not DADT is necessary or right, it's the structure and mindset of the military that makes the military work.

What makes America's military different from every other military where DADT was never instituted? Why do you think it will go so cataclysmically wrong when all the evidence and support shows otherwise?

Once again: http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_in.../gays-military

Did you take a poll about this or extrapolate from some data set?

Polls are going to give you different numbers wherever you look, but it's quite telling when even a Fox News poll shows an overwhelming support of repealing DADT:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...ask-dont-tell/

And here's a legit Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127904/Br...e-Members.aspx

[Kraco]

Considering the USA has tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and in the worst parts of Afghanistan, I'd imagine the soldiers have graver worries than to wonder if the guy next to them is interested in other men's dicks. Also, if somebody did show undue interest, he would be officially punished, just like a man trying to sexually assault a fellow female soldier. Maybe the ones in Okinawa and Korea have too much time in their hands, who knows.

Back when I was in the military, I certainly wasn't thinking about such things. It would have been too much of a bother. The constant hurrying and tight schedules do wonders to wipe unnecessary things from your mind. All you care about is that things work without problems and everybody does their part.

[Dark Dragon]

Condescending tone aside, i do believe that some of Ani reasonings are legitimate.

The way i see, there are two sets of reasoning concerning this issue. The first is Ani "don't stir the pot" mentality. The kind of thinking that it's ok that there are some wrongs with the world, just don't create more conflict than necessary trying to fix it. This is true to a certain extent seeing as how America is a nation founded on puritanism and still hold on to some of those outdated principles. Issue such as racism is decreasing with time since there's really no legitimate argument or document that support such views. The problem with religion however is more complex. Many American will sooner chop off their own hands than elect anything other than a Christian as President.

On the flip side, there question "does it really matter?" has to be ask. Like many in this thread mentioned before, how many soldiers would really care about their comrade sexuality when their lives are in constant danger? Things such as discrimination is a luxury one can afford when they are safe and sound. Another thing is that soldiers are trained to obey orders no matter what. It's not really up to them to choose who they work with. I don't believe a few examples from personal experiences should be used to sum up an entire group. It's entirely possible that you just happen to stumble on a few of the minority that share the same opinion. I do however believe that there will be an increase in friendly fire and insubordination from soldiers who have a problem with homosexuals.

[XanBcoo]

I do however believe that there will be an increase in friendly fire and insubordination from soldiers who have a problem with homosexuals.

Animeniax is also completely ignoring the fact that many openly homosexual people already serve in the military are not harassed because of it. Just because it is not officially penalized doesn't mean that no one knows about it.

[Ryllharu]

The military is a man's world. Living quarters are tight, showers and restrooms are communal. It seems like what you're saying is that the politicians and decision makers should ignore the will of the soldiers (the homophobes, and this is regardless of whether they were homophobes before joining the military) and make decisions from the safety and comfort of their offices in Washington. The men and women in the field will have to live and serve according to these decisions. Their opinions should count for more.

I'm guessing you learned all you need to know about the world in college textbooks and from watching the news (and listening to radio talk shows).

Maybe you should ask yourself the same question. What opinion do the soldiers in the field hold? Robert Gates aside, I think you'd be surprised. They don't give a shit about male/female straight/gay. They want recruits, plain and simple.

And I have a lot of friends who served. Over half my co-workers served. So make all the assumptions you want because I went to college and listen to the radio. I'll be right back at work on Tuesday, making sure the folks in the military have the best equipment available and it is reliable and safe enough that there is no chance it will endanger their lives.

You're damn right we have it good, safe and comfy. That's because of the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. No one should be denied that distinction just because of who they are.

[Animeniax]

Not sure if I'm coming off as condescending but it is frustrating talking real world when it seems most of you seem to be speaking strictly academically.

@Xan: America is in a lot of ways different from other countries in the world. Comparing successful integration of homosexuals into our military to other country's integration doesn't equate. Look at racial segregation in the US compared to other countries. Look at socioeconomic status (US is one of the bottom countries in social welfare support among the highest GDP countries in the world). What applies to the US does not apply to other countries of the world, and vice versa.

@Kraco: maybe 25-30% of soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan are involved in combat roles where their lives are in danger. The other 75-80% never leave base. They have support roles and live 8-to-5 type lives where their military duties are a job. I lived/worked among them for 3.5 years. They have plenty of free time to hate each other for sexual/racial differences. And what about soldiers deployed in non-combat areas? Without the supposed life-threatening conditions to keep them cohesive, what will prevent soldiers in those posts from harassing anyone who is different?

Here's an incident straight from the "front lines". We were in the DFAC and they had an open mic where anyone could walk up and sing for the thousands present while we ate. An openly gay civilian black male (a friend of mine) walked up and sang "Milkshake". It ended quickly when he was escorted off the stage to murderous looks from the military and other civilians. He was fired not long after (he was also involved in a couple of lawsuits concerning discrimination). I talked to him at the hotel while we waited for our flight home (I was going on R&R, he was demobing after being fired). We were sitting in a cluster of couches, all the other seats were empty because no one would sit near us (they stood around and gave us dirty looks). I felt my personal safety was at risk just because I associated with him.

Homosexuality still doesn't have mainstream acceptance outside liberal cities and universities and Hollywood. Forcing acceptance on an institution as tightly-wound as the military is a bad idea for the straights as well as the gays.

[Sapphire]

I do believe that the fault lies within the structure of the government/military itself.

Both sides claims lie in truth. While many Americans don't even understand why DADT is integrated into the system, there is no doubt some people who would have no trouble picking on someone who is different.

But the evil motherfuckers in the military don't have any reason to be accepting of someone different from them, I mean this next sentence sentence is going to offend some people, but every military person I've talked to gives me the bland reason of "protecting our country" for going to Iraq. They don't seem to verbally question the murder of thousands of people, both troops and civilians. This sort of blind brotherhood mentality is something that I could see within ranks. There's nothing wrong with alienating someone if your ties with someone else can be stronger. I can only see this exacerbated in a war zone.

But do people get punished for this sort of behavior? No, not if they lie within the government. I mean honestly, did we ever hear about any sort of ramifications from the Wikileaks incident? And so the government has to enact these bogus policies, as if abuse because of sexual identity is a GIVEN. As if if you get victimized, it's your own fault for revealing it, because you're opening yourself up as a target.

[Kraco]

The military has a culture of its own, despite the fact most people only "visit" it briefly and a minority is there for their whole working life. When you adapt to that culture, your time there will be much easier and smoother. Apparently being anti-gay is a part of that culture in the USA. So, a person who never cared in his civilian life would suddenly turn anti-gay because it's a part of the business in the military.

Unfortunately such a culture will never change unless it's actively and publicly addressed. I have no doubt the troubles Ani predicted will happen to some extent but in the long run the development should be beneficial.