Study: Gays in the military will not undermine effectiveness

[Patroklos]

I'm sorry if I'm too intellectual or abstract for your brute nature, but please at least make an effort.

I've changed my mind, no gays in the military, they are obviously to tempermental and moody for stressful service

Asher, and albatross around the gay community's neck

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Your point being? They have succeeded in Iraq. Civilian casulties are less there then in Afghanistan.

My point being is your metrics for "success" are royally ****ed up. It has nothing to do with which services permit homosexuals.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When being 'out' takes priority to their service, then yes, they are showing where their priorities lie.

From what I've heard about straight people in the military, what takes priority on their off time is being an out and proud heterosexual.

Just because a homosexual is out doesn't mean it'll interfere with his or her duties. It's not like you say, "I'm out!" and then suddenly you don't have to take care of your responsibilities.

Therefore, I don't see why the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is in place. Removing it will not change the efficacy of gay soldiers--odds are, it might improve them, seeing as they won't have to worry about revealing themselves and then getting drummed out of the service.

Of course, on the flip side, if there can't be liberty, there's always equality.

Pump up all soldiers with androgynizing hormones. If they're not thinking about sex, then they can focus more on the tasks at hand, won't run the risk of catching STDs, and will be immune to the gay bombs.

The fact that our military has been severely neglected is a problem for our sovereignty, as we cannot assert our claims to other nations.

What claims to other nations does Canada have?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then why is it an issue for you to serve openly if sexuality is truly irrelevant?

It shouldn't matter either way. If it's irrelevant to your service, why are you making it an issue?

Because a same-sex partner deserves the same respect and benefits as the partner of a heterosexual. Sexuality should be irrelevant in that if a soldier dies, his partner gets the same treatment, respect, and benefits regardless of their sexuality.

You are the person making sexuality relevant and an issue here. Gays would be completely happy if no one gave a **** about sexuality, that's the goal. You're the one who throws a tantrum when gays express love via marriage or want to serve in the military without lying and forgoing spousal benefits.

[Ben Kenobi]

And this was my point Ben: Since you have not served in the military (due to whatever reasons), you really don't have any insight into the true nature of the military and unit cohesion.

Do you have anything besides personal anecdotes and pointing to other nations to support your reasoning that the US military would benefit from the change? From what I am hearing from you, is it wasn't a barrier in your service. You were able to serve for 20 years without a problem, despite the fact that this policy is there.

This whole "effectivness" issue is the same old, tired excuse. It was used when Blacks were integrated and it was used again when Women were integrated.

The difference is that you were able to serve on an equal standing to anyone else, which is not something black people or women could do.

As for women, since you are so informed on this issue, do they have the exact same physical fitness requirements in order to enlist?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
What claims to other nations does Canada have?

He's probably thinking of Hans Theta, and tiny arctic splotch of land that both Denmark and Canada claim is theirs. It'll be important as the arctic passage opens up for shipping.

Of course, Canada's military could spank Denmark's even now and it'd never come to that anyway...so he's delusional, even then.

[Wittlich]

I myself had no problem with "staying in the closet" while I was on active duty. HOWEVER, I have a serious problem with servicemen being kicked out of the military based SOLEY on their sexual orientation alone.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I've changed my mind, no gays in the military, they are obviously to tempermental and moody for stressful service

Asher, and albatross around the gay community's neck

You're just upset 'cause I'm clearly manlier than you are. This is what the Navy is afraid of, masculine gay guys emasculating people like you to the point that you're too scared to serve because I'd kick your ass for the snide homophobic remarks you make?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because a same-sex partner deserves the same respect and benefits as the partner of a heterosexual. Sexuality should be irrelevant in that if a soldier dies, his partner gets the same treatment, respect, and benefits regardless of their sexuality.

IOW, it's all about what the military can do for you, which gets back to my point. The military shouldn't be about the benefits, it should be about serving your country period.

You are the person making sexuality relevant and an issue here.

You are the only one making your service conditional if they provide the benefits you demand. I don't have a choice Asher. You do, and you choose to make it an issue, therefore it seems to me that this is far more important then serving your country.

Gays would be completely happy if no one gave a **** about sexuality

Isn't that the whole point of don't ask don't tell. They don't give a ****, and they allow you to serve unless you make an issue of it. Seems reasonable to me.

that's the goal. You're the one who throws a tantrum when gays express love via marriage or want to serve in the military without lying and forgoing spousal benefits.

How are they lying when they are not asked the question, "are you gay?"

And again, the military shouldn't be about the benefits, which brings up my point about decadence. It shouldn't be about what the military can do for you, but what you can do for them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why is it an issue for you to serve openly if sexuality is truly irrelevant?

It shouldn't matter either way. If it's irrelevant to your service, why are you making it an issue?

Because people are kicked out of the military for admitting they are gay outside of their jobs (ie, like when the superiors discover a myspace page saying they are gay, etc) as well?

If they mention their partners, as hetero military personnel mention their spouses, they can be kicked out as well.

So who exactly is making it relevant here? (Before you say something utterly stupid that makes me , its you and your ilk)

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for women, since you are so informed on this issue, do they have the exact same physical fitness requirements in order to enlist?

Of course they don't due to biological/physical differences between the two sexes...but of course, you already knew that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

they allow you to serve unless you make an issue of it

Nope, they allow you to serve unless they find out you are gay in any potential way possible.

Btw, are guys that talk about their wives or banging their wives to other soldiers "making an issue" out of their orientation and should be kicked out too?

[Ben Kenobi]

I myself had no problem with "staying in the closet" while I was on active duty.

Thanks wittlich. Clearly the current policy is not barring those who wish to serve, as you have proven yourself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thanks wittlich. Clearly the current policy is not barring those who wish to serve, as you have proven yourself.

So you'd like to promote lying among our troops?

After all, while back in the bunks, I'm sure the topic turns to personal relationships and "would you look at the ass of that woman" and stuff like that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
IOW, it's all about what the military can do for you, which gets back to my point. The military shouldn't be about the benefits, it should be about serving your country period.

Then why don't you remove benefits for everyone, if this is your excuse?

Why should we even ****ing pay soldiers? Why should their wives get money if their husband dies fighting for the country?

**** off, Ben, you are seriously the most disrespectful polite person I've ever met.

You are the only one making your service conditional if they provide the benefits you demand.

Actually, you are the one making service conditional. If a soldier is discovered as being gay, he is kicked out. That is, by definition, CONDITIONAL.

[quote]
Isn't that the whole point of don't ask don't tell. They don't give a ****, and they allow you to serve unless you make an issue of it. Seems reasonable to me.

How are they lying when they are not asked the question, "are you gay?"

They're still asked if they have a partner. If I joined the US military and said no, I'd be lying. I do have a partner, of over 5 years.

And again, the military shouldn't be about the benefits, which brings up my point about decadence. It shouldn't be about what the military can do for you, but what you can do for them.

You're such a tw@t. UNBELIEVABLE.

I would LOVE for you to go to a military base in the US and let them know you do not agree that they get paid a salary and that their wives and children get medical insurance.

CLASS ACT ALL THE WAY.