House votes to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" -- GOP, again, shows true colors

[nageov3t]

Yeah, this is all nice and everything but the truth is that at this point in time in America, alot of men are not comfortable with being in super close quarters with a black man. Call it racism or whatever you like, but that is just how it is. They shouldn't force legislation like this until America is ready for it. The purpose of the Military is not to provide a platform for social issues- it is for protecting our country.

A big problem with America is that people are so insistent on their "rights" that they selfishly push them to the detriment to others and even themselves. Activists need to wait until people are more comfortable with gays in this country so that they do not help to push through legislation that will undermine the cohesion of soldiers in combat.

the exact same argument you're making now was used when it was decided to integrate the military.

the fact is, gays and lesbians are already serving in the army. ending DA/DT doesn't change that, it just allows them to serve without hiding a large portion of their life and removes the risk of retaliatory exposure.

 

[spittledip]

the exact same argument you're making now was used when it was decided to integrate the military.

the fact is, gays and lesbians are already serving in the army. ending DA/DT doesn't change that, it just allows them to serve without hiding a large portion of their life and removes the risk of retaliatory exposure.

Sexual tension is a different beast than racial tension. Racial tension is more about not liking another person. White person not liking black person b/c they are black. Big deal- there are alot of people in the army who are in the same squad who hate each other. That is much different than being grossed out. This is not about hatred or dislike, this is about introducing anxiety.

 

[nageov3t]

Sexual tension is a different beast than racial tension. Racial tension is more about not liking another person. White person not liking black person b/c they are black. Big deal- there are alot of people in the army who are in the same squad who hate each other. That is much different than being grossed out. This is not about hatred or dislike, this is about introducing anxiety.

do you think so little of our military men that you think they'll be kept awake at night in agony and terror that another guy might have looked at their ass? or so little of gays that you don't think they can control themselves?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Sexual tension is a different beast than racial tension. Racial tension is more about not liking another person. White person not liking black person b/c they are black. Big deal- there are alot of people in the army who are in the same squad who hate each other. That is much different than being grossed out. This is not about hatred or dislike, this is about introducing anxiety.

how is it any different from already having males and females in the army, then?

 

[palehorse]

As a former grunt who has seen a fair amount of combat, I have absolutely no problem with the repeal of DADT -- it was a stupid fucking rule to begin with. I don't care if a soldier is gay, straight, or asexual... as long as someone has discipline and lives by every core value, I'll serve and fight next to them anywhere.

My neocon father did bring up a semi-valid point though: the UCMJ laws that forbid sodomy are still on the books, so how will they reconcile this repeal with those laws?

I hate to quote myself, but... Does anyone have a comment on the bold question above? How will that fact be addressed?

My father told me that the sodomy laws are what the military used to leverage when "going after" homosexuals, and that without changes to those laws, the military could easily do so again, regardless of DADT. Has anyone seen any official address this potential issue specifically?

 

[nageov3t]

I hate to quote myself, but... Does anyone have a comment on the bold question above? How will that fact be addressed?

My father told me that the sodomy laws are what the military used to leverage when "going after" homosexuals, and that without changes to those laws, the military could easily do so again, regardless of DADT. Has anyone seen any official address this potential issue specifically?

wouldn't they have to prove it? I mean, plenty of gay men have romantic relationships that don't involve anal sex and plenty of straight men have relationships that do.

 

[Nebor]

I hate to quote myself, but... Does anyone have a comment on the bold question above? How will that fact be addressed?

My father told me that the sodomy laws are what the military used to leverage when "going after" homosexuals, and that without changes to those laws, the military could easily do so again, regardless of DADT. Has anyone seen any official address this potential issue specifically?

I imagine they would just decline to enforce this law or make it very difficult to enforce like they've done with DADT for the past few years. Require a general officer to initiate a sodomy investigation.

That'll be fine until they can change the UCMJ.

 

[Rainsford]

wouldn't they have to prove it? I mean, plenty of gay men have romantic relationships that don't involve anal sex and plenty of straight men have relationships that do.

Not to mention that the law wouldn't really seem to have ever helped in going after gay WOMEN in the military.

I figure it's one of those laws that might remain on the books that people just pretend doesn't exist. Many US states had anti-sodomy laws on the books until relatively recently, I think, which were only enforced in places like Texas.

 

[palehorse]

Not to mention that the law wouldn't really seem to have ever helped in going after gay WOMEN in the military.

My father also stated that lesbians were always ignored based on the obvious double-standard many men have for gay men vs. gay women. But, as a company commander, he was once forced by higher to get a Ranger in his unit kicked out for sodomy.

I figure it's one of those laws that might remain on the books that people just pretend doesn't exist. Many US states had anti-sodomy laws on the books until relatively recently, I think, which were only enforced in places like Texas.

I hear ya, and I agree that is the most likely course. However, why is it that NONE of our officials have even mentioned this conundrum? Prior to DADT, these UCMJ sodomy laws were used, frequently, to remove homosexual men from service -- yet, we haven't heard a single official mention them in the course of the DADT debate.

It's just... odd. It's almost as though they're leaving a backdoor in place to possibly remove gay men from service in the future. (hehe, sorry... had to be done).

 

[Rainsford]

My father also stated that lesbians were always ignored based on the obvious double-standard many men have for gay men vs. gay women. But, as a company commander, he was once forced by higher to get a Ranger in his unit kicked out for sodomy.

I hear ya, and I agree that is the most likely course. However, why is it that NONE of our officials have even mentioned this conundrum? Prior to DADT, these UCMJ sodomy laws were used, frequently, to remove homosexual men from service -- yet, we haven't heard a single official mention them in the course of the DADT debate.

It's just... odd. It's almost as though they're leaving a backdoor in place to possibly remove gay men from service in the future. (hehe, sorry... had to be done).

I think the reason it's being ignored might be for political reasons. After all, pro-gay rights sounds a lot better than "pro-sodomy" to some people. Turning the issue into a debate about a physical act often associated with gay male sex turns it into a homophobia discussion, rather than a civil rights one.

"Obama Approves Military Butt-Sex" is probably a headline he'd like to avoid, I would think

 

[piasabird]

US Military Members are governed by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), sometimes called the manual for courts marshall. It is still illegal to commit Adultry. There was a case a while back about fraternization and a female officer was kicked out.

It has been on the books since around 1949-1950. Look it up.

When it was originally written, it was approved by the secretaries of the Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce, etc. It may still require all of their approval before a change can be sent to congress for a vote.