WTF republicans. Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban

[Craig234]

Alright, I'll buy that. Next question. How many gay's are in the armed forces?
To be honest, the military doesn't sound like something your average Joe (or Bruce, if you prefer) on the street homosexual would be interested in. Are there really thousands of gays clamoring to join the Marines but are held back due to fear of reprisals?
The entire discussion has the ring of a few vocal people trying to prove something to me.

First, it's too bad you don't understand the principles, so if it's one person discriminated against, it's wrong.

Second, the fact that thousands of gays have been kicked out of the military for being gay under DADT suggests there are a lot of gays in the military.

We can't predict just how many have not been kicked out, but anecdotally, there are many stories of gays still in.

As for their trying to 'prove something' - well, see above about your not getting principle. You don't seem to have a clue why discrimination is wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Where exactly did you get these statistics?

I've served 9 years in the USMC. I've seen a few cases of people getting discharged over it. I was going to say that none of these instances were for behavior during off hours and outside military property, but you are a Marine 24/7 so the "off hours" doesn't even apply.

There are a lot of things that can keep you out of the military. Being gay just happens to be one of them. It allows the military to keep higher standards and allows things to be more uniform. Uniformity is a great strength to our armed forces.

Keep higher standards??? Being gay is not 'lower standard', but it says something about your ignorance and bigotry that you say that.

There are legitimate reasons, and illegitimate reasons based on bigotry that wrongfully discriminate.

Your argument would apply as well or better to race - you could be 'uniform' there too.

'Uniform' on some things is helpful and on others it's simply discrimination. You don't seem to know the difference.

If nothing else, keeping the ban on gays in the military is a huge cost savings and the budgets are tight as they are. The extra cost of keeping males and females separate is high enough as it is. When you add separating the gay males and females it makes it even worse.

There is no need to separate them.

Maybe not Joe or Bruce on the street, but Roberta and Patty... It seemed like there was a lot more common with the females in the USMC. Females didn't seem to care as much as the guys do about sharing quarters with gays, so it was possible to be known, and not be ousted. Sticking true to the stereotypical i love you/lesbian, I think more of your gay women would be interested in the military as well. I'm not too big into stereotypes, but after meeting all of the gays I have, I think that one is pretty accurate.

Your 'point' adds nothing to the discussion of the issue. So what if lesbians are more likely to join the military than gays? How does that affect discrimination being wrong?

The only reason I see for you to say all that is to express your own bigotry.

If you were a gay man in the USMC, it was completely different and would lead to violence if action was not taken immediately.

So, marines can't follow orders, and they're all violent bigots?

I agree that this seems to be the vocal minority complaining loudly. Even more of a reason to keep gays out. Every penny spent on accommodating them is money not spent on the training and equipment that keeps us effective and safe.

Or every bit of bigotry requiring any response costs money that could be spent on other things. The problem is bigotry - including yours - not the gays.

 

[tinker2141]

And yet again Craig is an ass. Good job you lefty loon.

 

[Craig234]

And yet again Craig is an ass. Good job you lefty loon.

How ironic. Good argument though, plenty of substance, logic, facts to it.

Good for you to be clear you are a defender of bigotry.

 

[PJABBER]

An informative document on gays in the military, with reference to statistics:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40782.pdf

From a quick perusing of the document, it looks as if the "witch hunting" that's been going on has been overplayed to make a point. Look at pg. 7 referring to discharge statistics and what the reasons were for those discharges.

Thanks for posting this. The doc does present interesting statistical data and does explain in detail the current state of the issue way better than anything else I have read.

I look forward to seeing the study that comes out in December.

 

[trenchfoot]

Might want to look again. Even the simple chart shows after DADT was passed discharges started to go back up and almost doubled at its peak.

Thanks for pointing that out. Like I said in my first post, I only did a quick look and didn't even look at the chart. However, upon reading further into the document, the REASONS why the chart looked the way it did pointed away from agressive investigations (witch hunts, of which I was specifically referring to) and named as the main cause individuals outing themselves for personal reasons. The document then goes on to say that the total amount of gays in the military is statistically very small, and those that are discharged are an statistically insignificant portion of the overall reduction in force.

Personally, I am undecided on DADT because I haven't looked into it enough to form a solid unbiased opinion on it.

It seems that the rights of those gay persons being discharged is being weighed against the total impact on strength of the Armed Forces, which the document deemed "insignificant". If the highest priority is to keep our Armed Forces at a level necessary to protect our nation, then statisically, the gays are an "insignificant" part of that picture. If the highest priority is insuring that the civil rights of our service members are not violated, then each individual service member who feels their rights have been violated take precedence and they are being treated on a case by case basis. Where the balance is between the two seems moot considering how this topic is currently being discussed in this thread.

 

[Atreus21]

Thanks for posting this. The doc does present interesting statistical data and does explain in detail the current state of the issue way better than anything else I have read.

I look forward to seeing the study that comes out in December.

What is the December study addressing?

 

[Vette73]

Thanks for pointing that out. Like I said in my first post, I only did a quick look and didn't even look at the chart. However, upon reading further into the document, the REASONS why the chart looked the way it did pointed away from agressive investigations (witch hunts, of which I was specifically referring to) and named as the main cause individuals outing themselves for personal reasons. The document then goes on to say that the total amount of gays in the military is statistically very small, and those that are discharged are an statistically insignificant portion of the overall reduction in force.

Personally, I am undecided on DADT because I haven't looked into it enough to form a solid unbiased opinion on it.

It seems that the rights of those gay persons being discharged is being weighed against the total impact on strength of the Armed Forces, which the document deemed "insignificant". If the highest priority is to keep our Armed Forces at a level necessary to protect our nation, then statisically, the gays are an "insignificant" part of that picture. If the highest priority is insuring that the civil rights of our service members are not violated, then each individual service member who feels their rights have been violated take precedence and they are being treated on a case by case basis. Where the balance is between the two seems moot considering how this topic is currently being discussed in this thread.

Ha there are a lot more gays in the military then people think, let alone that flawed report. I don;t know anybody that was in the military that did not know someone was gay. I had a roommate, guy, that was former military and he was gay.

Also another thing I missed was the numbers discharged after DADT kept going up TILL Bush sent us to Iraq. i.e. gays are bad unless we need them to REALLY fight for the US.

 

[PJABBER]

What is the December study addressing?

Just a quick comment that anyone interested in the legal arguments in this topic should check out

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: A Legal Analysis

which is also produced by the Congressional Research Service.

From Wiki,

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment[1] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness.

The poll is to survey the troops so the military can best address their concerns in an attempt to prevent morale and discipline issues once DADT is repealed. The thing is, DADT is likely dead until the next Congress convenes next year as the bill did not pass the Senate.
​

Here is a link to the actual poll -

2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Uniformed Active Duty and Reserve Service Members

 

[dmcowen674]

WTF republicans.

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban .

What do you mean WTF?

Why would they change their America hating anti-gay stance now?

 

[her209]

DADT sounds like a good way to get out of a unjust war. I'd keep it.

There are easier ways of getting out of the military than to claim you're gay. Just tell them your addicted to prescription drugs. Oh wait. Never mind...

:awe:

 

[sonicdrummer20]

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort to repeal the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, handing gay rights groups a defeat in their last chance any time soon to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation, which authorized $726 billion in defense spending. The vote was 56-43.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that Republicans weren't given sufficient leeway to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.

The vote fell mostly along party lines, although Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both D-Ark., sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date.

Advocates of lifting the 17-year-old ban had been optimistic that the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress could overcome objections to repeal. The move is unpopular among Republicans, military officers and social conservatives.

Gay rights advocates now worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in elections this fall, repealing the ban will prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

Top defense officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, have said they support a repeal but want to move slowly to ensure changes won't hurt morale.


That begs the question though: why the fuck is a bill that's supposed to repeat DADT lumped together with something that authorizes 726 billion in defense spending?

The 726 Billion is called pork. Basically it is added by people as a "bribe" in order to get their vote, Republicans like defense so why not add money for defense and they vote the bill in. then both parties get thier wishes with a compromise.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Fucking Republicans.

/Thread

Fucking people that don't understand the full complexity of how Congress and politicians work.

If you knew anything other than blame Republicans, you'd notice that
1. Some Democrats sided with Republicans.
2. The measure to lift DADT was an amendment to another bill, which included other things such as abortion and other types of spending.

It's a typical ploy by politicians to get the dumb asses in America riled up over a hot button issue, because most Americans will only latch on to one issue at a time.

Wake up and see that Republicans aren't the problem. Politicians are the problem.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Ha there are a lot more gays in the military then people think, let alone that flawed report. I don;t know anybody that was in the military that did not know someone was gay. I had a roommate, guy, that was former military and he was gay.

Also another thing I missed was the numbers discharged after DADT kept going up TILL Bush sent us to Iraq. i.e. gays are bad unless we need them to REALLY fight for the US.

Well statistics show the number of homosexuals is low in the military. The homosexuals in typical fashion think that everyone else is gay like them and use that as their means of justifying their beliefs.

Simply put, the military is not about sexual orientation. Being openly gay or straight in the military shouldn't be allowed. Why don't people rally around other issues in the UCMJ such as the military prosecuting people for adultry and such things that heterosexuals can be charged with. Isn't that interfering with their ability to lead a lifestyle of their choosing?
Or do you only care about yourself?

 

[her209]

The 726 Billion is called pork. Basically it is added by people as a "bribe" in order to get their vote, Republicans like defense so why not add money for defense and they vote the bill in. then both parties get thier wishes with a compromise.

They were against body armor for the troops before they were for it.

:awe:

 

[werepossum]

LOL My stereotypes are based on my observations, nothing more. I don't base them on anything I see on TV. Maybe a little off because most of the lesbians I met were in the USMC and were pretty butch. Although, most of the lesbians I knew outside the USMC were pretty butch... I didn't know of many gay males in the USMC, and the few I did were a lot less "butch." Remarkably the gay males I knew outside the USMC were a lot less butch.



Your "ASSumption" that DADT costs more money than repealing it is ignorant and disingenuous. I have a realistic view of how much it costs to train service members. They don't need to be pilots to cost a lot. Even your supposed dumb grunt is a heavy investment. Just not compared to the cost of repealing the DADT.



Out of all the gays that are processed out of the military, how many go to trial? You keeping using the word "tried" but I don't think many go to court martial.



Sorry, bud. I call them like I see them. If you were a Marine, and you wear a green shirt every day, I would label you as the Marine who wears a green shirt. If you are the extremely butch lesbian Marine that won the female bench competition in Iraq and can put up more than a lot of male Marines...



Lol, since when is this about same sex harassment. If nothing the harassment that needs to be worried about is what the few openly gay males are going to receive. It's not right, but it's going to be there.

As far as serving with someone different than me, I've served proudly with people from all of the branches of arms forces, races from all over the world, several religions, even members of other nations armed forces. Who are you to tell anyone serving who they should or should not serve with?

I care about having a strong military able to complete its mission effectively. The lower we make our standards and the more we cater to the extremes the weaker our military is.

If you want to promote gays in the military, at least do it without spreading your made up statistics and pretending your "ASSumptions" are any better than any others.

The bolded is my major concern as well. The military is not and should not be an egalitarian organization. I could not join, for instance, I'm too old. It would be possible to remove that "ageism" to allow me to join, since there are many jobs I could do perfectly well. But the military isn't like civilian life, and it's entirely possible that I might be forced to do a job I am unable to do - and that lives might be lost, and a mission failed, due to that inability.

It's more marginal with homosexuals though. Since there are no jobs homosexuals are categorically unable to perform, it's merely a question of unit efficiency. It might make a lot of sense to adopt a policy similar to Israel's, whereby homosexuals (at least currently serving homosexuals) are first examined to see if they are security threats (which I would think is almost totally a function of being in the closet and therefore susceptible to blackmail) and then the unit is examined and interviewed to see if the individual is a problem. I think in most jobs and units an openly gay person is not going to be a problem, so the cost of the investigations would probably be more than offset by the increased efficiency of keeping highly trained and motivated individuals retained in the positions in which they have been integrated rather than suffering the expense of training a new individual and integrating that person into the unit.

Thanks for your service and semper fidelis.

 

[madeuce]

Keep higher standards??? Being gay is not 'lower standard', but it says something about your ignorance and bigotry that you say that.

Maybe you believe that it's OK to be homo.
Maybe you believe that God made you that way.
Maybe you believe that if everyone were gay that we could still magically sustain the population to support a large military...
Maybe you could make a thread about it and insult anyone there that doesn't share your beliefs so we can keep this thread on topic?

There are legitimate reasons, and illegitimate reasons based on bigotry that wrongfully discriminate.

True

Your argument would apply as well or better to race - you could be 'uniform' there too.

Breaking out your race card so early? If only homosexuality was as simple as the color of someone's skin.

'Uniform' on some things is helpful and on others it's simply discrimination. You don't seem to know the difference.

There is no need to separate them.

You wear your ignorance so proudly. At leasts I hope it's ignorance. Here's your chance to prove that it really is ignorance and not just stupidity.

Do some research on military life, pay particular attention to anything you can find about living in the barracks. Next do some research on something called "good order and discipline." When you are all done with that explain to me how you would make the barracks situation work and still maintain the same level of good order and discipline we have today.

If you need help with any of that feel free to PM me.

Your 'point' adds nothing to the discussion of the issue. So what if lesbians are more likely to join the military than gays? How does that affect discrimination being wrong?

The only reason I see for you to say all that is to express your own bigotry.

Context. I was just pointing out to someone that it's more likely for gay women to join the Marine Corps then gay men. Take it how you want though. /shrug

So, marines can't follow orders, and they're all violent bigots?

Congratulations, the internet allows you to communicate some of your thoughts that you would otherwise be too timid to say in person. Good for you!

Or every bit of bigotry requiring any response costs money that could be spent on other things. The problem is bigotry - including yours - not the gays.

Figure out the above situation about military life and good order and discipline. If you can solve the situation in a way that doesn't cost thousands of man hours and a large amount of tax dollars please share. There will be a lot of people interested.

 

[madeuce]

The bolded is my major concern as well. The military is not and should not be an egalitarian organization. I could not join, for instance, I'm too old. It would be possible to remove that "ageism" to allow me to join, since there are many jobs I could do perfectly well. But the military isn't like civilian life, and it's entirely possible that I might be forced to do a job I am unable to do - and that lives might be lost, and a mission failed, due to that inability.

It's more marginal with homosexuals though. Since there are no jobs homosexuals are categorically unable to perform, it's merely a question of unit efficiency. It might make a lot of sense to adopt a policy similar to Israel's, whereby homosexuals (at least currently serving homosexuals) are first examined to see if they are security threats (which I would think is almost totally a function of being in the closet and therefore susceptible to blackmail) and then the unit is examined and interviewed to see if the individual is a problem. I think in most jobs and units an openly gay person is not going to be a problem, so the cost of the investigations would probably be more than offset by the increased efficiency of keeping highly trained and motivated individuals retained in the positions in which they have been integrated rather than suffering the expense of training a new individual and integrating that person into the unit.

Thanks for your service and semper fidelis.

Your welcome. Thank you for actually posting something with some thought behind it and not trying to pull a "craig234."

I fully agree that homosexuality could be a small accomodation compared to things like down syndrome, being too old (depending on what you think of as "old"), being bound to a wheel chair or several other reasons that people are kept out of the military.

To me though it's not about the jobs that they can perform. I can't think of any job that a straight person could do, that a homosexual person could not.

My biggest hangup is the living situation. Sex is one of the biggest factors to consider when you are thinking about taking away from good order and discipline. The military does what it can with males and females to keep things as good as possible. Separate quarters, some separate training and a few other measures I'm probably leaving out. For the most part it works. It doesn't work as well as an all male or all female military would, but we are making due and I think the trade offs are justified.

When it doesn't work, and the measures in place aren't adequately stopping the sexual activity you start to have problems. You get things like E-9s cheating on their spouses with E-3s while they are deployed. Now suddenly that E-3 is getting special attention and possible privileges that they shouldn't be receiving. Not only is this in itself punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it can lead to discontent among the other troops. It all comes down to a failure to maintain the good order and discipline needed to keep a unit cohesive and it will have an negative effect on the effectiveness of a unit.

This problem happens today mostly just between males and females. My one small example is not all inclusive, just a small piece of the bigger puzzle.

Now imagine adding all of your different sexual varieties we have today into the mix. You can't just separate gays from straights.

I'm a pretty black and white kind of person when it comes to right and wrong. It's easy to just say "Prosecute those that are causing the problems with good order and discipline, end of story." It's not that easy when you have a unit in Iraqistan that has limited resources and limited personnel. You have to take the necessary steps to make every troop you have perform to the best of their ability, even if that includes taking away as many chances as you can for them to make mistakes.

 

[OutHouse]

Of course the blocking couldn't have anything to do with an abortion amendment tied to a DEFENSE SPENDING BILL either.

or reids stupid ass dream act...