U.S. Senate votes to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy

[News_Editor]

U.S. Senate votes to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy

2010-12-19 03:59:12 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- A controversial policy which bans openly gay, lesbian, and bisexuals from serving in the U.S. military is coming to an end after the U.S. Senate voted to repeal it.

The vote came just days after the U.S. House passed the repeal bill in a 250-175 vote, with fifteen Republicans supporting the measure. On Saturday, the U.S. Senate voted to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in a 65-31 vote, which included the support of eight Republicans.

The bill will now have to go through a review process and both President Barack Obama and Pentagon officials must certify that lifting the ban will not adversely affect the military. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would sign the repeal into law some time next week.

Earlier on Saturday, the U.S. Senate had voted 63-33 for cloture on the repeal, which brought debate on the issue to a quick end. "Today, America lived up to its highest ideals of freedom and equality. Congress recognized that all men and women have the right to openly serve their country," Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese said after the first vote. "Plenty of people had already planned the funeral for this legislation. Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago."

Obama also marked the first vote as 'an historic step forward'. "Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend," the President said in a statement released by the White House. "By ending 'Don’t Ask, Don't Tell,' no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love."

Obama said the repeal of DADT will underscore the professionalism of the nation's troops as 'the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known.' He said he was confident that the government could responsibly transition to the new policy.

"It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed," Obama added. "It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law."

The vote to repeal DADT was welcomed by many as right groups had campaigned for years to end the ban. "This long-awaited action is an important step toward allowing gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve openly and honorably in the armed forces," said American Psychological Association President Carol D. Goodheart, EdD. "Repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy will lift a heavy psychological burden of secrecy from gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel."

DADT became official policy in December 1993, restricting the U.S. military from efforts to discover or repeal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants. Openly gay, lesbian, or bisexuals are barred from the military under the policy.

The new policy was first announced by President Bill Clinton on July 19, 1993 when he gave a speech at the National Defense University at Fort McNair. "I believe the policy I am announcing today represents a real step forward, but I know it will raise concerns in some of your minds," Clinton said at the time, referring to a policy which at the time barred any - openly or closeted - gay, lesbian, or bisexual to service in the military.

In the 90s, some service members returning from the Gulf war announced their homosexuality in protest of the military ban. "For people who are willing to play by the rules, able to serve and make a contribution, I believed then and I believe now we should give them the chance to do so," Clinton said during his speech, saying there is no study which shows homosexuals to be less capable or more prone to misconduct than heterosexual soldiers.

But Clinton did not move to lift the ban on gays entirely. "The experience of other nations and police and fire departments in the United States indicates that most homosexuals would probably not declare their sexual orientation openly, thereby making an already hard life even more difficult in some circumstances," he said.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2010-12-19

[sausageandmash]

Always reminds me of the "Gays in the Navy" episode of Brass Eye. Fantastic! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icDB3kRKPg&playnext=1&list=PL4A623740617788D0&index=38

[TAWP]

Would be nice if the US joined the rest of the West on this...being a beacon of progress and all.

[Ulysses G.]

Isn't that just what the article is about?

[TAWP]

Isn't that just what the article is about?

Well, yes, when everything is finalized. It isn't just yet.

[Carib]

Hope they finally get it settled this time, this has been going on for ages, vote this, vote that, going back and forth, but never a result.

Gays in the army/navy will cost lives an admiral said. How retarded can one be, and these twisted thinkers are " the leaders" pumping these ridiculous backward thoughts into their subordinates minds. And because of this attitude it will take ages before the real discrimination will be gone.

I like the T shirt; " You don't have to be straight to shoot straight".

[flying]

All thoughts of equality aside.....This was bought & paid for with Zobama signing a two year extension of Bush's Tax Breaks for the wealthy...nothing less, nothing more

[jazzbo]

One reason the military supported the repeal is to gain extra language translators especially Arabic ..

Zobama? -- what maturity.

Edited December 19, 2010 by jazzbo

[koheesti]

Would be nice if the US joined the rest of the West on this...being a beacon of progress and all.

With very few exceptions, the militaries of the "rest of the West" don't even fight so they could have mannequins in uniform and it wouldn't make any difference.

[endure]

Would be nice if the US joined the rest of the West on this...being a beacon of progress and all.

With very few exceptions, the militaries of the "rest of the West" don't even fight so they could have mannequins in uniform and it wouldn't make any difference.

Two of those exceptions being the Brits and the IDF both of which have a reasonable reputation as military folks and no problems with gay members (fnaaar).

[TAWP]

Would be nice if the US joined the rest of the West on this...being a beacon of progress and all.

With very few exceptions, the militaries of the "rest of the West" don't even fight so they could have mannequins in uniform and it wouldn't make any difference.

Two of those exceptions being the Brits and the IDF both of which have a reasonable reputation as military folks and no problems with gay members (fnaaar).

And many others having peace-missions throughout the world and, what did you know, having to fight too...for example in Afghanistan.

[CWMcMurray]

I served in the US army for aprox 6 yr and I honestly do not think there would have been any problems if any of the guys in our unit were openly gay, as long as they didn't try hitting on any of the non -gay guys, but I really do not think that would be an issue...

[koheesti]

Would be nice if the US joined the rest of the West on this...being a beacon of progress and all.

With very few exceptions, the militaries of the "rest of the West" don't even fight so they could have mannequins in uniform and it wouldn't make any difference.

Two of those exceptions being the Brits and the IDF both of which have a reasonable reputation as military folks and no problems with gay members (fnaaar).

And many others having peace-missions throughout the world and, what did you know, having to fight too...for example in Afghanistan.

They are there in "safe" areas and are being attacked, not taking the fight to the enemy. Take the Germans for example, they are in Afghanistan but when was the last time you heard of any of their combat operations? April 1945?

As for gays in the military, part of me says that the military shouldn't be used for social experiments for the PC Brigade. Another part remembers there used to be resistance to blacks serving along whites as well and that seems ludicrous today. So I'm really on the fence on this issue.

BTW - in the militaries in the world that allow openly gays to serve, how many allow them to serve in combat/special forces positions? Or are they mostly in supportive roles?

Edited December 20, 2010 by koheesti

[endure]

BTW - in the militaries in the world that allow openly gays to serve, how many allow them to serve in combat/special forces positions? Or are they mostly in supportive roles?

Lots of interesting research here.

[metisdead]

One off topic post removed from view.

[TAWP]

They are there in "safe" areas and are being attacked, not taking the fight to the enemy. Take the Germans for example, they are in Afghanistan but when was the last time you heard of any of their combat operations? April 1945?

I suggest you take your off-topic grandstanding and flawed pride in another topic if you really want to learn more regarding this.

[Footloose1949]

Another reason for going ahead with this is it pretty well 'knocks on the head' the chances of people in the Armed Forces being subjected to blackmail by those who use this method to gain strategic information. As for senior members of the armed forces arguing it compromises their effectiveness in combat, maybe they need to ask why the ancient Spartan and Greek armies preferred homosexuals, and that they were considered the most effective fighting force in the world during that particular time-frame?

Having said that, the famous Greek play 'Lystrata', relates that the soldiers wives, being sick and tired of their men always fighting, gave their husbands the following ultimatum ... 'No sex, unless you stop fighting'! ... Which I suppose goes to prove 'Hell hath no fury like a woman', and they have more power, than men would like to admit!

[Carib]

[With very few exceptions, the militaries of the "rest of the West" don't even fight so they could have mannequins in uniform and it wouldn't make any difference.

Two of those exceptions being the Brits and the IDF both of which have a reasonable reputation as military folks and no problems with gay members (fnaaar).

And many others having peace-missions throughout the world and, what did you know, having to fight too...for example in Afghanistan.

They are there in "safe" areas and are being attacked, not taking the fight to the enemy. Take the Germans for example, they are in Afghanistan but when was the last time you heard of any of their combat operations? April 1945?

As for gays in the military, part of me says that the military shouldn't be used for social experiments for the PC Brigade. Another part remembers there used to be resistance to blacks serving along whites as well and that seems ludicrous today. So I'm really on the fence on this issue.

BTW - in the militaries in the world that allow openly gays to serve, how many allow them to serve in combat/special forces positions? Or are they mostly in supportive roles?

Just for your info : Denmark, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Poland and most members of the European Union and Nato, also Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan and Singapore are in Afghanistan.

Go tell the families of those who got killed coming from those countries that they were in " a safe area" and noncombatant .

You are a victim of the usual propaganda that you guys are the only, and chosen ones in that stupid war.

As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too.

Try inviting all the "silent" gays in Afghanistan in your own forces, to a party right now, I can assure you will have to rent a HUGE place.

You should get out more and read something else than just the u.s. info, and pay a bit of attention to what is really going on, and naming gays and a social experiment in one sentence is a bit too much in the year 2010, in 1930 it probably would have sounded different.

[LeCharivari]

Hope they finally get it settled this time, this has been going on for ages, vote this, vote that, going back and forth, but never a result.

Gays in the army/navy will cost lives an admiral said. How retarded can one be, and these twisted thinkers are " the leaders" pumping these ridiculous backward thoughts into their subordinates minds. And because of this attitude it will take ages before the real discrimination will be gone.

I like the T shirt; " You don't have to be straight to shoot straight".

Since I have been mentioned in the gay forum in connection with this topic, I may as well reply in this thread myself.

Sorry to disappoint you, Carib, but while not correct the Admiral still has a valid point - gays in the military can (not "will") cost lives, under certain circumstances, in much the same way that women in the military can cost lives. I mention women in the military not because I am grouping the two together in any way, but because the arguments against gays serving in the military are generally the same arguments previously made against women doing so. What needs to be considered is whether or not the advantages for the military outweigh the disadvantages for the military - the views of the gay lobby should be irrelevant.

The advantages to the military are obvious - increased manpower, nothing more.

The disadvantages are nothing to do with any lack of mental or physical ability - I have known both gays and women who are far stronger both mentally and physically than their heterosexual male peers,and many gays have already displayed their courage and determination by facing up to their detractors and themselves. Nor are they anything to do with any rejection of gays by the military establishment or, far more importantly, their peers - contrary to what some civilians may think, the vast majority of the military accept people on their own merits, particularly in an operational situation. Under certain circumstances, however, they can be a distraction and could cause decisions to be made which could lead to lives being lost.

The primary problem is abuse of power - commanders in the military have far more authority than in any civilian job, whether it is in the barracks or in the field or whether the commander is a senior officer or a 19 year old Junior NCO. This can lead to either favouritism or discrimination, consciously or unconsciously, and sex is a strong motivator for most people. While discrimination can usually be spotted and controlled, favouritism is far more difficult to eliminate and the results can be far reaching - over-reporting of a "favoured" subordinate is the biggest problem and can and does lead to over-promotion; over-promotion results in mistakes, and mistakes result in casualties. Does it happen? Yes, beyond any doubt. Does it happen as a result of sexual "favours" by gay soldiers for their gay superiors? Again, yes, and I have seen numerous examples that went ignored because commanders were unwilling to admit to fundamental faults in their unit, resulting in incompetent commanders.

Abuse of power can also lead to commanders being overprotective of those under their command who they are attached to: instead of sending 'A' (who they may just like or they may even be in love with) to do a particularly risky job, they will send 'B', even though 'A' would do a better job and 'B' may cost lives instead. Conversely, if a gay commander were to consciously send his gay b/f or a unit containing his gay b/f to do a job that resulted in his death the personal effects would be traumatic, and is it reasonable for him to be put in that position?.

Similarly, if individuals within a unit are unusually close instead of one carrying on to an objective when another becomes a casualty, a soldier may stop to help him. This may be only natural, but it can (and does) also lead to unnecessary casualties: many armies still avoid having women in the front line, as it was found that as men are naturally protective of women so more stop when a woman becomes a casualty (and however the US may play it, the farce of Jessica Lynch's "rescue" shows that men and women are not treated the same by the US military); some units go so far as to avoid having brothers and relatives serving in the same sub-unit just to avoid this eventuality. Having gays serving in the military may not exacerbate this, but the more gays there are the more it increases the chances of it happening.

Given the right direction all these disadvantages can be minimised if not prevented, as can the associated administrative problems (which do exist, and do need to be addressed). If women are allowed in the military, even in a limited capacity, then there can be no logical reason to exclude gays, in any capacity. Other countries have removed any restriction on gays with no noticeable effects whatsoever, however whether the American military manages to do so depends entirely on whether or not the right direction is given.

My own view, for what little its worth, is that initially that direction will be considerably misplaced and the US military will not learn from other countries' experience - and there is a considerable difference in the way the military in different countries (for example Britain, Australia, Israel and Holland) have addressed the practicalities of gays in the military. Some issues will be ignored, while others will be over-compensated for - I can see positive discrimination, for example, being a major mistake, just as it was for a time in the British military with ethnic minorities. After a possibly uncomfortable settling in period, though, I think that it will simply cease to be an issue; the numbers involved will be negligible, as they are in other volunteer armies (they are still marginal in the navy and the air force) and the US military will be no worse (and unfortunately no better) than it is now.

[TAWP]

Under certain circumstances, however, they can be a distraction and could cause decisions to be made which could lead to lives being lost.

With this kind of reasoning you would deny soldiers to carry weapons, drive tanks or fly airplanes...

[koheesti]

Just for your info : Denmark, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Poland and most members of the European Union and Nato, also Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan and Singapore are in Afghanistan.

Go tell the families of those who got killed coming from those countries that they were in " a safe area" and noncombatant .

You are a victim of the usual propaganda that you guys are the only, and chosen ones in that stupid war.

As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too.

Try inviting all the "silent" gays in Afghanistan in your own forces, to a party right now, I can assure you will have to rent a HUGE place.

You should get out more and read something else than just the u.s. info, and pay a bit of attention to what is really going on, and naming gays and a social experiment in one sentence is a bit too much in the year 2010, in 1930 it probably would have sounded different.

Sorry, you didn't understand what I wrote. English isn't your native language so I won't badger you about comprehension. Just keep that in mind before getting aggresive.

[koheesti]

Hope they finally get it settled this time, this has been going on for ages, vote this, vote that, going back and forth, but never a result.

Gays in the army/navy will cost lives an admiral said. How retarded can one be, and these twisted thinkers are " the leaders" pumping these ridiculous backward thoughts into their subordinates minds. And because of this attitude it will take ages before the real discrimination will be gone.

I like the T shirt; " You don't have to be straight to shoot straight".

Since I have been mentioned in the gay forum in connection with this topic, I may as well reply in this thread myself.

Sorry to disappoint you, Carib, but while not correct the Admiral still has a valid point - gays in the military can (not "will") cost lives, under certain circumstances, in much the same way that women in the military can cost lives. I mention women in the military not because I am grouping the two together in any way, but because the arguments against gays serving in the military are generally the same arguments previously made against women doing so. What needs to be considered is whether or not the advantages for the military outweigh the disadvantages for the military - the views of the gay lobby should be irrelevant.

The advantages to the military are obvious - increased manpower, nothing more.

The disadvantages are nothing to do with any lack of mental or physical ability - I have known both gays and women who are far stronger both mentally and physically than their heterosexual male peers,and many gays have already displayed their courage and determination by facing up to their detractors and themselves. Nor are they anything to do with any rejection of gays by the military establishment or, far more importantly, their peers - contrary to what some civilians may think, the vast majority of the military accept people on their own merits, particularly in an operational situation. Under certain circumstances, however, they can be a distraction and could cause decisions to be made which could lead to lives being lost.

The primary problem is abuse of power - commanders in the military have far more authority than in any civilian job, whether it is in the barracks or in the field or whether the commander is a senior officer or a 19 year old Junior NCO. This can lead to either favouritism or discrimination, consciously or unconsciously, and sex is a strong motivator for most people. While discrimination can usually be spotted and controlled, favouritism is far more difficult to eliminate and the results can be far reaching - over-reporting of a "favoured" subordinate is the biggest problem and can and does lead to over-promotion; over-promotion results in mistakes, and mistakes result in casualties. Does it happen? Yes, beyond any doubt. Does it happen as a result of sexual "favours" by gay soldiers for their gay superiors? Again, yes, and I have seen numerous examples that went ignored because commanders were unwilling to admit to fundamental faults in their unit, resulting in incompetent commanders.

Abuse of power can also lead to commanders being overprotective of those under their command who they are attached to: instead of sending 'A' (who they may just like or they may even be in love with) to do a particularly risky job, they will send 'B', even though 'A' would do a better job and 'B' may cost lives instead. Conversely, if a gay commander were to consciously send his gay b/f or a unit containing his gay b/f to do a job that resulted in his death the personal effects would be traumatic, and is it reasonable for him to be put in that position?.

Similarly, if individuals within a unit are unusually close instead of one carrying on to an objective when another becomes a casualty, a soldier may stop to help him. This may be only natural, but it can (and does) also lead to unnecessary casualties: many armies still avoid having women in the front line, as it was found that as men are naturally protective of women so more stop when a woman becomes a casualty (and however the US may play it, the farce of Jessica Lynch's "rescue" shows that men and women are not treated the same by the US military); some units go so far as to avoid having brothers and relatives serving in the same sub-unit just to avoid this eventuality. Having gays serving in the military may not exacerbate this, but the more gays there are the more it increases the chances of it happening.

Given the right direction all these disadvantages can be minimised if not prevented, as can the associated administrative problems (which do exist, and do need to be addressed). If women are allowed in the military, even in a limited capacity, then there can be no logical reason to exclude gays, in any capacity. Other countries have removed any restriction on gays with no noticeable effects whatsoever, however whether the American military manages to do so depends entirely on whether or not the right direction is given.

My own view, for what little its worth, is that initially that direction will be considerably misplaced and the US military will not learn from other countries' experience - and there is a considerable difference in the way the military in different countries (for example Britain, Australia, Israel and Holland) have addressed the practicalities of gays in the military. Some issues will be ignored, while others will be over-compensated for - I can see positive discrimination, for example, being a major mistake, just as it was for a time in the British military with ethnic minorities. After a possibly uncomfortable settling in period, though, I think that it will simply cease to be an issue; the numbers involved will be negligible, as they are in other volunteer armies (they are still marginal in the navy and the air force) and the US military will be no worse (and unfortunately no better) than it is now.

Impressive post.

[Carib]

Just for your info : Denmark, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Poland and most members of the European Union and Nato, also Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan and Singapore are in Afghanistan.

Go tell the families of those who got killed coming from those countries that they were in " a safe area" and noncombatant .

You are a victim of the usual propaganda that you guys are the only, and chosen ones in that stupid war.

As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too.

Try inviting all the "silent" gays in Afghanistan in your own forces, to a party right now, I can assure you will have to rent a HUGE place.

You should get out more and read something else than just the u.s. info, and pay a bit of attention to what is really going on, and naming gays and a social experiment in one sentence is a bit too much in the year 2010, in 1930 it probably would have sounded different.

Sorry, you didn't understand what I wrote. English isn't your native language so I won't badger you about comprehension. Just keep that in mind before getting aggresive.

O really, I didn't understand because English is not my native tongue? Please read the other reactions of the ones who than also misinterpreted.

[Carib]

Hope they finally get it settled this time, this has been going on for ages, vote this, vote that, going back and forth, but never a result.

Gays in the army/navy will cost lives an admiral said. How retarded can one be, and these twisted thinkers are " the leaders" pumping these ridiculous backward thoughts into their subordinates minds. And because of this attitude it will take ages before the real discrimination will be gone.

I like the T shirt; " You don't have to be straight to shoot straight".

Since I have been mentioned in the gay forum in connection with this topic, I may as well reply in this thread myself.

Sorry to disappoint you, Carib, but while not correct the Admiral still has a valid point - gays in the military can (not "will") cost lives, under certain circumstances, in much the same way that women in the military can cost lives. I mention women in the military not because I am grouping the two together in any way, but because the arguments against gays serving in the military are generally the same arguments previously made against women doing so. What needs to be considered is whether or not the advantages for the military outweigh the disadvantages for the military - the views of the gay lobby should be irrelevant.

The advantages to the military are obvious - increased manpower, nothing more.

The disadvantages are nothing to do with any lack of mental or physical ability - I have known both gays and women who are far stronger both mentally and physically than their heterosexual male peers,and many gays have already displayed their courage and determination by facing up to their detractors and themselves. Nor are they anything to do with any rejection of gays by the military establishment or, far more importantly, their peers - contrary to what some civilians may think, the vast majority of the military accept people on their own merits, particularly in an operational situation. Under certain circumstances, however, they can be a distraction and could cause decisions to be made which could lead to lives being lost.

The primary problem is abuse of power - commanders in the military have far more authority than in any civilian job, whether it is in the barracks or in the field or whether the commander is a senior officer or a 19 year old Junior NCO. This can lead to either favouritism or discrimination, consciously or unconsciously, and sex is a strong motivator for most people. While discrimination can usually be spotted and controlled, favouritism is far more difficult to eliminate and the results can be far reaching - over-reporting of a "favoured" subordinate is the biggest problem and can and does lead to over-promotion; over-promotion results in mistakes, and mistakes result in casualties. Does it happen? Yes, beyond any doubt. Does it happen as a result of sexual "favours" by gay soldiers for their gay superiors? Again, yes, and I have seen numerous examples that went ignored because commanders were unwilling to admit to fundamental faults in their unit, resulting in incompetent commanders.

Abuse of power can also lead to commanders being overprotective of those under their command who they are attached to: instead of sending 'A' (who they may just like or they may even be in love with) to do a particularly risky job, they will send 'B', even though 'A' would do a better job and 'B' may cost lives instead. Conversely, if a gay commander were to consciously send his gay b/f or a unit containing his gay b/f to do a job that resulted in his death the personal effects would be traumatic, and is it reasonable for him to be put in that position?.

Similarly, if individuals within a unit are unusually close instead of one carrying on to an objective when another becomes a casualty, a soldier may stop to help him. This may be only natural, but it can (and does) also lead to unnecessary casualties: many armies still avoid having women in the front line, as it was found that as men are naturally protective of women so more stop when a woman becomes a casualty (and however the US may play it, the farce of Jessica Lynch's "rescue" shows that men and women are not treated the same by the US military); some units go so far as to avoid having brothers and relatives serving in the same sub-unit just to avoid this eventuality. Having gays serving in the military may not exacerbate this, but the more gays there are the more it increases the chances of it happening.

Given the right direction all these disadvantages can be minimised if not prevented, as can the associated administrative problems (which do exist, and do need to be addressed). If women are allowed in the military, even in a limited capacity, then there can be no logical reason to exclude gays, in any capacity. Other countries have removed any restriction on gays with no noticeable effects whatsoever, however whether the American military manages to do so depends entirely on whether or not the right direction is given.

My own view, for what little its worth, is that initially that direction will be considerably misplaced and the US military will not learn from other countries' experience - and there is a considerable difference in the way the military in different countries (for example Britain, Australia, Israel and Holland) have addressed the practicalities of gays in the military. Some issues will be ignored, while others will be over-compensated for - I can see positive discrimination, for example, being a major mistake, just as it was for a time in the British military with ethnic minorities. After a possibly uncomfortable settling in period, though, I think that it will simply cease to be an issue; the numbers involved will be negligible, as they are in other volunteer armies (they are still marginal in the navy and the air force) and the US military will be no worse (and unfortunately no better) than it is now.

I will keep this short, I don't look at this just from a civilian point of view by the way.

Always wherever there are large groups there will be favoritism. Could be a sexual thing, could be because of money, loans, could be because some like the same sports, cars, motorcycles, or just because some have become real friends. Consciously or unconsciously, lots of reasons play a role. Choices between person A or B are always made with some of these factors in the equation too.

Always in large groups there will be the ones slowing down progress, in a military setting it could be a marine all of a sudden overcome by fear (it happens to the best), it could be the one with a leg shot off, it could be the one who messed up the coms, it could be the one who did not really pay any attention during briefings,. It could be because of the ones who lack sleep. It could be because someone loses his buddy or tries to save him.

This happens to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. All what can possibly go wrong, will go wrong in a group whatever their sexual preference, except for sexual favoritism that is. And that is where the leaders come in.

The "disadvantages" have got nothing to do with being gay or not, the "disadvantages" are caused by bad leaders. Most of whatever disadvantages in a group are caused by bad leaders by the way. Gay people will be and are accepted or rejected by their peers just as heterosexuals. For the same reasons and with the same arguments.

If not, it is called discrimination, just like what happened to black people and women when they were allowed in. There are lots of `silent` gays serving in the military or other, I think they silently already proofed that it is not a problem. I am not gay, I just don't like backwards thinking, because that is the problem in the land of the `some not so free` when it comes down to it.

:jap:

Edit: Typo

Edited December 22, 2010 by Carib

[LeCharivari]

Under certain circumstances, however, they can be a distraction and could cause decisions to be made which could lead to lives being lost.

With this kind of reasoning you would deny soldiers to carry weapons, drive tanks or fly airplanes...

Sorry, TAWP, I don't follow your "reasoning". I am well aware that my post was rather lengthy, but quoting one line out of context without any attempt to refute any of the very specific circumstances I described is really rather pointless.

For the record, I would quite happily "deny soldiers to carry weapons, etc" as long as it applied to all soldiers - it sounds an ideal (but sadly idealistic) way of ending armed conflict.

'The "disadvantages" have got nothing to do with being gay or not, the "disadvantages" are caused by bad leaders. Most of whatever disadvantages in a group are caused by bad leaders by the way........

Agreed, Carib, unfortunately the military's leaders are like any other organisation's, at all levels, and the reality is that those leaders are good, bad and indifferent and always will be; there simply aren't enough "good" leaders to go around.

My main point was that it is the military's responsibility to minimise its own casualties: that means balancing the real or imagined problems of gays serving in the military with the all too real problem of a shortage of manpower, and that "gay rights" should not be allowed to have any influence on that. As the American military currently faces a similar manpower shortage to the British military, anything that improves that situation is important, but personally I see it as a little sad that the restrictions on those enlisting in the US military with a criminal record were relaxed considerably in 2007, while gays were still rejected.

What surprises me most about the whole question of gays in the US military, particularly as compared to the British military, are the numbers involved. In the years leading up to gays being allowed to serve in the British military the numbers discharged for being gay were comparatively small, while in a similar period nearly 14,000 have been discharged from the US military . Despite gays being allowed to serve in the British military, and little or no evidence of discrimination, the numbers involved are still small - estimated at under 1,000 with the majority being women; in the US, however, it is estimated that some 65,000 are already serving in the military, which is 10 times the number in comparative terms. I can't even hazard a guess as to why that should be.

[Jingthing]

It's a great day for CIVIL RIGHTS in America. Thank you Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Robert M. Gates, and President Obama (a promise kept). A special rat fink mention to grumpy old man, John McCain. Next step -- equal marriage civil rights at the federal level. Whether that takes five years or fifty years, that is going to happen, and the opponents will be seen in the future in the same way we see people who once supported slavery. This is historic and in the long run we will see the impact is much broader than the military only.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Just for your info : Denmark, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Poland and most members of the European Union and Nato, also Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan and Singapore are in Afghanistan.

Go tell the families of those who got killed coming from those countries that they were in " a safe area" and noncombatant .

You are a victim of the usual propaganda that you guys are the only, and chosen ones in that stupid war.

As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too.

Try inviting all the "silent" gays in Afghanistan in your own forces, to a party right now, I can assure you will have to rent a HUGE place.

You should get out more and read something else than just the u.s. info, and pay a bit of attention to what is really going on, and naming gays and a social experiment in one sentence is a bit too much in the year 2010, in 1930 it probably would have sounded different.

Sorry, you didn't understand what I wrote. English isn't your native language so I won't badger you about comprehension. Just keep that in mind before getting aggresive.

O really, I didn't understand because English is not my native tongue? Please read the other reactions of the ones who than also misinterpreted.

One example;

I simply asked a question, "BTW - in the militaries in the world that allow openly gays to serve, how many allow them to serve in combat/special forces positions? Or are they mostly in supportive roles?"

You replied, "As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too."

What "remark"? I wasn't "ill-informed", I didn't know at all and that's why I asked a question. Since you misunderstood something so basic (the two question marks would normally give it away) I naturally assumed you command of the language was below that of a native speaker. My apologies. I should have been more specific.

[Carib]

Just for your info : Denmark, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Poland and most members of the European Union and Nato, also Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan and Singapore are in Afghanistan.

Go tell the families of those who got killed coming from those countries that they were in " a safe area" and noncombatant .

You are a victim of the usual propaganda that you guys are the only, and chosen ones in that stupid war.

As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too.

Try inviting all the "silent" gays in Afghanistan in your own forces, to a party right now, I can assure you will have to rent a HUGE place.

You should get out more and read something else than just the u.s. info, and pay a bit of attention to what is really going on, and naming gays and a social experiment in one sentence is a bit too much in the year 2010, in 1930 it probably would have sounded different.

Sorry, you didn't understand what I wrote. English isn't your native language so I won't badger you about comprehension. Just keep that in mind before getting aggresive.

O really, I didn't understand because English is not my native tongue? Please read the other reactions of the ones who than also misinterpreted.

One example;

I simply asked a question, "BTW - in the militaries in the world that allow openly gays to serve, how many allow them to serve in combat/special forces positions? Or are they mostly in supportive roles?"

You replied, "As far as your remarks about gay people not being in combat roles, you are ill informed too."

What "remark"? I wasn't "ill-informed", I didn't know at all and that's why I asked a question. Since you misunderstood something so basic (the two question marks would normally give it away) I naturally assumed you command of the language was below that of a native speaker. My apologies. I should have been more specific.

You are right, got carried away by the earlier remarks and didn't pay enough attention to the question marks, sorry about that.

:jap:

[Carib]

Under certain circumstances, however, they can be a distraction and could cause decisions to be made which could lead to lives being lost.

With this kind of reasoning you would deny soldiers to carry weapons, drive tanks or fly airplanes...

Sorry, TAWP, I don't follow your "reasoning". I am well aware that my post was rather lengthy, but quoting one line out of context without any attempt to refute any of the very specific circumstances I described is really rather pointless.

For the record, I would quite happily "deny soldiers to carry weapons, etc" as long as it applied to all soldiers - it sounds an ideal (but sadly idealistic) way of ending armed conflict.

'The "disadvantages" have got nothing to do with being gay or not, the "disadvantages" are caused by bad leaders. Most of whatever disadvantages in a group are caused by bad leaders by the way........

Agreed, Carib, unfortunately the military's leaders are like any other organisation's, at all levels, and the reality is that those leaders are good, bad and indifferent and always will be; there simply aren't enough "good" leaders to go around.

My main point was that it is the military's responsibility to minimise its own casualties: that means balancing the real or imagined problems of gays serving in the military with the all too real problem of a shortage of manpower, and that "gay rights" should not be allowed to have any influence on that. As the American military currently faces a similar manpower shortage to the British military, anything that improves that situation is important, but personally I see it as a little sad that the restrictions on those enlisting in the US military with a criminal record were relaxed considerably in 2007, while gays were still rejected.

What surprises me most about the whole question of gays in the US military, particularly as compared to the British military, are the numbers involved. In the years leading up to gays being allowed to serve in the British military the numbers discharged for being gay were comparatively small, while in a similar period nearly 14,000 have been discharged from the US military . Despite gays being allowed to serve in the British military, and little or no evidence of discrimination, the numbers involved are still small - estimated at under 1,000 with the majority being women; in the US, however, it is estimated that some 65,000 are already serving in the military, which is 10 times the number in comparative terms. I can't even hazard a guess as to why that should be.

I get your point about trying to minimize casualties by means of balancing the real or imagined problems of gays serving in the military. "Imagined", to me that is `the` word about all this. The crux of the matter is for the biggest part in the mind only.

It will take time getting used to the fact that the military really are the mirror of the society they stand for, until now they stand for a society in denial of having gay people.

The real society does include gay people, also petty thieves, criminals, rapists, heterosexuals, wife beaters, just plain jerks, and you just name what could possibly walk around on two legs and claim to have a brain.

Nobody is a better or a worse person due to their preferences, I would not like to make up a list about the preferences from whatever angle you look at it, no thanks.

Mentioning the numbers, I see what you mean and the questions that arise because of them, but I stopped worrying about numbers and statistics when related to human behavior a long time ago. Looking at numbers there are not that many serial killers around, statistically speaking, but possibly the one who statistically does exist could be in your unit. Congrats.

What I mean to say that it is just numbers and in some cases used the wrong way around to defend stuck ideas, like in this case IMHO. Talking about the ones who used this to their advantage to defend their backward ideas about gay people. Hope these numbers will be something of the past too.

:jap:

Edited December 22, 2010 by Carib

[Jingthing]

Enjoy the history. It was indeed a good day (for a change).