Obama to end military gay policy

[belfastuniguy 18]

Fantastic news, another step at addressing the backwardness of some aspects of American society.

Obama to end military gay policy

Obama: "I will end 'don't ask, don't tell'"

US President Barack Obama has said he will end the ban on gay people serving openly in the military.

He said he would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gay people to serve in the military if they do not reveal their sexual orientation.

Mr Obama was speaking to America's largest gay group - the Human Rights Campaign - in Washington.

He had been criticised by some in the gay community for the lack of action on gay marriage and the military issue.

A big gay rights protest march is planned in Washington for Sunday.

Disquiet

Mr Obama was addressing thousands of gay and lesbian people at a fundraising dinner in the US capital.

Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach Barack Obama Letting down gay supporters?

He said the US had made progress on gay rights and would make more.

On the military issue he said the US could not afford to lose those people who had much needed skills for fighting.

"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," Mr Obama said.

"We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage."

Mr Obama did not give a timetable for repeal of the policy, passed by Congress in 1993, under which thousands of service members have been discharged.

The US president has repeatedly pledged to tackle issues important to the gay community.

But he has faced criticism for what many in the gay community see as lack of action on his promises.

Mr Obama asked the audience to trust his administration.

"I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough. Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," he said.

One issue causing disquiet among the US gay community is the issue of gay marriage, the BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani in Los Angeles says.

Mr Obama has been criticised for not delivering on his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how local and federal bodies can recognise gay partnerships and determine benefits.

In his speech, Mr Obama did call on Congress to repeal the act and he also called for a law that would extend benefits to domestic partners.

In many places in America, gay people enjoy a high profile, economic and political clout, our correspondent says.quote>

BBC NEWS

[Ntq€310 1]

Didn't he already say he will do that.....? From what it seems.. we might get out of Iraq before anything is actually done.

[hym 358]

He already promised this earlier, and as is usual for the man, he is making promises and not giving a single detail as to how he plans to do it. I'm beginning to wonder if he derives pleasure from making empty promises, or if he has some sort of childish obsession that drives to him think thoughts along the lines of "Oh! There's going to be this nationally televised event! I have to get out and mark the occasion with a lofty speech!"

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: hym

He already promised this earlier, and as is usual for the man, he is making promises and not giving a single detail as to how he plans to do it. I'm beginning to wonder if he derives pleasure from making empty promises, or if he has some sort of childish obsession that drives to him think thoughts along the lines of "Oh! There's going to be this nationally televised event! I have to get out and mark the occasion with a lofty speech!"quote>

Well.. to be honest this is probably one of the lowest things on his to do list at the moment, Economy, War, Healthcare, Iran, and so on. If anything, he might atlast try to do it ahead of a election in order to to firm up any issues with his liberal base.

[blade2k5 1,523]

And this is more important than a tanking economy, rising unemployment, healthcare and a myriad of other issues?  It's nice to know our president has his priorties straight.

[Kryptowhite 9]

You'd think that people who are able to survive boot camp, long tours of duty in deserts far from home, and war in general would be able to go 2 years [or how ever long one serves these days] without talking about Brad Pitt's abs

i mean, i guess that Obama is doing "the moral thing" in making this change, but i question the neccessity of this change, and i'm wondering why its occuring when we are fighting wars, restructuring our healthcare, and recovering from recession.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: hym

He already promised this earlier, and as is usual for the man, he is making promises and not giving a single detail as to how he plans to do it. I'm beginning to wonder if he derives pleasure from making empty promises, or if he has some sort of childish obsession that drives to him think thoughts along the lines of "Oh! There's going to be this nationally televised event! I have to get out and mark the occasion with a lofty speech!"quote>

Originally posted by: blade2k5

And this is more important than a tanking economy, rising unemployment, healthcare and a myriad of other issues?  It's nice to know our president has his priorties straight.

quote>

I think these two posts nicely cancel each other out.

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite but i question the neccessity of this change, and i'm wondering why its occuring when we are fighting wars,quote>

This case of blatant discrimination is a clearly an obstacle to recruiting more gay people to the army. Having actual people in the army is often useful when fighting wars.

restructuring our healthcare, and recovering from recession.quote>

He made a speech to a gay rights group and promised to end a case of clear discrimination against gay people. He hasn't even done anything about it yet and already he's spending too much time on it?

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

I think these two posts nicely cancel each other out.

quote>

I'm obliged to agree.

[Duke87 1,070]

As discriminatory as the policy may be, there are, actually, practical arguments in favor of it.

First of all, the military, by the nature of what it is, tends to attract a crowd of largely red-blooded, tough, action-loving "manly men" who do not think highly of homosexuality (at least among men). It's thus an unfortunate reality that the majority of people serving in the armed forces do not want to be serving in the company of openly gay men. So this will cause distress and upheaval among the military since by and large they are very much against it.

Secondly, the armed forces are, by nature, a "band of brothers" - men working together as men. Like it or not, that sort of relationship really can't be fostered if one of the men is openly gay because relationships are very different when there's sexual attraction involved, even if the relationship is in no way romantic or sexual.

Beyond that, particularly in the navy, especially on submarines, there are going to be a lot of situations where people are going to be in really close quarters, too close for comfort when sexual attraction is involved. Shower day on the submarine involves guys lined up, packed together, waiting for their turn.. naked. Imagine that situation if one of those guys is openly gay. Not good. In fact, for this reason, women in the navy cannot serve on submarines. To do that, you'd have to have an all-female crew and there aren't enough women interested (particularly among higher ranks) for that to happen.

Point being, an end to "don't ask, don't tell" is a lot more than just ending a ban on openly gay people serving in the military. It will radically change the social aspect of a lot of situations, creating new problems that previously did not exist.

It is a step in the right direction as far as equality and rights are concerned, to be sure, but whether or not it's actually a practical improvement in the greater scheme of things is debatable.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Shower day on the submarine involves guys lined up, packed together, waiting for their turn.. naked. Imagine that situation if one of those guys is openly gay. Not good. 

quote>

Wow. Just like they've done for years in PE classes.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Duke87 Shower day on the submarine involves guys lined up, packed together, waiting for their turn.. naked. Imagine that situation if one of those guys is openly gay. Not good. 

quote>

Wow. Just like they've done for years in PE classes.

quote>

Because remember: the gays don't have inhibitions. Don't breathe in when any of them are near, you might catch it! 

[belfastuniguy 18]

As discriminatory as the policy may be, there are, actually, practical arguments in favor of it.quote>

What an absolute crock, in fact that entire post could have been made by the hyperbole entertainers on FOX (faux) News.

Pretty much every other military in the civilised developed world had abolished such policies and he has done nothing to damage them. The British Army remains one of the best in the world and to be honest IMO it's THE best in terms of professionalism and respect.

The policy is blatant discrimination and has resulted in thousands of well trained and at times outstanding military personnel being ejected from the US Military. So yeah.....I can really see the positive of such a policy.

It's a long overdue law change in a nation that is supposedly a land of equals.....yeah right!!!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

As discriminatory as the policy may be, there are, actually, practical arguments in favor of it.quote>

What an absolute crock, in fact that entire post could have been made by the hyperbole entertainers on FOX (faux) Newsquote>

There you go again, painting everything in a partisan light (in a nation where you aren't a citizen, invested in our decisions, or really even bearing a relevant opinion). And yet another dig at your nemesis, Fox . But what have you said? Nothing.

Duke's point stands, with the weight of some psychological research behind it. Can you pretend the UK did it with no measurable disruption? Even if it did, the US is a different country, with a different culture. How the Tommies did is irrelevant for the most part, although I recall Churchill's comments that the Navy was "... the days of sodomy, grog, and the lash.". Sounds like some parties I recall, but anyhow...

Not that I oppose equality, but I utterly abhor social engineering with our nation's defenses. Whole wars hinge on a battle sometimes, and whole battles often turn on the actions of just a few men. Don't ask/tell was an honest attempt to minimize the problems that romantic entanglements can cause, with good reason. There's no place for it, the brass is trying to keep it that way.

And besides, rainbow camouflage is just hideous

[belfastuniguy 18]

Whole wars hinge on a battle sometimes, and whole battles often turn on the actions of just a few men. quote>

Indeed, people like Alexander the Great, Emperor Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Peter the Great and Edward II would agree wholeheartedly. But what would they know....they were only gays

as would these people...American none the less

Three retired high-ranking US military personnel have publicly declared themselves as gay in protest at the problems facing homosexuals in the armed forces.

Since 1993, and the introduction of the "don't ask, don't tell" law - which permitted homosexuals to serve as long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves - nearly 10,000 gays have been "separated" or discharged from the US armed services.

The Department of Defense says the law is necessary as "homosexual conduct" can undermine the performance of the army.

But Virgil Richard, a US Army Brigadier General, Alan Steinman, a Rear Admiral in the US Coast Guard and Brigadier General Keith Kerr, the highest-ranking military officers to acknowledge that they are gay, say the policy is a misguided one.

They argue that forcing gays to keep their sexuality a secret has itself a negative impact on military performance, and note that Britain's decision to include gays and lesbians in the army has not had any discernible impact on the forces effectiveness in the battlefield.quote>

[belfastuniguy 18]

Duke's point stands, with the weight of some psychological research behind it. quote>

Do link..

I very much enjoy seeing the links you post. It allows me to counter them

[panthersimcity4 162]

GASP! How dare someone try to end a policy that is discriminatory! The nerve of some people...

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Whole wars hinge on a battle sometimes, and whole battles often turn on the actions of just a few men. quote>

Indeed, people like Alexander the Great, Emperor Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Peter the Great and Edward II would agree wholeheartedly. But what would they know....they were only gays

quote>

Well, if I'm not mistaken, back in those days people didn't have the concept of "sexual orientation"... so I guess they were bi?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Of course they did.....are you actually serious?

[Ntq€310 1]

Most of them had Children.. so they can't be 'gay' persay, while at the sametime Sexual Orientation and everyone around morality at the time was much different. I don't really think this would be the place to bring up some of the Greek art work out there over the matter.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Pure and utter semantics, they engaged and indeed many enjoyed living a 'gay' lifestyle. Does not detract from my actual point pointing out the utter fallacy of Manticore's arguement.

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Pure and utter semantics, they engaged and indeed many enjoyed living a 'gay' lifestyle. Does not detract from my actual point pointing out the utter fallacy of Manticore's arguement.quote>

not really... Britain could be a point that it does not effect overall military performance, but the United States has a incrediable huge military, and has a much larger footprint in international security than britain, france, or other powers. Though it may be quite a stretch to say it would have a negitive impact, thats not to say it won't have any impact at all.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I disagree..

I am sure if you have a group of backward rednecks with little education or soldiers with a massive personal insecurity complex then you may have an issue. In such a case maybe you could look at the quality of the aforementioned army, instead of how MASSIVE it is.

The British Army is widely recognised as the best trained in the world, they instil respect and professionalism, that IMO contributes to tolerance as well as the fact the UK is somewhat less hyperbolic when it comes to 'gay' issues.

Cultures are different, but such moves are required to further your society. by 2003 10,000 American military personnel had left or been discharged becuase they disclosed their sexuality. That does NOTHING for the 'good' of your army or the country. Indeed its an utter disgrace to waste 10,000 trained and in the majority of cases successful army, naval and air force personnel.

[Ntq€310 1]

No one doubts the quality of the British armed forces, and I respect them as a Ally. But the United States has the largest, strongest, and overall most powerful military in the world. We may not have the quality of the Israelis, or the quality of the British, but scale, size, importance, power, and our own quality all have to be accounted for. In Terms of Military, we are still the main military super power of the world.

So excuse someone like me for being cautious of any changes that happen to the most basic part of any military force, the people. On another note, I do believe that 'Don't ask, Don't Tell' should be repelled, but at the time we do need to look at the entire situation and have some straight forward priorities when it comes to our military.

Pure and utter semantics, they engaged and indeed many enjoyed living a 'gay' lifestylequote>

Wrong again. Back then, epically in Greek culture, it was not uncommon to have lovers of different genders. But that was before mainstream religion, and all the other modern cultural effects of what has happened. It's a incredible stretch to say there in modern terms 'gay' or 'enjoyed the gay lifestyle'. Alexander himself had two wives and a son. They lived in a different time, a different culture.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Enjoyment of gay sex is enjoyment of gay sex, sorry to be so blunt, but it is required.

Time has no impact on that I'm afraid. They simply were not confined by the suffocating religious dominated 'morality' the western world has and in some cases is still subject to.

I understand that people like yourself support the repeal but are unsure of the impact, but experience across the free world shows it has no detrimental impact whatsoever,

Also....seeing as we are engaging in semantics, the American military is not the largest, that would be the Chinese.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I disagree..

I am sure if you have a group of backward rednecks with little education or soldiers with a massive personal insecurity complex then you may have an issue. In such a case maybe you could look at the quality of the aforementioned army, instead of how MASSIVE it is.

The British Army is widely recognised as the best trained in the world, they instil respect and professionalism, that IMO contributes to tolerance as well as the fact the UK is somewhat less hyperbolic when it comes to 'gay' issues.

Cultures are different, but such moves are required to further your society. by 2003 10,000 American military personnel had left or been discharged becuase they disclosed their sexuality. That does NOTHING for the 'good' of your army or the country. Indeed its an utter disgrace to waste 10,000 trained and in the majority of cases successful army, naval and air force personnel.

quote>

They were not dismissed because they were gay...

They were dismissed because they couldn't follow a simple rule. Three words. They couldn't say three words [i am gay]. That's all they had to do.

If you can't follow such an easy rule, i doubt you will be a good soldier.

anyway, in response to your earlier posts [this thread moves too fast ]

What an absolute crock, in fact that entire post could have been made by the hyperbole entertainers on FOX (faux) News. quote>

Interesting defense mechanism. "oh, he just made a valid point. Better assosciate it with Fox news!"

Pretty much every other military in the civilised developed world had abolished such policies and he has done nothing to damage them.quote>

Pretty much, with the exception of Russia, America, China, Mexico, Portugal, Poland, U.A.E, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Brazil, and friends.

Although the terms civilized and developed are qualitative, so its left to ones opinion to determine whether a nation is "civilized" or "developed", which makes this somewhat difficult.

Really throughout that whole post you used terms like that which really had no meaning. "The British Army remains one of the best in the world and to be honest IMO it's THE best in terms of professionalism and respect." How the heck do we use this to contribute to the arguement? Is there anyway to compare world armies, especially when we haven't had a major world war in 60 years? can we use their "shots fired" versus "enemies killed" ratio, or compare there SMGT numbers? [successful Missions per Gay Troop, its a new stat I just made up and i'm currently working on the patent ]. How do we determine the professionalism and respect of this army? and what if thats just because of something else, and not the gay troops?

Indeed, people like Alexander the Great, Emperor Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Peter the Great and Edward II would agree wholeheartedly. But what would they know....they were only gays quote>

Alexander the Great was never homosexual, i don't know where you got that one from. Hadrian and Caeser had homosexual tendencies, however, as someone above pointed out, back then,everybody got married regardless of whether they liked girls or not. Then, homosexuality was somewhat off on another tangent, it was just something that was "in" at the time and people did it in addition to having heterosexual relationships.

Peter the Great, I don't know anything about his sexuality, nor could i find anything about it, so i won't touch that one.

Edward the Second. Sure he was gay. But bringing him up hurts your arguement. Edward the second was a poor inneffective king, mainly because he was less interested in the political and military aspect of ruling, and more interested in the entertainment and culutral benefits. This passive, softer personality is commonly assosciated with homosexual males. Obviously, not all gays are like that, but there is no denying that that personality is very common amongst gays.

---

Anyways, heres my question for you:

If having a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is so detrimental to an army, why has the united states been the largest military power in the world for the past 60 years, and not one of the 15 or 20 countries that allows openly gay troops?

and edit: before you start talking about china, i am talking about the size of their power [which really is nothing, since power is not a physical object ]. And to Ntq: tell that to the persians. Although, these days, if a military had to get rid of 300 spartans they would probably just call in a missle strike.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Although the terms civilized and developed are qualitative, so its left to ones opinion to determine whether a nation is "civilized" or "developed", which makes this somewhat difficult.quote>

Well seeing as some of those nations do not have equal rights for all their citizens, no....they would not be classed as civilised

Alexander the Great was never homosexual,quote>

hhhmmmm

You wanna check your classical civilisation education? I'll educate you if you wish, though I'd rather save you the embarrassment tbh.

If having a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is so detrimental to an army, why has the united states been the largest military power in the world for the past 60 years, and not one of the 15 or 20 countries that allows openly gay troops?

quote>

Because a large part of your army is comprised of individuals of lacking education ability from disadvantaged backgrounds seeking stable employment and salary. Factor into that the gun-ho nature of some Americans.

Also...

You're NOT that largest military, the Chinese are.

They were not dismissed because they were gay...

They were dismissed because they couldn't follow a simple rule. Three words. They couldn't say three words [i am gay]. That's all they had to do.

If you can't follow such an easy rule, i doubt you will be a good soldier.quote>

Not even going to address that as it's one of the most retarded things I have ever read,

[Ntq€310 1]

But he also had a son.. so if anything he would by Bi. but at the sametime back then I don't think such a act would be 'classified as gay' which is the point. They may be Gay/Bi by today's standers, but back then, in there time, in there culture, they were not.

Which, you are right about the morality side of this, that is what I meant by a different time. I also can see your point about other countries, but I think you would more than agree to the statement 'America isn't like the rest of the world' So I would prefer to take a cautious approach to equality in our military.

Onto China... the largest yes, the best, most capable... hardly.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

  [reminder]  Remember to talk about the topic and not direct comments personally toward other posters [/reminder]

[Kryptowhite 9]

Well seeing as some of those nations do not have equal rights for all their citizens, no....they would not be classed as civilised quote>

IMO civilized is less about making sure life is a disney movie for everybody, and more about the overall health of the country. China and Russia, which i'm assuming are the big nations you are thinking of, have modern cities and advanced technology, and are well integrated into the global society. Thats civilized. Just because some countries don't feel the need to cater to everybodies feelings doesn't mean they aren't civilized.

It's completely possible for something to be different you know. Not everything is "better" or "worse".

You wanna check your classical civilisation education? I'll educate you if you wish, though I'd rather save you the embarrassment tbh.quote>

actually i did before I posted that. Honestly, i would not be one bit embarassed to be proven wrong on the internet. If i were, i think i'd need to go find a therapist to check my mental health.

Anyways, I suggest you look closer. Is there unbiased primary sources indicating that he was homosexual? The only thing i found was that writing about one guy being "beloved" to him. But the greek word for beloved did not have a sexual meaning, so that is not concrete evidence, its only something you can speculate about.

You're NOT that largest military, the Chinese are. quote>

largest military POWER.

not

largest military.

Because a large part of your army is comprised of individuals of lacking education ability from disadvantaged backgrounds seeking stable employment and salary. Factor into that the gun-ho nature of some Americans.

quote>

O yes, because really, the most important thing on the battlefield is being able to recite lines of shakespeare.

Add to that that Annapolis, West Point, and other military institutions are some of the finest universities in America. [and no need to tell me that many soldiers never go here, i know that].

And then anyways, what the hell does that have to do with what i said previously. Our army is volunteers only. Most armies require all citizens to contribute. So that means that every single individual of lacking education ability from disadvantaged background seeking stable employment and salary is in that nations army at one point. Meaning the US has most likely the lowest percentage of individuals of lacking education ability from disadvantaged backgrounds seeking stable employment and salary who join the military in the world.

Not even going to address that as it's one of the most retarded things I have ever read,

quote>

Yes, that is how i tried to win arguements when i was in elementary school too.

edit: i am going to leave this conversation before it gets ugly, but i'll still be reading this...

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

Well, Krypto, I think that was the most incredible tearing apart of a post I've ever read.

[belfastuniguy 18]

China and Russia, which i'm assuming are the big nations you are thinking ofquote>

No actually

Saudi Arabia comes to mind and the way it bans women from taking part in society....that includes driving.

Add to that that Annapolis, West Point, and other military institutions are some of the finest universities in America. quote>

Do you have evidence that shows that no gay people have been there???

Because I have evidence to counter such a thing, indeed Westpoint has a Gay support group

Our army is volunteers onlyquote>

Gays not need apply....