Discrimination in the military finally ending

At least our wimpy ass legislators in Washington accomplished something during the lame duck session;

WASHINGTON— In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Gay rights? More like equal rights. I’m tired of people putting gays in a different category. What they do in their bedroom is none of your business, just like it is none their business what you do in your bedroom. Like my late grandpa Mel said once while bitching about getting a fishing license,

“Pretty soon they are gonna require you to get a license to fuck in your own home.”


#1 rufusx on 12.18.10 at 10:13 pm

Didn’t anyone tell your grandpa Mel – that’s what the whole idea behind marriage licenses is/was?

#2 l3wis on 12.18.10 at 10:58 pm

My grandpa wasn’t married to his last partner.

#3 jeff on 12.19.10 at 7:44 am

(applauds) the dinasaurs are becoming extinct!

#4 Jim on 12.19.10 at 9:33 am

This will be bad. BY not serving openly, the question was just that. Now I think that assaults will rise and genral moral will drop. This is an issue that should be decided by the military and them only. They are the ones being shot at and killed, not someone who thinks we are all equal.

#5 jeff on 12.19.10 at 10:49 am

@ jim. Apparently you missed the survey of the military. the majority of soldiers and military leaders said end dadt. the real problem was the numerous men and women who have served our country and got kicked out for no legitimate reason.

#6 John2 on 12.19.10 at 12:45 pm

Jim, you’re clueless. The military does not serve itself. That is a recipe for disaster.

#7 Jim on 12.19.10 at 3:02 pm

@John2, well the fuck it, lets let obese, blind, deaf and whoever else in because that would be the nice thing right?
“Most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units’ ability to fight on the battlefield.”

Interestingly, seems Army and marines expect problems, Air Force and Navy don’t expect much. The military should discriminate, they are doing a dangerous job and should have quite a bit of free reign in who they do or do not allow to join. Ultimately though, the military is a volunteer force, so if you know you will be kicked out why join if you couldn’t keep your yap shut? Changing rules to suite the rule breakers is disruptive and immature. Life will not always go the way we want; most deal with it, but it seems some think the rules should change to benefit them, screw the rest.

#8 l3wis on 12.19.10 at 3:35 pm

Jim – that may be true, but the peons don’t make that decision, congress does in recommendations from military commanders. Why do you think generals plan battles and not privates?

#9 Jim on 12.19.10 at 4:37 pm

Considering that the survey seemed to weigh somewhat heavily I guess it does matter. Bear in mind too, that higher up officers in DC and such are more political in nature and as such they will bend over to advance their career.

#10 l3wis on 12.19.10 at 4:57 pm

Jim – What part don’t you understand? A majority of military personnel approve of repealing DADT. Many people who are currently gay and have been serving for years approve of repealing DADT. A majority of the public approve of repealing DADT. A majority of military commanders approve of repealing DADT. A majority of the Senate approves of repealing DADT. Many industrialized nations allow openly gay soldiers to serve in their militaries. So, just because a couple of grunt peons in the Marines don’t approve, we shouldn’t repeal it? Pull your head out of your ass.

#11 Jim on 12.19.10 at 7:41 pm

I could say the same to you! The grunt soldiers are the ones putting up with it. Perhaps one of the soldiers contracted HIV through unprotected sex, would you want to be the guy treating him? The majority of the public are idiots, majority of commanders will do whatever for their career, the Senate is a bunch or idiots. Oh yeah, I’m also in one hell of a shit mood so I am also rather short tempered and highly disagreeable!

#12 l3wis on 12.20.10 at 12:05 am

So now you are bringing HIV into the debate? OMG, I thought that assumption about gays went out the window in 1989. Last I checked you are not allowed to serve in the military if you have HIV.

#13 Costner on 12.20.10 at 10:36 am

Jim… and I mean this is the most respectful and thoughtful way possible…. take your homophobic opinions and shove them up next to whatever else you seem to already have up your ass.

First of all genius, a straight soldier can contract HIV just as well as a a homosexual soldier, so that is an idiotic statement. Do you want to ban leave for our soldiers and sailers and marines and airmen to prevent them from the possibility of contracting a STD because if injured some random medic might contract it?

Get a grip. Not to mention the facts above, medics are well trained and understand the risks of working with bodily fluids whether it be HIV or any other virus.

As far as your comment about letting obese, blind, deaf and whoever else in to the military that is a red herring. Being homosexual doesn’t preclude someone from being able to serve and serve well. It doesn’t make them a worse soldier or put their life at risk because of it. However, being obese could prevent the soldier from performing their duty as the physical demands would be too much. Being blind and deaf would do much the same – because last I checked it would be very difficult to be on the front lines with a loaded firearm if you were blind, and a deaf person would find it difficult to follow any orders that weren’t given via hand signal.

So now that we have eliminated your excuses, did you have any legitimate reasons to continue to discriminate against otherwise fully capable soldiers and sailors?

I didn’t think so.

The fact is having a few homosexuals serving in our military isn’t going to impact our combat readiness. Because contrary to popular belief, homosexuals are not asking for pink camo uniforms or arguing because green digital camo doesn’t coordinate with the blood that spews from gunshot wounds. They aren’t asking for coordinated window treatments in their barracks and they aren’t asking for special living arrangments or special treatment.

They just want to be allowed to be who they are without having to hide it because of some silly rule. You ask the guys on the front lines if they would rather fight with a straight person or a homosexual and 99 times out of 100 they will tell you they could care less as long as they do their job and do it well. Given the difference between a homosexual who is a sharpshooter and who shows exceptional levels of bravery versus a straight soldier who fumbles with his rifle and hides in a foxhole until the firefight is over… which would you rather be fighting with?

The fact is, most people who are against serving with homosexuals are either ignorant of the fact that they already are, or they have never served on the front lines and had to rely upon the men and women beside them to stay alive. It is easy for a truck driver in the green zone to say they don’t want to serve with someone who swings the other way, but when it comes to a team where your life depends on them and they depend on you…. it is a far different story.

On what planet does it make sense to discriminate against willing and able members of the military even if it makes people feel better? The fact is replace homosexual with “black” or “japanese” and we have heard all of the lame arguments before. In the end when we include rather than exclude we are all better off for it even if it upsets a few close-minded morons who have difficulty seeing beyond their own bias and prejudices.

#14 skybluesky on 12.20.10 at 4:09 pm

Amen Costner! I will have to say though that Jim doesn’t deserve the time you put into drafting that response.

#15 l3wis on 12.20.10 at 8:11 pm

Yeah, Costner. Way to waste your lunch break 🙂