Obama to Tackle Military Gay Ban at "The Right Time"

[Reba]

He did and economy took more time to recover on own and it is cost more to discharge any soldiers who are gay due don't tell, don't ask policy so US government couldn't afford to discharge more.

It's wrong to discriminate, being religious reason is no excuse because not everyone has similar religion and I think soldiers need focus on war instead of take care of culture.

It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Foxrac]

It has nothing to do with religion.

You use religious belief to against about gay rights and yes, it has something with moral and religious to against on gay rights so try to passes on others instead of worry about yourself.

 

[Reba]

You use religious belief to against about gay rights and yes, it has something with moral and religious to against on gay rights so try to passes on others instead of worry about yourself.

The long-time ban on homosexuals serving in the military had nothing to do with religion.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

You use religious belief to against about gay rights and yes, it has something with moral and religious to against on gay rights so try to passes on others instead of worry about yourself.

Um... society's stance on homosexuality has very little to do with religions, but rather the cultural values of its people. Homosexuality has been frowned up since the time of Plato long before the emergent of Abrahamic religions... since it was viewed as "unnatural." Some western societes were more lenient than others.

As it stand, gays are allowed to serve in the U.S. military-- as long it remains a secret. The problem is our society has imposed strict gender roles, even among non-religious folks. So you can understand why others are not really understanding why Obama is focusing on this-- "if you're gay, keep it quiet then you can serve" is probably what they are thinking.

All the loosing of regulations upon gays got nothing to do with morals, but the fact society's values are changing and all that will come out of this is so those that are willing to adopt a gay identity can join.

Frankly, I don't see the problem. If you're in a same-sexed marriage, I can see a problem since it would be part of your legal documents, however if you want to serve-- just keep it shut. The moment you join, you're not white, you're not black, you're not straight, you're not gay-- you are part of the armed forces, representing the branch you signed up under.

 

[Foxrac]

The long-time ban on homosexuals serving in the military had nothing to do with religion.

Only part because traditional culture has been associated with religion, USA is one of several westernized country has restriction for gay people to serve the military since many westernized countries, such as UK, France has allowed gay people to serve.

I couldn't give more detail because this forum don't allow religious discussion so I have make simple and you can ask questions or discuss via PM.

 

[Foxrac]

Um... society's stance on homosexuality has very little to do with religions, but rather the cultural values of its people. Homosexuality has been frowned up since the time of Plato long before the emergent of Abrahamic religions... since it was viewed as "unnatural." Some western societes were more lenient than others.

As it stand, gays are allowed to serve in the U.S. military-- as long it remains a secret. The problem is our society has imposed strict gender roles, even among non-religious folks. So you can understand why others are not really understanding why Obama is focusing on this-- "if you're gay, keep it quiet then you can serve" is probably what they are thinking.

All the loosing of regulations upon gays got nothing to do with morals, but the fact society's values are changing and all that will come out of this is so those that are willing to adopt a gay identity can join.

Frankly, I don't see the problem. If you're in a same-sexed marriage, I can see a problem since it would be part of your legal documents, however if you want to serve-- just keep it shut. The moment you join, you're not white, you're not black, you're not straight, you're not gay-- you are part of the armed forces, representing the branch you signed up under.

Both of them, traditional culture has been associated with religion but only problem about I couldn't discuss in this forum so you have find out, such as many religious people are opposing to GLBT due religious reason, that's common for me to see so it is about non-military comment.

For military, in bold, not necessary, under don't ask, don't tell policy, you are not allowed to share the GLBT culture, personal, public affection, check out the gay websites, information, social, much more. For straight soldiers, they are allowed to discuss about everything without any risk to being discharge and they could hugging the wife or girlfriend when arrive on US but if gay soldiers who hugging their partner or gay friend will be result in discharge if commander find out.

Without don't ask, don't tell policy, it means gay people can discuss about everything as straight people does without any risk to discharged, just like normal thing. I know that many gay people don't want join military until this policy has been overturn, even there's good gay soldiers too.

 

[Foxrac]

It might be a good idea for him to focus on the war in Afghanistan. He spent more time in Copenhagen for the Olympics bid then he did sitting at a table with his own General McChrystal. It's time to focus!

Afghan war need more troopers since Obama and congress are waste of our time because congress are too busy with health care reform and have no time to take care of war, also Obama have focus on Iraq war because this war isn't over until 2011. In Copenhagen, Obama has been in for few days, is it still waste to you? I don't think so and I bet we would get hear from them about need more troopers in Afghan war this week.

In other way, It's not conservative or liberal issues, I was point at anti-gay people because there's conservative gay people who opposing Obama care, high taxes, big government since they are favor into gay rights, it isn't issue with southerners either, unlike other people give a bad thing about it and don't ask, don't tell policy need be overturn or do something.

 

[sallylou]

The time is NOW.

 

[rockin'robin]

Have you seen the bread/food lines lately in ur city?....Blocks long!...Senior citizens with canes/wheelchairs....veterns/amputees....the homeless....so many children with a single parent. It brings tears flowing in my eyes.
A homeless man, patiently waiting his place in line, and when he receives a loaf of bread, promptly breaks it open and eats it as if he has had no food in a long time....old people fainting in the heat, and losing their place in line, just for a few loaves of bread.

When is "the right time" for these people? When they are dead of starvation?

I find it so hard these days to be optimistic. Issues "at home" are more important. Jobs and the severe increase of homeless Americans. Starving senior citizens, our veterans!

 

[Maria]

Um... society's stance on homosexuality has very little to do with religions, but rather the cultural values of its people. Homosexuality has been frowned up since the time of Plato long before the emergent of Abrahamic religions... since it was viewed as "unnatural." Some western societes were more lenient than others.

As it stand, gays are allowed to serve in the U.S. military-- as long it remains a secret. The problem is our society has imposed strict gender roles, even among non-religious folks. So you can understand why others are not really understanding why Obama is focusing on this-- "if you're gay, keep it quiet then you can serve" is probably what they are thinking.

All the loosing of regulations upon gays got nothing to do with morals, but the fact society's values are changing and all that will come out of this is so those that are willing to adopt a gay identity can join.

Frankly, I don't see the problem. If you're in a same-sexed marriage, I can see a problem since it would be part of your legal documents, however if you want to serve-- just keep it shut. The moment you join, you're not white, you're not black, you're not straight, you're not gay-- you are part of the armed forces, representing the branch you signed up under.

I agree!

 

[Foxrac]

I agree!

Your post does nothing to say if you are agree and you are just misunderstood. :roll:

None of your business about our sex orientation and I'm not going let you to discriminate or take our rights away, you need take care of your OWN.

 

[Maria]

Your post does nothing to say if you are agree and you are just misunderstood. :roll:

None of your business about our sex orientation and I'm not going let you to discriminate or take our rights away, you need take care of your OWN.

Hey, quit it!! Stop pointin' your finger at me. You need to focus on this ISSUE what this thread is about. This is NOT about me. Understand?

 

[CJB]

The time is NOW.

Yes!!

 

[deafdyke]

All the loosing of regulations upon gays got nothing to do with morals, but the fact society's values are changing and all that will come out of this is so those that are willing to adopt a gay identity can join.

Frankly, I don't see the problem. If you're in a same-sexed marriage, I can see a problem since it would be part of your legal documents, however if you want to serve-- just keep it shut. The moment you join, you're not white, you're not black, you're not straight, you're not gay-- you are part of the armed forces, representing the branch you signed up under.

The problem is that under current law someone can be kicked out of the military SIMPLY for being gay. They could be the best solider/serviceperson in the WORLD, but if they got caught going to a gay bar or something like that, they could be kicked out just for that!
Right now the military allows messed up people like people who ID as Christian Identity in the army.
There is ONE reason why I think the ban on gays might be a good idea.
There is a subtype of gay men who are quite promesticus and into annoymous sex. A ban on that type of gay man could reduce stds....However to be fair the military should also ban the types of straight guys who go to prosistutes.

 

[CJB]

however if you want to serve-- just keep it shut. The moment you join, you're not white, you're not black, you're not straight, you're not gay-- you are part of the armed forces, representing the branch you signed up under.

Yes, they are representing the branch they signed up under. But does that mean they have to suppress the rest of themselves? Only in the case of gays. Why should GLBT servicemen and servicewomen be legally mandated to suppress that part of themselves? No one else is legally mandated to suppress other parts of themselves that aren't considered relevant to serving, so why should they be?

 

[Foxrac]

Hey, quit it!! Stop pointin' your finger at me. You need to focus on this ISSUE what this thread is about. This is NOT about me. Understand?

I know about being armed force but don't ask, don't tell policy does full restriction for gay peole to openly while serve the military and it isn't fair for them, unless don't ask, don't tell policy need be extended to cover straight soldiers too so they can't talk about sex stuff, such as girl or can't focus on wife or girlfriend.

 

[Reba]

The problem is that under current law someone can be kicked out of the military SIMPLY for being gay. They could be the best solider/serviceperson in the WORLD, but if they got caught going to a gay bar or something like that, they could be kicked out just for that!

Not necessarily. What are your stats for that?

Right now the military allows messed up people like people who ID as Christian Identity in the army.

Then the military has changed since I was in. We used to have to fill out a form that asked us if we belonged to any such groups. We could either be discharged, convinced to quit the group, or at the very least not be allowed a security clearance or sensitive position. The military frowned upon membership in extreme groups of any kind.

Do you have stats on the number of "Christian Identity" soldiers?

There is ONE reason why I think the ban on gays might be a good idea.
There is a subtype of gay men who are quite promesticus and into annoymous sex. A ban on that type of gay man could reduce stds....However to be fair the military should also ban the types of straight guys who go to prosistutes.

Exactly how could the military determine who was promiscuous enough to kick out? Wouldn't that be "getting into the bedroom" nosy? Who would judge what is "promiscuous" enough? Isn't that the kind of snooping into personal lives that people complain about? I don't think that would be workable.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

It might be a good idea for him to focus on the war in Afghanistan. He spent more time in Copenhagen for the Olympics bid then he did sitting at a table with his own General McChrystal. It's time to focus!

Well said.


Team Obama could have used the attention and energy towards the Afghanistan issue.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

There is ONE reason why I think the ban on gays might be a good idea.
There is a subtype of gay men who are quite promesticus and into annoymous sex. A ban on that type of gay man could reduce stds....However to be fair the military should also ban the types of straight guys who go to prosistutes.

That is a double standard, imho, coming from a lesbian.

 

[Foxrac]

Not necessarily. What are your stats for that?



Then the military has changed since I was in. We used to have to fill out a form that asked us if we belonged to any such groups. We could either be discharged, convinced to quit the group, or at the very least not be allowed a security clearance or sensitive position. The military frowned upon membership in extreme groups of any kind.

Do you have stats on the number of "Christian Identity" soldiers?



Exactly how could the military determine who was promiscuous enough to kick out? Wouldn't that be "getting into the bedroom" nosy? Who would judge what is "promiscuous" enough? Isn't that the kind of snooping into personal lives that people complain about? I don't think that would be workable.

At first, deafdyke is right about you can get discharge for being simply gay, even outside or inside of bases or stations, my father is retired veteran and he know about don't ask, don't tell policy and he did heard about some gay men got discharged after admit to being simply gay or bisexual, that's one word to get discharge so it don't make sense.

Don't ask, don't tell policy is nothing and need be overturn, homosexual is just normal like heterosexual, there's people, regardless on gay or straight can be crazy over relationship, such as I got flirted by straight girl at school or some gay men who made mistake to flirt at straight man, it happens and need be careful when know about this person. When serve in military, I think that soldiers, regardless on straight or gay need focus on war instead of use crazy relationship, such as tell to look at girl's body. I had seen so numerous time for straight men at school so when come with homosexual so no difference either.

STD or AIDS has nothing with influence of homosexual, it was very old news and you cannot convert from straight to gay or from gay to straight, it is just from mental, my sexual orientation isn't choice.