Pentagon surveys troops on DADT (again)

[Lamplighter]

OK this is probably but Sec Gates was just on TV talking about his new scientific survey

I am astounded by Gates saying he insisted on doubling the number of troops to survey to 400,000, as if he believed this would improve the statistical results of the survey.

For a military that supposedly can calculate the statistical outcomes of multi-faceted battles, taking into account numbers of troops, equipment, climate, geography, I am dismayed that the military leadership can not come to a legitimate recommendation on DADT. They have already done the studies

It strikes me that this is just a cloy-ploy by the military leadership to convince the pubic that they have to keep DADT or some form of it.

Let see, during the Truman administration should we have surveyed the "white troops" to see if African Americans / Blacks / Negros / ... should be treated equally in the military ? Or should we survey the "male troops" to see if women should be treated equally ? Or the "Christian troops" to see is Muslims should be treated equally ?

Maybe a survey of the non-com's to see if the commissioned officers should be subjected to DADT ?

Gad, all this homophobia makes me sick... So I'm taking the liberty of quoting another Dweller (without permission) on another thread because I can't say it any better:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I just mean the general policy of "I could give a rats ass about your sexual preference", so I won't ask you and you don't need to tell me. Other than that, the process of discharging someone because of sexual preference needs to stop, we are wasting manpower and money. If you are caught in violation of general UCMJ you should be punished, regardless of sexual orientation, not because of it.

[Lamplighter]

Again, I just heard on TV... that a Federal Court judge has ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts with respect to the Federal law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act - DOMA" as being unconstitutional.

The talking-heads are saying this means that Massachusetts does NOT have to treat same-sex marriages differently than traditional marriages with respect to any/all federal benefits. For example, federal veterans benefits will be available in Massachusetts to all married vets. The judge ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional with respect to the 10th Amendment.

They also are saying that since this summary judgement was not "stayed", the decision is effective immediately.

[TheMercenary]

Cheers Ll. You don't need permission on this forum to quote anything anyone says.... for any reason.

[classicman]

.....

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Gad, all this homophobia makes me sick.

On the bright side, there has been so many discussions about it pertaining to several aspects of their role in society, it's forced people to actually think about it, instead of just pushing out of their mind. I think this is a good thing.

Most of the public opinion polls show a definite increasing in the number of people accepting queers deserve equality. I think this is a direct result of all these debates going on. Sure there are still rabid opponents, but rational people that might not have examined their inherited prejudices/fears, until they had to debate the issue, have changed their minds.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Most of the public opinion polls show a definite increasing in the number of people accepting queers deserve equality. I think this is a direct result of all these debates going on. Sure there are still rabid opponents, but rational people that might not have examined their inherited prejudices/fears, until they had to debate the issue, have changed their minds.

Generational views are having an impact as well as the issue's exposure. While I would not view the current 18-25 year olds as not homophobic, they are largely homophobic, but they are also accepting and largely pro-gay marriage.

I am guessing that in 25 to 30 years, the gay marriage debate will be looked at as we now view woman's and civil rights.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am guessing that in 25 to 30 years, the gay marriage debate will be looked at as we now view Roe Vs Wade.

Fixed it for ya.

[casimendocina]

Gay marriage has been a much talked about element of this election in Oz. Both sides are sticking with the line that marriage is between a man and a woman so therefore there will be no changes to the legislation at this point in time. Even one of the Cabinet Ministers who does not hide the fact that she is gay is going with the party line.

Here's what one of the comedy programs had to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGtemB28Vo&NR=1

[BrianR]

Not to thread-jack, but I would like to add that this issue also affects transgenders. Most gay issues do, including the right to marry.

Here in Texas, we have the case of Nikki Arraguz, a transgender woman who married a firefighter who was killed in the line of duty on July 4. His family is contesting her right to inherit her husband's estate and is suing for as much as they can get to include custody of his two children from a previous marriage. Nikki had been barred from spending any money from the estate and even prevented from living in their home until the 16th, when she was given $58,000 that was specifically designated to her and thus was not subject to the probate proceeding.

This case promises to define marriage for all Texas transgendered people, whether male or female. Much as gay persons, transgendered people are not permitted to marry as they are still legally male (or female) even after a surgical sex change under Texas law and since Texas does not permit gay marriage, every transgendered person married to a member of the opposite sex is in a gay marriage and thus the union is void. The status of transgendered people who are married to a person of the same sex is still unclear.

To me, equal rights are just that...equal. Marriage has been defined as a basic right time and again by the SCOTUS, with no mention of gender at all. So, a person who has a sex change (who is no longer a member of their birth gender IMO) should be able to marry a person of their choosing. Gays should be able to do the same. Without state interference.

The same applies to serving in the military. Gays are qualified to serve. It has been shown that sexual orientation has little effect on unit morale or ability to perform their duty. Transgendered persons can do the same. As long as the soldier (or sailor or airman) is able to do their job, they ought to be allowed to do so.

Heck, sexual preference has NO bearing on that at all! I know a lot of guys that preferred their hands to living people, which seems like a preference to me. I happened to like a lot of leather to be involved in MY sex when I was younger and that didn't affect my ability to serve either. It was just a preference. I see no difference.

DADT needs to go, along with any regulations dealing with who is fucking whom.

[casimendocina]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Not to thread-jack

You obviously haven't seen what happened to the What is Love thread.

[piercehawkeye45]

Nope. I really didn't mean Roe versus Wade. I believe abortion will be a very controversial topic for decades because there are sound logical arguments supporting both sides. Thanks for trying though.

[classicman]

Want a biscuit, casi?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Do you mean a biscuit or a cookie?

[casimendocina]

A packet of Tim Tams to the person who guesses correctly first. Milk Arrowroots for second place.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well, your thinking a biscuit, but your really mean a cookie, 'cause you're upside down.