House approves repeal of gay ban in military

spike

spike

New Member
WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday delivered a victory to President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation.

The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.

"I know that our military draws its strength on the integrity of our unified force, and current law challenges this integrity by creating two realities within the ranks," Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., said.

Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

The House vote came just hours after the Senate Armed Services Committee took the same course and voted 16-12 in favor of repealing the 1993 law. In both cases the measure was offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Obama and leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had actively supported the repeal so that gays could serve in the military without fear of being exposed and discharged.

In a statement after the House vote, Obama hailed the day's congressional action as "important bipartisan steps toward repeal."

"This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity," Obama said.

"This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security," Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights organization, said after the Senate panel's vote.

During an all-day House debate on the bill approving more than $700 billion in spending for defense programs, Republicans repeated statements by military service chiefs that Congress should not act before the Pentagon completes a study on the impact of a repeal.

Congress going first "is the equivalent to turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, 'Your opinion, your view, do not count,'" said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Democratic supporters stressed that the amendment was written so that the repeal would not go into effect until after the Pentagon publishes in December the results of a survey on how service members and their families view the change, and until the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military's ability to fight.
Click to expand...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7026085.html


Of course some crazy christians say some crazy assed shit....

Disease-tainted Gay Blood Threatens Our Troops!
 
You are wounded on the battlefield and need an immediate field transfusion. The only guy who has your blood type in the area is a flamboyant openly Gay soldier whom you know to be promiscuous with multiple partners while on leave.

Do you take his blood and live in fear of dying of AIDS or do you refuse and hope you live long enough for the medi-vac to get you to a safer blood supply?
 
Dude... there are more het soldiers who are promiscuous with multiple partners while on leave than gay soldiers.

Reminds me of a CPR class lesson.

"Imagine that you're walking downtown and a tranny prostitute has a heart-attack right in front of you. Got it? Good. Now, imagine instead that instead of being downtown, you're at home and your neighbour of 40 years has a heart attack. Which would you feel safer about performing CPR on?

The correct answer is the prostitute, because you can prepare for possible dangers associated with dealing with a sex worker who may or may not have herpes, HIV, Hep etc..by using a blow-mask or gloves etc...

Your neighbour, on the other hand, may very well have been her last John and he doesn't like condoms, but you're assuming that he's safe so you use less precautions. Too bad for you.

Field techs use precautions equally across the board, irregardless of who they are treating. Keeps everyone safe. Gloves, breath-masks, fresh needles, clean surgical tools, tested blood etc...

**
Having someone who is gay come out of the military closet doesn't change the equation one damn iota.
 
JP, I kinda laughed a little when I read your post where you're putting us on. :roll2: Thanks for brightening my afternoon.

JP, blood transfusions are not done in battle situations. The injured soldier is taken to a field hospital and there given the blood transfusion from a stock of tested blood.
http://medind.nic.in/maa/t09/i1/maat09i1p30.pdf

As for the announcement, I think it's great. The Israeli military has no bar on homosexuals performing military service. Their experience has been without any problems. I'm gonna go with their experience on this subject.
 
I have no problem with gays dying on the battlefield. I do question why their sexual orientation would come up in the first place. I mean .. if it's a question of a picture of a half naked guy taped to the lid of a soldier's foot locker, that's ridiculous. But are female soldiers expected to use the same head and showers as men? ( I don't know) If they're not...why not? Shouldn't straight soldiers be accorded the same respect?

I know you all like to knee jerk to your respective direction over the gay issue, but there is a respect issue involved. Respect for the majority.
 
jimpeel said:
You are wounded on the battlefield and need an immediate field transfusion. The only guy who has your blood type in the area is a flamboyant openly Gay soldier whom you know to be promiscuous with multiple partners while on leave.

Do you take his blood and live in fear of dying of AIDS or do you refuse and hope you live long enough for the medi-vac to get you to a safer blood supply?
Click to expand...

That's just ridiculous. Can you reference any scientific study that can confirm at a high level of statistical significance that a promiscuous homosexual is more likely to have a STD than an equally promiscuous heterosexual? Can you reference a military SOP that calls for immediate in-the-field blood transfusions from other soldiers rather than blood transfusions from tested-to-be-safe blood or immediate medivac to a forward operating base hospital? Do you have information about the schedule for regular physical examinations for soldiers including blood testing? My best guess would be that a chronic, currently uncurable disease transmittable by contact with bodily fluid such as AIDS would be among the medical conditions that would disqualify a soldier from combat duty.
 
It's all bullshit.

The military is not a social club. It shold not be up to Congress to make these stupid rules. Not only should openly homosexual men not serve, if the military doesn't want them, we need to go back to seperating the sexes. Every woman I've known that has served in the last 20 years (a handful) has (have?) gotten pregnant, while serving away from home. Some planned it for an escape...

Drop the social engineering.
 
Gonz said:
The military is not a social club.
Click to expand...

Who was saying it was?

It shold not be up to Congress to make these stupid rules.
Click to expand...

What stupid rules?

Not only should openly homosexual men not serve, if the military doesn't want them, we need to go back to seperating the sexes.
Click to expand...

Anyone should be able to serve regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. should be able to serve. Maybe bigots should be prevented from serving though.

Every woman I've known that has served in the last 20 years (a handful) has (have?) gotten pregnant, while serving away from home. Some planned it for an escape...
Click to expand...

Weird, none of the women that I know that have served have gotten pregnant. You seem to be blaming it on the women as if nobody else was involved in creating a pregnancy though.

Not that anyone should be prevented from creating a child although it's probably not the best idea if you're serving in a war zone.

Drop the social engineering.
Click to expand...

It's not social engineering, we're just dropping the bigotry.
 
spike said:
It's pretty normal for people to talk about their relationships and whatnot.
Click to expand...

In a social environment, yes. But these guys are at work. When having a beer with the guys after work I might discuss who I was doing (pre-marriage) but not in the work place. Neither would it be the sort of thing I'd bring up with my boss while being hired. For the record, I've worked with several gay men in the hotel industry. The only time it ever became a problem was when one of them started trying to pickup customers. It was an issue when one of the girls did the same. The military is hardly the only place where a person's sexual orientation has no business being an issue.

In a perfect world, soldiers of both genders would shower together, a la Starship Troopers. As far as I know, that doesn't happen. But if wimmens shouldn't be expected to shower with men ... for whatever reasoning is put forth ... shouldn't straight men be accorded that same benefit?

Do I think that all gay men are predators looking for another pretty ass to jerk off to in their bunk at night? No, don't be silly. But not every man is desperate to cozy up to any naked female either. One in the group is all it takes for wimmens to be accorded privacy.

And for the record, I'd far rather have gay men on the combat line than wimmen.
 
Professur said:
In a social environment, yes. But these guys are at work. When having a beer with the guys after work I might discuss who I was doing (pre-marriage) but not in the work place. Neither would it be the sort of thing I'd bring up with my boss while being hired. For the record, I've worked with several gay men in the hotel industry. The only time it ever became a problem was when one of them started trying to pickup customers. It was an issue when one of the girls did the same. The military is hardly the only place where a person's sexual orientation has no business being an issue.

In a perfect world, soldiers of both genders would shower together, a la Starship Troopers. As far as I know, that doesn't happen. But if wimmens shouldn't be expected to shower with men ... for whatever reasoning is put forth ... shouldn't straight men be accorded that same benefit?

Do I think that all gay men are predators looking for another pretty ass to jerk off to in their bunk at night? No, don't be silly. But not every man is desperate to cozy up to any naked female either. One in the group is all it takes for wimmens to be accorded privacy.

And for the record, I'd far rather have gay men on the combat line than wimmen.
Click to expand...

Serving over seas for months at a time is not exactly the same as going to work for 8 to 12 hours then going home. I don't think anyone who hasn't been in that situation can judge as to what is or isn't appropriate conversation at various times (such as during their off hours). These guys are living together. Having those around you find out your gay wouldn't be difficult. The pictures posted at your bunk, the letters you receive from home, the phone calls you make (which I assume rarely if ever are actually in a private room). From what I hear people serving over seas a lot of the time end up being very close, building lifelong friendships, because the only people they have around them are their colleagues.

I agree with many others that sexual orientation, race, etc should not play a role in determining if you can serve in the military. I also think the rule of having to keep the fact that one is gay "secret" was ridiculous. It wouldn't be just a matter of not saying something, I expect it would involve actual effort to cover it up. It would involve deception, and probably full out lying.
 
Let the militray decide what the militray needs...not a bunch of suck-up civilian politicians looking for votes.
 
WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Sunday he would have preferred that Congress had waited before voting to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bans gays from serving openly in the military.
Click to expand...

Source
 
A group of manly men willing lay waste upon the enemies of this nation. Men willing to overcome any obstacle to break things and kill people. Not sissy-la-la boys who's sexuality consumes them.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
A group of manly men willing lay waste upon the enemies of this nation. Men willing to overcome any obstacle to break things and kill people. Not sissy-la-la boys who's sexuality consumes them.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about sissy boys who's sexuality consumes them. We're talking about men and women who are discriminated against for their sexual preference.
 
spike said:
We're not talking about sissy boys who's sexuality consumes them. We're talking about men and women who are discriminated against for their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

I'm discriminated against on a daily basis for a genetic deformity I've had since birth. The fact that I've got a penis means that I'm barred from half the public toilets across the country. That I've no sexual attraction to any other person I might encounter, they'll still put me in jail for going in there.


Pedophiles are discriminated against for their sexual preference too. Discrimination means I want something and someone said I can't have it for such and such a reason. Nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top