U.S. House approves repeal of gay ban in military
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Millions in global aid for Iraq remain unspent
( 0 )
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 5 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 2 )
-
- 秘書及び業務サポート
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M / Year
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
Order by Time Order by Popularity
39 Comments
Login to comment
0
TumbleDry
US military became civilized.
0
jruaustralia
Hardly surprising and not something you'd call victory for the big homosexual lobby. But it's midterm election year and they have to do with it :|
0
sensei258
Why do gays and lesbians have to make such an issue in public, of what they do in private? I have no need to know what other people do in the bedroom.
0
HonestDictator
I think its about attention sensei. I mean honestly I could care less what people do with their sex lives (as long as they're not pedos or psychotic killers). I'm for gay rights as far as giving them the ability and rights to take care of their loved ones and in making life choices for their partner in cases of medical issues, wills, etc. Anything beyond that is pretty much just about getting attention. But I think I finally understand that the military could use homosexuality as grounds for dismissal... which of course is unreasonable. Gays have been fighting side by side with heterosexuals in the trenches anyways, its just that they don't have to worry about being discharged for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
0
smithinjapan
sensei258: "Why do gays and lesbians have to make such an issue in public, of what they do in private? I have no need to know what other people do in the bedroom."
That should go for all people, and not be limited to gays and lesbians, and don't tell me you think it's only them doing it; young people homo and hetero alike (and some middle aged for that matter) do stuff in public that should be done indoors all the time (in the opinion of some, anyway). You just probably notice more because it's a gay couple.
Anyway, good on the US House.
0
timorborder
Good, now the US Military can start openly setting up recruitment desks at gay pride demonstrations, because as you know, "a good hard man" is hard to find.
On a more serious note, having served with US Forces (many years ago) and been privy to rumors about the closet sexuality of people who worked for me, I must say that I consider the removal of this ban a positive development. Indeed, somebody's sexuality should not bar them from the right to serve in uniform. At the same time, however, I don't know how this ban is going to impact units that are already in the field. For some people, finding out that their friends are gay is going to come as a bit of a shock. Moreover, I would expect some instances of backlash against this change in policy.
0
smithinjapan
HonestDictator: I agree and disagree with the 'attention' thing. As I was saying to sensei I don't think there's necessarily more gays making out in public or anything than anyone else, the thing is you tend to notice more. But to think that there aren't heterosexual people doing this as well would be wrong, as I know plenty of hetero (and have dated a few) people who are totally into voyeurism and like being seen in public kissing, holding hands, making out, etc.
0
MrRoadrage
Actually, I think you'll find it is the anti-gay bigots who make an issue of it. Nobody is asking you to watch what they do in the bedroom, they just want to put an end to discrimination.
0
shinjukuboy
I read that the military dismissed 20 or so Arabic interpreters under DADT. If I were a military person in Iraq, I would much rather have a gay Arabic interpreter/translator tell me there is an explosive device down the road so "stop!" rather than get blown up.
0
MistWizard
Well, I have to say I am extremely confused. Getting rid of a law that allows openly gay military members to be expelled might sound good, but doesn't the same law block investigations into the fact that a service person is gay? If we get rid of the law, won't we just go back to the days of witch-hunting gays and throwing them out as a matter of military administrative policy?
0
Sarge
"...so that gays could serve in the military without fear of being exposed and discharged"
What if the situation was reversed, so that heterosexuals could serve in the military without fear of being exposed and discharged, lol...
0
Molenir
Wait, I thought it was the pro-gay bigots who have been making this an issue.
0
adaydream
I've considered the DADT and the rule that gays couldn't openly serve in the military a sham for years. It was a rule that disqualified patriots from serving just because of their sexuality.
I'm glad we're close to the day when it'll be something in the past. < :-)
0
medievaltimes
Freedom.
Freedom is a word that gets thrown around a lot in American society. But yet when it comes to certain personal choices (freedoms), America freaks out.
I thought America was about freedom.
0
sensei258
smithinjapan - I totally agree with you. It just seems to be more of a political issue with gays and lesbians.
0
Taka313
It's not about what they do in private. It's about receiving the same entitlements and benefits as straight servicemembers.
Taka
0
sensei258
Well, except for the marriage issue, don't they already have the same entitlements and benefits?
0
YuriOtani
What are Americans so afraid of? Seems like the loudest anti-gay people turn out to be homosexual. What was the name of those Republicans who turned out to be okama or gay? The American military needs all people willing to serve and stop their bias to those who do not share the same personnel values and themselves.
0
adaydream
sensei258 it is/was a political issue. The politicians controlled whether gays served openly in the military. It's been taboo till now. Now it's a been ok'd, and it took politics to get through this. < :-)
0
adaydream
Badsey only .07866% of the population serve the military as it is. There are .92% that refuse or aren't capable to serve. There's a lot of you who can now without fear or reprisal. < :-)
0
YuriOtani
adaydream, you are right so few people want to serve their nation. So many people like to talk and we are members of a select group. Will always be proud to have served my country and still serve as a reservist. The training installs discipline and working as a group. I never understood the ban.
0
yabits
Pro-gay bigots?
Is that something like a pro-diversity discriminator?
Au contraire. The term "pro-gay bigot" is ludicrous and could never accurately apply to anyone.
0
Molenir
Heh, can't it? People so vehement in their pro-gay agenda that they will do very nearly anything to silence those in opposition, to me fit the catagory. When these so called preachers of tolerance, start attacking churches for their opposition etc, this to me shows a great deal of bigotry.
0
MistWizard
Well I am sad to see that no one answered my questions. Do you all really think it was one big love fest for gays in the military before DADT?? Do you think the removal of DADT will ensure that gays can serve openly with no trouble at all? Do you think ahead?
0
sensei258
I'm retired US military and not "anti-gay" (to coin a phrase). If I say "I have friends who are gay" (and I do), some will see that as an indication of hidden prejudice. Gays serving openly in the military won't be raping their heterosexual coworkers, but there will obviously be logistical matters to consider.
0
Taka313
The marriage issue is monster. It determines whether or not a gay person's partner is given an ID card and whether or not that person is given single quarters or family quarters.
If gay couples are allowed to be openly gay, we're going to have young gay couples trying to make it work in shared quarters (for junior enlisted). The potential for trouble is high.
The question remains, will gay couples be given family quarters (a sense of privacy and equality), ID cards to use the base hospital (monster), dental clinic (monster), DeCA (pretty big) and MWR (big)?
Taka
0
adaydream
MistWizard, before DADT, it was no gays in the military at all, period. This DADT is a farce. Whether you tell or not. The military's policy is no gays. Clinton signed the DADT as some way to appease gays. Really didn't do anything. Just like before, there are gay bars and clubs around every military base. It really didn't change anything MistWizard. Google it and see. But from my observation from 70-84, no lovefest. <:-)
0
yabits
People should never allow the intolerant to define tolerance. The intolerant have this terrible misconception about what tolerance is.
As with the self-contradictory term "pro-gay bigot," the proposition that people who are tolerant must tolerate intolerance is ludicrious on its face. Such ludicrousness provides the foundation for many a modern conservative position.
0
Molenir
Right, its completely not hypocritical to preach tolerance and love, while viciously attacking anyone who disagrees. They don't go out and viciously attack you, no they simply disagree with your position. Thats why its completely all right to hunt down, and destroy the livelihood of individuals like this. Rather like what happened in California recently after the passage of the gay marriage ban. Churches were attacked, and individuals who had supported it, were likewise assaulted. Oh, but its ok right, because its all done for tolerance...
Sorry yabits, but if you are going to preach tolerance for others, you have to include tolerance for those who do not agree with you. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech you disagree with. It doesn't mean you can silence your opposition, though the left tries desperately to do just that.
So yes, pro-gay bigots is while not perhaps the best way to describe preachers of hate, it seems appropriate to label them as well. How about it, are you a pro-gay bigot? Were you one of those who would have attacked the churches, or people who disagreed with you?
0
yabits
You need to provide two pieces of evidence to back that claim up: First, the evidence that churches were physically attacked and that people were physically assaulted; second, if such a thing did happen, you need to provide evidence that the people who committed those acts ever "preached tolerance and love."
There are radical elements in any movement, and they are not the ones who preach tolerance, but rather are just as intolerant and evil as those they rant against. People like yourself, who are the mirror-image of the bigots they point the finger at, use each other to justify their own brand of hatred.
What you keep doing is particuarly insidious and on the opposite side of tolerance: You want to brand an entire group of people with the same brush that could rightfully only be applied to a tiny fraction of them.
0
Molenir
yabits,
You know my opinion on the subject. Judging by the results of the recent election, even in as liberal a bastion as California, the country is still conservative on this subject. Trying to force your views on the majority is not ok.
0
yabits
The same was said of the black civil rights movement back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The military led the way back then through integrating its ranks with African-Americans. Womens' rights came next, and many more military positions -- once prohibited to women -- have been opened up.
The military leads, and the rest of society follows.
The portrayal of the entire state of California as a "liberal bastion" is so obviously erroneous that it's funny. Sure, there are many pockets of liberalism, but much larger areas (San Diego, Orange County, the entire central valley, etc.) that are extremely conservative.
A better bellweather of where the nation is headed on this is state of Iowa.
0
goodDonkey
Molenir said:
You are obviously the one trying to force your opinion on the rest of this country. This country favors the right for gays to serve openly in the military by a very wide margin.
...
`
http://www.examiner.com/x-45717-Kansas-City-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d17-Gallup-poll-shows-70-of-Americans-favor-openly-gay-military-service?cid=edition-rss-Kansas_City
To reiterate:
The majority of conservatives favor lifting the ban.
The majority of Republicans favor lifting the ban.
The majority of weekly church goers favor lifting the ban.
Molenir wants discrimination to continue.
0
AlfGarnett
I can see this becoming compulsary. Mark my words, strange things are happen these days, even with armies.
0
YuriOtani
adaydream, I am sure there were homosexuals in the US military before the current policy. I suspect the old policy was just a way to get rid of undesirables gay or not.
Back to top