US Senate blocks debate on gay military policy repeal

pienmash has asimple take on this .......... does it really matter whether a person in the armed forces is a puffta,dyke or lesbo , given the proper training all should and could fight , shoot and serve their country if thats what they desire to do

an added thought are katoeys (ladyboys ) allowed in the Thai military ?? they seem to be evrywhere else in society from dustbin men to doctors !! ....... if not then surely that would be a loophole for "normal" fellas pretending to be trannys to avoid compulsory national service , beats the hell out of hiding in the atic for 3 years like my grandad.

Was that by choice Pie or did your gran lock him up there so she could 'aquire' her stockings and chewing gum from the Yanks?

If your trying to say my gran was awartime slapper than you are 100% correct - she did it for the children !!

My understanding is that they're not allowed in the Thai military. But they're welcome in places like Big C and Ngeesoon.

When I was in the military I worked with a security clearance (pre-don't ask). Any hint of being gay was an automatic loss of clearance, and eventual discharge. I knew several folks who were gay, on the sly of course. They were great workers....didn't faze me in the least, although I was in violation of military rules myself for not turning them in.
The military has suffered shortages of Arab linguists....as well as other difficult to find/train linguists. With one fell swoop, the OSI (office of special investigation) rounded up 15 or so Arab linguists from Crete and tossed them out vitually overnight. The end result was a shortage became a severe shortage.
I was in the military when women were integrated in several previously off-limits jobs. There was a wailing and gnashing of teeth that the women wouldn't be able to handle the jobs. BS. They did fine. So did the African Americans. And so will the gays.
And, finally, why does it seem like so many anti-gay politicians/religious leaders are gays themselves hiding under the guise of a marriage of their religious vows while spouting how the gays will destroy the country and be damned forever? I've long found it amusing (sadly) that the priests who abuse children/young adults are cited for their abuse, but little attention seems to be given to the fact that they've talking up a storm on the pulpit about how any sort of sex outside of a church-legal marriage is a sure-fire one-way ticket to hell.
Well, based on the thunder and lightning that's suddenly appeared overhead, I must be pissing someone off......rant over.

I agree totally with your post parrot especialy the ref to kiddy fiddling priests and the bent politicians , i know for sure you shop at Ngeesoon , i have quite a few business dealings with them and usually get Brian the kateoy to check in my stock bloody usefull as he /she can lift all those heavy boxes for me ...........

Queers don't belong in the US military -- especially in fighting/combat units.
I've happily helped drum a few of them out of the military in my time.
When Congress throws out dadt, it will result in a net loss in recruitment and retention and weaken the US military for what? To give the right to queers to prance around openly in an environment they're not likely to thrive in anyway.
I feel sorry for commanders who will have to deal with the homos and their demands/complaints/cycles. I'm not afraid of homos, I'm not homophobic. But I know a bad fit when I see one. Why don't men model bras? Why don't women sell jockstraps? Bad fit.

Glad I'm retired.

If you are saying gay people can't/won't fight there was a ladyboy Muay Thai champion you might want to have a brief conversation with.

I've know a few gay men, and women, that I believe would prove you more than wrong on that point, and be happy to do it.

Did you say the same about black people in the military? Wake up, this is 2010 not 1810.

Pay attention.
The issue is not about barring gays from serving. They've been free to serve since the Clinton years.

It's about them being queers with their teammates and causing disruptions and drama and unnecessary bullshit -- inevitable eventualities with homos.

"It's about them being queers with their teammates and causing disruptions and drama and unnecessary bullshit -- inevitable eventualities with homos."
I heard the same arguments about not allowing women to fly on reconnaissance aircraft. They'll have periods and not be able to fly. They'll get pregnant. PMS. They won't be able to stand up to an interrogator. Blah blah blah. They've been flying for 20 years now with no problems. A few adjustments at the beginning....but even then, most of the women learned how to pee standing up into a urinal on the plane rather than break the seal on the honeybucket.
I'm afraid your excuse is a sad argument to mask the homophobic truth.

It's not an excuse, it's the truth.
And most GIs are against repealing DADT.

Guess they're all wrong, too.

Surely in the world today there must be more for politicians and folks in general to sort out then a few pufftas , queers , homos etc wanting to join up serve their country with the possibility of being killed in action or by a roadside bomb etc , should we stop all the skitzzos , crazies and/or darkies joining up too , let em all in .........

I feel qualified to comment as im gay every Sunday between 1pm and 4 pm whilst remaining "normal" at all other times , i was in the boy scouts and the salvation army as well .

Well, this former USMC Sgt Vietnam Vet damn sure isn't against gays serving. They were there in my time and fought as well as any. Bullets don't give a damn about gender, sexual orientation, religion or skin color. Gay/Lesbian people have been serving in the military long before you or I and they have been doing a fine job. They have fought and fought well in all our countries wars. The same types of arguments were used against Blacks before the military was integrated. Would you please produce documentation that proves most GI's are against repealing DADT. Specifically those that have been in combat. I don't count Generals, most are nothing but suits and old ones at that. Texpat, you sir, I do believe are homophobic.

Do you understand what homophobic means?
Understanding you're a jar head, I'll break it down for you.
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and in some cases transgender and intersex people.

As I said, I'm not homophobic. I don't have a range of attitudes and feelings. I said they're a bad fit for military service much as Michael Vick is a poor choice as a dogsitter and Gary Glitter a poor choice for a babysitter.
I think queers probably make great hairdressers and designers. They're especially suited to deliberating between fuchsia and mauve place settings at the coming out party. They're horrible soldiers -- and yes, I've served with a few, too. And kicked a few the hell out as well.

The Senate today decided NOT to debate repealing DADT. Also today, Bobo the circus clown appointed a new Commandant of the Marine Corps (that's the top uniformed Marine, a 4-star). Want to know what he had to say?

Associated Press
22 Sept 2010
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn't think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.

Gen. James Amos' comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Amos told a Senate panel on Tuesday he was concerned that unit morale could suffer. He also said the shake up could become a distraction for forces busy fighting in Afghanistan."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9ICC2PG0

If that's too big suit for ya, try this one on, princess:



Now the Senate, the Commandant of the MC, the troops all are in agreement, yet the liberal loons always "know best."
Whatever -- I'm glad I'm retired.

I wonder on what medical grounds Texpat was retired?