Big Dogs Weblog

21 Responses to “Obama Wants Openly Gay Military”

1. pingback: Posted: Oct 6th, 2007 at 16:40

   1 Obama wants Gay Military « The Bos’un Locker [...] Obama Wants Openly Gay Military [...]

2. Bosun Posted: Oct 6th, 2007 at 16:48

   2 Bigdog, Thanks for the excellent commentary. I posted it to my sites and also cross posted it to Hannity Forum. Take care, my fried. Respectfully, Bosun

3. Tom Posted: Oct 7th, 2007 at 12:33

   3 This is great and honorable. I am glad we have such “macho men” who wish to go die for the rights of all citizens (inlcuding gays). So I thank you for not wanting gays in the military. That works for me.

4. Big Dog Posted: Oct 7th, 2007 at 12:41

   4 Author Comment No problem Tom. No one wants you to break a nail or anything…

5. trackback: Posted: Oct 13th, 2007 at 12:51

   5 MoveOnAndShutUp.org We should probably exclude stupid people from the military too…. Back when THE BIG DOG was in the military driving a truck - or uh - doing whatever it is he was doing - I wonder if his superiors ever said: Wow. That’s the dumbest fu*k in the history of the army. By the way, he’s now sporting a picture of a no…

6. Land on Cox Posted: Dec 30th, 2007 at 02:10

   6 The problem is that there is not warrant as to why homosexuality is incompatible with the military code; it’s arbitrary discrimination. You say that if DADT were overturned, enlistment would go down; however, what evidence do you have for this? Just an essentialist generalization that people from the Midwest and South are intolerant. However, the problem isn’t just that DADT denies gays from enlisting, but also the discharges that occur because of it. On average, about 2 people a day are discharged, with 742 discharges on grounds of violating DADT in 2005, an increase from 668 in 2004. In another twist of irony, while the Pentagon admits that it is having increasing trouble meeting its recruitment goals, they estimate that an additional 41,000 gays and lesbians would enlist if DADT were repealed, in addition to the service men and women they could recall . The General Accounting Office estimates that it costs taxpayers $200 million dollars a year to recruit replacement officers for the ones that are discharged; however heterosexism seems to have superseded rationality. However, there are far more important reasons to overturn DADT than purely a numbers game. DADT itself is gutting our military, and overturning the ban would solve our current recruitment crisis and therefore eliminate the current threat of overstretch of our armed forces. While fighting two overseas wars, plus maintaining a military influence across the globe, we cannot sustain continued losses any more than we have to on the battlefield. A sustained overstretch of United States armed forces would signal weakness that would invite regional conflict to challenge our dominance and hegemony; the visible overextension of our forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to international conflicts in the Middle East and various hotspots of animosity. If the Army were ordered to respond to a crisis today, it would be to deploy troops whose readiness is far below what operations require, resulting in a disastrous military campaign. However, overstretch isn’t the only crisis facing the readiness of our military today. DADT causes paranoia of expression and suppression of sexuality that increases disease outbreak specifically in closeted homosexuals ; suppressing of emotions triggers the flight-or-fight response by triggering the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) which, when overused chronically suppresses immune system functions in a number of ways. The SNS secretes neurotransmitters and hormones into the bloodstream which, overtime, have an adverse effect on the immune system; one of such hormones is cortisol, which eventually halts the formation of lymphocytes, as well as rendering existing lymphocytes useless. These lymphocytes are key to stopping the spread of infections, and without them disease runs rampant. This immunosuppression turns otherwise mild infections into disease episodes, a costly risk for any soldier. Obviously, diseases have an adverse effect on the readiness of our troops, which magnified by the current overstretch of US forces only sets up the stage for a collapse of US hegemony. Some may question the importance of a unipolar world dominated by a single super power in the wake of increasing trends such as globalization, but a world in which the United States exercises its hegemony has tremendous advantages; other nations are more inclined to accept American values, thus facilitating cooperation on various issues such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony, and the events that could preclude a global nuclear exchange. Since the military is the most visible sign of our hard hegemonic strength, then a well-equipped and ready military is essential to strong US leadership around the world. Our cooperation with other nation’s militaries is also uniquely threatened by sustaining DADT; all of our NATO allies outside of Turkey have removed restrictions on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Going into a situation that requires international cooperation with a homophobic schism in the midst of combat guts internal cohesion of individual military units. If the argument that the world is shrinking and globalization is on the rise is true, then this type of international cooperation is absolutely essential to rapid response and containment of regional conflicts worldwide. I urge you to think rationally instead of thinking with bigoted notions of what makes a real soldier.

7. Big Dog Posted: Dec 30th, 2007 at 10:22

   7 Author Comment Interestingly, I think with bigoted notions because I do not agree with a lifestyle that is not in line with my religious beliefs but you are not a bigot for insisting that I ignore my religion and accept that lifestyle. The military also discharges (or prosecutes) for adultery, writing bad checks and many other items that are against the law. The military should be allowed to decide if it wants to allow openly gay people to serve. BTW, if a person is overweight they may not serve. I don’t see a bunch of fat people complaining about that discrimination…

8. Land on Cox Posted: Dec 30th, 2007 at 14:06

   8 The military is a public institution and transcends your personal belief system. It is not to be dominated or influenced by religion. Stop trying to legislate your morality onto the nation; you’re forcing discrimination onto the public, where as we’re forcing equality. The reasons why your forcing of opinion is far worse are many; the fact that it’s illegal to discriminate, that your views are based entirely upon a religious point of view and therefore entangle the government excessively with a certain religious view point, etc. I’m not forcing you to change your view point; you can still think gays are going to burn in hell for all eternity, but you can’t legislate that view point into public policy. I’m not being intolerant of your religious beliefs, I’m merely asking you to not force those beliefs on the rest of the country. The military my prosecute for actions that are against the law, but being gay isn’t a crime, so that point is void. The reason overweight people aren’t allowed to serve is because it interferes with their job performance; your sexual orientation has no effect on your physical or mental capabilities that enlistment requires.

9. Big Dog Posted: Dec 30th, 2007 at 14:16

   9 Author Comment Homosexual activity IS against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that is LAW. There is no rule that says there has to be equality if the organization feels that there is some detriment. What next, blind fighter pilots just so we do not discriminate. I know many people who are over the military weight limit who can max the Army PT test but they are not fit?? The military has standards and until those standards are changed then the law is the law. I also am not trying to legislate my morality into the nation. In case you are unaware, morality has been legislated for a long time and our laws have Christian beliefs built in. As far as being able to say who can and cannot be part of something, perhaps we can end the Congressional black or Hispanic caucus before we worry about the military allowing openly gay members. The problem is, you don’t like the law. Fine, work to change it and people can work against changing it. But quit whining because gays are not allowed to serve. It is the law. I don’t like abortion but it is the law. I can work to change it but until it is changed, it is the law. I have served and will not have to go back but since we have no draft people are free to decide if openly gay people is a reason for them NOT to serve.

10. Land on Cox Posted: Dec 30th, 2007 at 14:57

    10 Too bad that 10 U.S.C, 654 and Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice constitute violations of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and the Constitution of the United States supersedes the UCMJ as it is the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no detriment to having gays in the military; other countries prove this example. With the military not meeting its enlistment quotas and discharging multiple people per day (many of which are translators essential to the war on terrorism), plus the detrimental aspects that living in the closet has on your nervous system, there seems to be no reason to not allow gays to openly serve in the military other than a discriminatory view point that has no rational basis. Blind fighter pilots have an actual detriment because they cannot fulfill their duties; gays are fully capable to do what the military requires. An alternative reason to reject people that are over the weight limit but can pass the physical requirements is that in combat, if they are shot down it would be an incredible burden for the rest of the team to attempt to save them, putting the whole squadron at risk. Morality and ethics are two clearly different things. We have always tried to legislate things that are basic ethical principles (like killing and stealing are wrong); just because Christianity has those principles doesn’t mean that they are uniquely Christian values. These things are not just ethical principles that most people, regardless of religious affiliation, would find to be reasonable, but are also common to pretty much every religion out there. Just because we have ethical views that are similar to Christian morals doesn’t mean we automatically give credence to all Christian beliefs. We’re whining because the law itself is illegal; the Supreme Court just refuses to take the case up because they defer to the military and the executive.

11. holly Posted: Apr 27th, 2008 at 18:06

    11 Look this is really rude of u. every one should be able to defend their country if they r well enoph to. Homosexuals are no better /no worse than u or any one else no matter what we r all people. who r u to judge? I can not help but feel sorry for u. Why must people be rude. there is nothing wrong with being gay

12. Rich Wright Posted: May 10th, 2008 at 22:32

    12 I think we should all remember something very important…once a Muslim, always a Muslim. This ignorant country is about to select a “hard line” influenced and educated Muslim to the Democratic party. Having gays in the military will be the least of our nation’s concerns once this heretical and putridly “patriotic” man takes the oath…oh, by the way, on the Koran!

13. cole Posted: Jul 19th, 2008 at 17:38

    13 Look at it this way if gays were to join openly the only thing that would be different is you would see people for what they really are. No more hiding for any one. People could see how people really are. More people would see that gay people are just like every one else. We can do our jobs and serve the U.S.A just like straight people. Just take me for example I been in the military for a little while now and not just the military but one of the hardest branches “The United States Marine Corps” and believe me if a gay person can make it throw the Marine Corps boot camp they have earned the right to carry the tittle they worked so hard for. And because you are saying being openly gay in the military is agents the UCMJ so are allot of other things like sodomy but military personal do it gay and straight alike. But that does not get punished because people in the military are getting smarter and are realizing that some things in the UCMJ has no reason at all, because they do not affect our job, performances, or ability to save lives in combat. And not to mention it does not put fellow service members lives in danger.

14. tt Posted: Aug 3rd, 2008 at 15:49

    14 There are 65,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers in uniform right now. If thier homosexuality was a detrement to thier performance it would have made itself plain by now. What is a detrement to there performance is lying to some of thier friends and telling the truth to others which in turn have to lie to others it is not the right way. Honesty and judgement on performance only should be the policy of any orginization of proffessionals especially our countries defenders.

15. Dustin Posted: Aug 28th, 2008 at 00:52

    15 ummm… are you retarded?

16. Big Dog Posted: Aug 28th, 2008 at 06:18

    16 Author Comment No. People who are retarded start their sentences with “ummm”.

17. Common Sense Posted: Sep 1st, 2008 at 02:24

    17 No one chooses to be gay. No one. So when a person signs on to serve their country and is made to swear an oath to not lie, yet not to tell the truth thanks to DADT, you tell me who is at fault. That person, or the system forces them to hide who they are. I do not believe that our sexual predispositions define who we are, or that they have any bearing on a soldier’s performance in the military. Instead it is our choices that define us. I chose to be a soldier. Therefore, I am first and foremost a soldier in the United States Military, not a homosexual. Being homosexual means nothing more than you happen to like members of the same sex. As for the men and women in the military who believe that homosexuality is an abomination and simply don’t want gays serving side by side with them - Buck up. You are in the U.S. Military. Leave your personal biases behind and do the job you signed on to do.

18. tad Posted: Sep 10th, 2008 at 16:21

    18 i agree completely. i dont want some f*g watching my back

19. Corey Lynxx Posted: Sep 13th, 2008 at 01:08

    19 The problem really isn’t gay people themselves, the REAL problem is prejudiced. Just grow up and get over it. Gay people are strong enough to be in the military just like anyone else who is fit to serve. Don’t ask don’t tell actually creates a homophobic environment because nobody can actually say that they are gay so it makes the recruits paranoid because they are always asking themselves, “who’s gay, Omg where?” Also, superior commanders are often times very homophobic and purposly single out new recruits that they suspect are gay and call them names like fag and poke fun at their supposed homosexuality. Then guess what happens? The younger 18-19 year old recruits follow their superior’s lead and join in on the anti-gay assault constantly tormenting the gay soldier and sometimes assault them. In a few instances this has lead to brutal murders. I think that don’t ask don’t tell should be repealed and soldiers who harass, threaten or assault gay, lesbian soldiers should be given a stiff punishment for disrupting things. They are basically putting America at risk by hating on their fellow soldiers like that. Like I said It’s time to get over it and grow a pair men. if you are strong enough to get through basic training then you should be strong/mature enough to serve alongside an openly gay person without bullying them, calling them names, giving death threats etc etc. The only good side to this is I personally believe that the fear of letting gay and lesbian people in is keeping us from a draft.

20. Big Dog Posted: Sep 13th, 2008 at 11:28

    20 Author Comment Corey, you are full of crap. People are not being murdered for being gay and quite frankly, commanders have more important issues than “wondering” who is gay. People in the military do not go around wondering who is gay. The policy is if you are caught in a homosexual act you will be discharged. So don’t kiss other guys in public and you should be OK. The only talk about a draft by politicians has ALL been from Democrats. So if you get drafted it will be because some Democrat made it so. BTW, a draft does not stop the law. It would still be don’t ask don’t tell. I want to know, if they allow openly gay people in the military who will they shower with. You see, I think it is wrong to allow people who are sexually attracted to men to shower with men. I am sexually attracted to women and they do not let me shower with them. I don’t want to hear the argument that a gay man is not attracted to all other men because I am not attracted to all other women but they still won’t let me shower with them. **Shower with = in a large shower like a locker room, not in a single shower, for those who might not know.

21. Taylor Posted: Sep 17th, 2008 at 15:31

    21 I fully agree with what your saying Big Dog ALL OF IT the military isn’t the place for interior design and pretty flowers you can call my sterotypical but that is openly gay like it or not I am in college now and plan to commission into the Army as an officer once im out but I will NOT if they can too.  Women aren’t allowded into combat positions so why not them too they can have a desk job for all I care but I don’t want to have to worry if hes got my back or is more worried about not geting his uniform dirty.