Obama to allow crossdressers, draq queens, etc to service in the Military as is.

[yvid]qPML-n1kRnY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

What's the old saying? Ah, that's it... "beggars can't be choosers.".

I remember there being a bit of a fuss when the military started recruiting gang members and cons, but the fuss didn't last long. As long as the Gov. continues with their policy of wars-of-choice for corporate profits, then recruitment will dwindle. Quite frankly, they'll take straights, gays, trannys, gang members, cons, reds, greens, blues, purples, and like it as long as it gives them another warm body to toss in the line of fire. Just keep those dollars rolling in!

reply to post by joejack


This is not an issue as easy as being a homosexual serving openly in the military. I have served with people that were not too fond of white or black or even Vietnamese, but ultimately the actions and speech was always subject to the Code of Conduct. Homosexuality in the military will not be an overwhelming hurdle for the majority of service men and women to accept. Not saying there won’t be issues. Someone that lisps a lot and is, let’s say “flamboyant” will probably test the Code of Conduct which a lot of times are left up to interpretation by those in command.
Side note> In 1999ish I was in Germany TDY with a group of guys that I knew very well and one, a black man, decided to dye his hair blond. He was medium dark complexion and it was very blond. He was told to cut it or dye it because the rule is hair must look natural. How many white women with naturally dark hair have we all seen with very blond hair? Ultimately his hair had to go.
Now when we throw the transgender folk into the mix we definitely muddy up the water when it comes to clarity. A guy, or gal, that dresses as the opposite sex on their time off will not be an issue as I have routinely seen some manly looking woman around bases, and male fashions often are worn by straight women. Guys in dresses is going to bring about a lot of laughter and if he picks up on an unsuspecting straight guy he might very well get a beating (not approving or disapproving, it is what it is).
The big problems are the complete sex changes and those in between taking hormones. A guy that has had a breast job and taking hormones, but still has his junk is NOT going to be able to be with the women or men, same for the chicks with beards and whatever else happens.

I don’t claim to have the answers, but sometimes when you decide to play a game of tackle football those that are fragile should sit on the sidelines.

We are talking about a job that is like no other job, one that has standards above and beyond the civilian population. Adultery is a criminal offense. Your actions, whether in uniform or out are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
I am not going to tell those that have never served that they cannot comment on military issues, but please understand it is not the same as any other organization that you can join. In fact you enlist.

reply to post by sensible thought


I completely agree with you on the trans gender issue. It's complex and studies can be done to not just be using "sexism" or whatever but to actually show the complications of. The military needs a more local "national guard". It has since 911. I don't think it's biased to separate people going through major biological and hormonal changes separate from active duty services in this particular day. However if a war erupts on our soil we need everyone willing to defend ourselfs.

I think a real solution for terrorism and natural disaster is a some what mandatory civil service. In that system there is room for every citizen of the united states (maybe even anyone willing to fight for the united states).

But parachuting out with people on hormone therapy could have issues just saying.

Why wouldn't he.He is Bi-Sexual himself...Ask Regie Love and his other lovers....I thought this was well know till I read some of the posts here at ATS...

I seriously doubt a crossdresser who was also a proffesional soldier would wear anything but a military uniform during buisness hours. With that said I think anyone regardless of how they dress should be allowed to defend their country. People need to stop concerning themselves with how other people live, If they can do the job regardless of religion, gender, sexual preference or fashion preference then they should be allowed to do so.

Originally posted by TinFoilHatMan55
Have you considered that homosexuals might rape or gang rape other members of the military? What about off duty going around cross dressing or in drag? This will create problems. The military has a macho attitude, having crossdressers and gays will only incite problems.

How can members of the military stay focused when the person next to them keeps eyeing them up and making flirting gestures?

Well it's been said once but it is worth saying again
Obvious troll is obvious

Have you just read one to many Jack Chick pamphlets and let them warp your mind into a fundy frame work?
www.chick.com...

Seriously you think gay people are just going to end up raping people are you truly this bigoted? Have you even bothered to talk to anybody who is gay or do you think they are all abominations worthy of hell?

Obvious Fundy Troll is Obvious

Originally posted by TinFoilHatMan55
Have you considered that homosexuals might rape or gang rape other members of the military? What about off duty going around cross dressing or in drag? This will create problems. The military has a macho attitude, having crossdressers and gays will only incite problems.

How can members of the military stay focused when the person next to them keeps eyeing them up and making flirting gestures?

How can members of the military stay focused when the person next to them keeps staring them down 2cm from their face or screaming directly in their ear?

Originally posted by KingDoey
Hahaha this post is hilarious, real scary army you yanks are going to have!!! Next you will be getting guns that fire daisy chains!!

British Army- The worlds most formidable and elite force.

SAS are topnotch...

Yuk it up "limey": don't make me get my "pythons" out

reply to post by TinFoilHatMan55


I know troll feeding is bad but its so cute....

The military is real simple and all this discusion on 'effect' or 'distraction' is pure BS... pure BS...

drop the paranoia, the religion, the sexism, the racism, ect....

In the line of work for DFAS out of cleavland ohio.. it is real simple... (yes its what is on the w-2...)

You get told what to do

You do it with skill

you do it with pride

and you do it NOW...

your feelings have no basis in it, nor does effect unit discipline.... if it does guess what the people in the title are... not the problem...

you are....

you get fixed....

Why because you where not hired over your opinion on someone elses life....you where hired to kill in defense of this nation and her interest



and guess what, I see no dresses...

did any marines see any...

At RTC I did not... thats right this job has a dress code that is enforced... what about the army... or airforce...



You see when I was in I operated under a simple philosphy.... I was an Equal oppurtunity a-hole (EOA)

I treated everyone like crap till they proved they where not... then they where on probation....never failed...

I found it...


nope with good leadership no issues... the reason they might have a problem is that they dont have it....

I think women should be allowed to be anything they want to be... For that fact so should any american... To limit someone because they are different is un-American and socio-communistic...

You have to run it as a meritocracy.... based on skill anything else results in EPIC FAILURE....

Look at american history.... When it is not a meritocracy epic failure... nam ... korea.... real simple see...

Originally posted by TinFoilHatMan55
You want statistics and facts on homosexual rape in the military? Here you go:

Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High

Homosexual activist groups themselves have admitted that less than three percent of Americans are homosexual or bisexual.

FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.

Lack of Privacy Leads to Sexual Assaults

FRC and other supporters of the current law have pointed out the risks involved in having servicemembers share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them.

This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon. The most common type of homosexual assault is one in which the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim. Assaults upon victims who are intoxicated are also common.

Source

That document goes more in depth and is 17 pages long. I would suggest reading it.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't happen doesn't mean it does. You can be the bleeding heart liberal all you want but it still won't hid the fact that homosexual rape is higher than heterosexual rape in the military.

You used 'The Family Research Council' as a source. A Christian organization 'promoting the the traditional family unit and the judeo- Christian value system'. They analyzed (read spun) publicly available documents.

Errors:

- 3% of the population responsible for 10% of the rapes? OMGS!

Unfortunately, the 3% rate is not accurate what so ever. Especially not in America. More than 50% of Americans are Christians, do you think it's wise to fill out a survey saying you're homosexual? So likely not accurate.

Secondly, most people in the American army are MEN. In prisons and in trench army situations more men turn to homosexuality. It's a well known phenomenon amongst animals and humans. How are you going to have a matching number of heterosexual rape in an environment dominated by a single gender? The fact that around 90% of rapes in the army are heterosexual rapes is testament to the persistence of the perpetrators of these crimes in finding women.

Third, it's not taking into account the migration of a homosexual population. Further more this 'research' is reporting on the most salacious cases; at times not differentiating between one person doing multiple crimes. Isn't it odd how when a heterosexual commits a crime it's not a 'heterosexual crime'?

Furthermore the report is self referencing.

FRC and other supporters of the current law have pointed out the risks involved in having servicemembers share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them.
This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon. The most common type of homosexual assault is one in which the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim. Assaults upon victims who are intoxicated are also common.

Amazing lack of information there given the 'reports' controversial claims. Notice the lack of referencing for this entire statement followed by an appeal to emotions by describing explicit sexual acts.

Also the report includes nonsense such as stating if homosexuals were allowed to be open in the military that people would be afraid of speaking out. Again, no research just hyperbole written by people who have zero ability to interpret the relevant datas.

Furthermore the 'report' doesn't distinguish between homosexuals and pedophiles. It also seems to investigate exclusively men. Why? Because men are more likely to rape than women by a giant margin.

Also the document is refusing to reference anything that vaguely disagrees with its content to the point that some of the statistical references are almost 20 years old. Some of these studies also painfully bad.

Some of them actually requested persons filling in the survey to include full names of sexual partners, and had rigged politically motivated questions. This might also explain why, whilst the report does reference, it references in a way to make the data difficult to find and review. This could very well be because the author of this document is well aware that the statistics they are using were gathered in controversial and political ways.

Again, there are better sources for what you want to say that aren't full of biased nonsense.

reply to post by TinFoilHatMan55


This is the reason that the draconian GOP used to push for the ban in the first place. Ain't no one going to rape anyone so quit right there.

reply to post by 46ACE


I agree. If you are the type to enlist in the military I highly doubt you are one of those lispy, "3-snaps-in-a-Z-formation!", kind of gays. As for lesbians, well if fatigues is what you want to where to the office than the dikier the better, I say!!! But in all seriousness, folks, I doubt anyone is thinking of a tossed salad in the thick of it. Can we have some perspective, please?

reply to post by sensible thought


Thanks my friend, my husband is a retire Marine that serve before the military changed so much, people doesn't understand like you say that the military is a different entity with its own code of conduct different from the civilian and those that serve sign to abide by that code and upheld it.

I think that it will be the end of military service the day that drag queens and cross dressers will be allowed to show their "gender preferences" the uniform comes with restrictions and only changing the rules and codes of the military things can change and is not going to get that far.