Don't ask - don't tell:
According to both MSNBC and FOX, 70% of those serving in the military favor the repeal of DADT. According to FOX's Shep Smith, it's the generals who want to keep it - not the enlisted men and women. Shouldn't these guys and gals in the trenches have more say-so than the generals?
Actually, the ones in the trenches, (combat troops) are not so supportive of a repeal - especially the marines. This will probably bolster McCain's continuing opposition to bringing the armed forces into the 21st century.
Agreed. I worry that no matter how this goes we will loose good Service Members.
YES! Who knows better than they do? Their voice needs to be heard! Thanks habee for bringing this to our attention.
"Letting the Troops Decide", Not a good idea. If I were wanting to know which ammunition performed best or which 3" line lasted the longest, then yes, I would go to the troops. Questions regarding policy that affects recruiting, training and housing a million people, No.
I hope the survey wasn't orchestrated to deliver a predictable outcome.
What I can tell you is this: Having served 10 years, I never had problems with known gays. However, I have seen lots of gays having problems with other members who knew they were gay. Changing DADT wont change that. I left the military 10 years ago, maybe things have changed.
Acceptances is NOT just a good idea in Military Units, it's required. It only takes one member of a unit to have a problem with it, from their it can divide the entire unit. So what you end up with is a great soldier who thinks it's moraly wrong to be gay. He/she acts on this belief or voices their opinion and will they now be ousted?
Don't Ask Don't Tell was the best solution. DADT prevented "Activist" from serving. Typically "Activist" of any sort are not welcomed in the Military. In some cases "activist" are actually prohibited.
If you are gay and in the Military. You simply do your job well and mind your own business. Typically what happens is, their attitude or performance leads to the witch hunt. I'ts easy to figure out someone's orientation. If a person has a problem with it. They will make provoking comments to the member who is suspected of being gay. If the gay person lets it get the better of them, they will loose. Bottom line, don't be a detriment to the Unit and you won't have a problem. This whole scenario is NOT unique to gays. The same happens with anyone who puts any cause or group ahead of the Unit.
All that being said, if being gay is truly ok with 100% of the members currently serving, then it's all going to work out. If not, there will be a lot of scandal and headache between now and acceptance.I served in the military. It is not, nor could it be a democracy. If each person in the military got to choose what order they wanted to follow, we would have the keystone kops of all militaries.
My personal feeling is that whatever one wants to do in the privacy of their own bed, is up to them as long as it is consensual.
However, when you voluntarily join the military, it should be easily apparent what the policy is. Don't like it, don't join.
Without discipline and the willingness to follow orders we would just have another Iraqi police force.Part of the job of being in the miltary is following orders from your superiors, without commenting or even complaining about the orders. Times change, but that does not. There are plenty of miltary men and women that do not agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Should they all be consulted about that, too? If the generals and the commanders in the field all agree that DADT can be repealed and implementation will be a "non-event", what is the issue? Civil rights is civil rights. Do not claim to follow the Constitution in which all men (and women) are created equal, but then choose to only follow the parts that you are comfortable with. The only difference between gay and straight is sexual orientation. I don't think that means that there is a difference in patriotism or in the ability defend one's country! Any excuse to be against homosexuals in the military is ridiculous when faced with the precepts of what we supposedly believe our Constitution stands for.
Yes, well said. This is exactly why DADT should not even be an issue:
"Part of the job of being in the miltary is following orders from your superiors, without commenting or even complaining about the orders. Times change, but that does not."(sic)
You've refuted the rest of your comment with the above opening statement. DADT is already a policy under DIRECT ORDER enforced by the UCMJ, and has not changed.Much like allowing no blacks or women. That was once the law and covered under the Universal Code of Military Justice and when the folly of those policies were recognized and changed, so was the code, as it will be when DADT is repealed. Just as those were implemented, so will this.
Being black isn't parallel to being gay.
And if I were a black person, I'd be hugely offended at the deliberate parallel.
Heck, I'm a white person and I'm offended at the audacity of paralleling a racial trait to a sexual perversion.Elizabeth Edwards funeral is going on now--don't you have a protest to join?
"Heck, I'm a white person and I'm offended at the audacity of paralleling a racial trait to a sexual perversion."
Heck, I'm a straight person, and I'm offended at the insistence on calling gayness a 'perversion.'sexual behavior that is abnormal and unacceptable to whom? and, I'm speaking in terms of 'to whom it matters'.
Being gay isn't about the sexual relations but about an ability to love another human being. Is that wrong?
When it comes to spousal/partner benefits, Don't ask, don't tell is the only possible policy as long as the concept of marriage is understood as originating through the belief in God. God created the institution of marriage and the laws against sexually deviant behavior - no matter what anyone thinks about marriage or homosexuality, the US Government does NOT have the right to abolish the Word of God. (remember separation of church & state?)
If it were possible to include whoever you choose (for insurance benefits or whatever) then there would be no reason for the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. (except, maybe during Boot Camp as livewithrichard suggests below)The movement to legalize same-sex civil marriage was never about abolishing the "word of God" (whatever that means to you and your particular faith). Your church can choose to marry or not marry whatever it likes.
Legalizing same-sex marriage, to me, means abolishing the word of God. To me, it's simple. God created the institution of marriage, therefore, no human being on earth is able to alter it. But, does that mean there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships? I don't think so.
Then why do we allow divorce?
The Catholic Church doesn't, citing Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6. Should we use the Catholic Church's definition of marriage, then?Without going into detail, it's fairly simple. God created man & woman, created the institution of marriage, allowed divorce, and created laws against homosexuality. Plain and simple - No Government involvement. Any and all Government should stay out of it.
What a person does, homosexual or heterosexual, is between themselves, their partner(s) and God. If a government were to allow gay marriage, this would not change, but it would be a violation of the separation of church and state.The fact that the US government grants marriages outside any church whatsoever, and to divorcees, and also grants divorce, suggests the government's definition of civil marriage is distinct from that of any church's or religion's definition.
Nowhere do US states' definitions of marriage claim that it is a religious institution, which is why that argument has never been used in court hearings challenging prohibitions against marriage equality.
The separation between church and state means that no church can instruct the state how to define anything. It does not give churches the right to veto legislation.The separation of church and state works both ways - the church has no business in government affairs, and the government has no right to regulate religion.
I can't help it if lawmakers and activists are too blind to see that marriage is a religious institution and any laws created would violate first amendment rights. This is the reason gay marriage is such a hot issue - except nobody can see the underlying truth. Everyone would rather debate whether gays ought to have the right to marry - without considering the origin of marriage.
I personally think there's nothing wrong with gay relationships - gay or straight, married or not, being able to love another human being is most important.I agree that the government shouldn't regulate churches, and it doesn't. It doesn't even tax them, much less tell them who they're allowed to marry, how they administer rites, etc.
Sometimes church and state definitions of religion match up, sometimes they don't. The reason I gave you the example of the Catholic Church is that they are clear about divorce: they will not marry divorcees. The government does not impose the Catholic Church to marry them; to divorcees, they can choose another church or just get a civil wedding.
Many, if not most, churches will not recognize same-sex marriages or perform them. That's fine.
There are also over 1,100 rights afforded to married couples that gay people have no access to since they can not marry.There are also over 1,100 rights afforded to married couples that gay people have no access to since they can not marry
That is the point in my post - should these rights be given to gay couples? I agree and disagree...so, really, I think the laws regarding these rights need to change, rather than attempting to force religion to change the definition of a central institution.
If I were gay, and wanted to pay for my partner to have health insurance, why shouldn't I be able to? For that matter, as the parent of an adult child, if I wanted to pay for my adult child to have health insurance through my employer, then why not? It's my money isn't it? Why can't I spend it the way I want?There is an effort to make the government get out of licensing marriages altogether. All interested parties could get married at their church, but the state would not be involved whatsoever.
There is a reason why the government got involved, isn't there? Like, for the RH Factor or something? Whatever the reason, is it something the churches couldn't do themselves?
But, then again, there are non-religious people who believe in marriage. What would they do, if the only marriage available was through the church? What about the divorced Catholic who wants to remarry? They wouldn't be allowed if the state stepped back...I think there has to be another alternative.I thought marriage was the Word of God? Why would non-religious people want to get married, then?
Of course, the alternative does exist...America will just have to live up to its own ideals and allow gays and lesbians to get married, too.
lol - good catch!
(I'm not really the one who said it, ya know! I'm just repeating it!! lol)
So, if same-sex marriage was allowed by law there could be no Don't Ask Don't Tell policy within the military, and since the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion (along with separation of church and state) the government can't possibly tell 'religion' what it can or can't do regarding the definition of marriage. If same-sex marriage were to be re-defined, the church would have to do it, and the government would then have to abide the anti-discrimination laws and allow same-sex couples in the military. (gee, did I just repeat myself? I seem to do that a lot....for no reason)
So, like I said, I think there has to be another alternative.
Such as: You want so and so to receive your benefits? Sure, sign here. No Questions Asked other than - are you sure?
"If a government were to allow gay marriage, this would not change, but it would be a violation of the separation of church and state."
Wait, what? You just defeated your own argument. The only reasons against gay marriage are that God doesn't like it. Allowing gay marriage would not be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Making a religious leader perform a gay marriage against his or her convictions? That would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Forbiding gay people to marry? That's a violation of the separation of church and state, since the only real reasons anyone has against gay marriage are 1) it's icky and 2) God said don't do it.Please re-read my statements to find the origin of the definition of marriage.
Yeah, yeah, I understand your viewpoint:
"God created man & woman, created the institution of marriage, allowed divorce, and created laws against homosexuality. Plain and simple - No Government involvement. Any and all Government should stay out of it."
But the thing is, when people get married, not only is there a religious thing going on (and the religion in question might be Hinduism, by the way), there are also civil things occurring.
And people who aren't religious also deserve access to those civil things. So non-religious people (or religious people of different faiths) can get married by a Justice of the Peace and they're every bit as married, in the legal sense of the word, as a couple who gets married by a priest, minister, rabbi, High Druid, whatever.
Government only deals with the secular--that is, Eartlhy, not anti-religion--bits of marriage, like free access to the spouse, the (5th amendment) right not to incriminate your spouse, the right to make medical decisions for your spouse, etc. If there's anything that God does or doesn't want people to do in conjunction with marriage, then that's between the people involved, their God(s), and whatever church is going to do the marrying. Government should just be a rubber-stamper, and stay out of the business of who may and may not get married*.
I understand that you believe God doesn't want gay people to marry (each other). That's fine. You don't have to get married to a gay person. You don't even have to go to see gay people get married and wish them well. Anyone who would require or expect you to do this is a jerk. But you likewise don't get to stop two people from getting married simply because you [say that God] disapprove[s].
*Of course, the freedom to marry is and ought to be limited to informed, competent, consenting adults who are not close genetic relatives.But you likewise don't get to stop two people from getting married simply because you [say that God] disapprove[s].
This is where you are confused - I am not claiming to have the ability to prevent same-sex marriage. I am saying the originator of marriage chose not to include same-sex couples in the marriage definition, and is the only Being that has the right to change the definition of marriage.
Considering this - I feel a new alternative needs to be created. Religious Marriage. Civil Marriage/Union - (how can it be called a marriage??) Same-Sex Unions. All with the same civil rights - any question on religious rights would have to be answered by the Church.
"Legalizing same-sex marriage, to me, means abolishing the word of God."
No it isn't. And even if it were, in a secular republic, it doesn't matter.
Nobody is going to be invalidating your straight marriage. Legalizing gay marriage isn't going to change you marital status one bit. You're still going to be married, both in the eyes of God and the eyes of the law.
The legalization of gay marriage will allow gay people to get married in the eyes of the law. What god says about it isn't the law's business.??? How can you possibly tell me what legalizing same-sex marriage means to me??
Nothing was said about the status of straight marriage, nor any threat to the validation of a straight marriage.
The point I'm making is this: Marriage was created and defined by God as the union of a man and a woman. Government has no business trying to change the word of God."How can you possibly tell me what legalizing same-sex marriage means to me??"
Just like this: if you're married, and then two guys get married, you'll still be married.
I say that because it is true: other people getting married does not affect the marital status (or the sanctity or lack thereof) of yet other people. On a practical, legal, Earthly level, legalizing gay marriage will mean exactly nothing to anyone who isn't gay.
"Nothing was said about the status of straight marriage, nor any threat to the validation of a straight marriage."
Okay, fair enough: you haven't said gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. Sorry for lumping you in with the folks that do say that. I wouldn't want to be confused with those folks either, so I sincerely apologize.
"Marriage was created and defined by God as the union of a man and a woman. Government has no business trying to change the word of God."
Okay, but the counterpoint I was making is this: Government isn't trying to change the word of God. Nobody's going through the Bible with a red pen and dictating to churches or individuals what they have to believe. When/if someone starts doing that, I'll be denouncing them just as hard as I denounce the anti-gay marriage folks.
And by the way, even if Government were trying to change the word of God, do you even believe that it could? I don't.Rafini said: "Legalizing same-sex marriage, to me, means abolishing the word of God."
Jeff said: No it isn't. And even if it were, in a secular republic, it doesn't matter.
Rafini said: "How can you possibly tell me what legalizing same-sex marriage means to me??"
Jeff said: Just like this: if you're married, and then two guys get married, you'll still be married.
Let's get this straight, okay? I understand if gay marriage were legal, and I were married, I would still be married. My own marital status wouldn't change. However, that is not what I said.
I said - Legalizing same-sex marriage, to me, means (is equivalent to) abolishing the word of God.
So, let's put it this way - To me, legalizing same-sex marriage is equivalent to abolishing the word of God, and the Government has no right to do so.
I said:
But you likewise don't get to stop two people from getting married simply because you [say that God] disapprove[s].
Raifini said:
"This is where you are confused - I am not claiming to have the ability to prevent same-sex marriage. I am saying the originator of marriage chose not to include same-sex couples in the marriage definition, and is the only Being that has the right to change the definition of marriage.
Considering this - I feel a new alternative needs to be created. [snip]"
Oh, I see where you're coming from now. Gay people can get married, as long as they don't call it "getting married."
Is that about right?lol - something like that. I have an issue with atheists getting married too because it doesn't make sense. A marriage is a legally binding religious contract, an atheist doesn't believe in God/Religion so how can they put themselves into a religious contract? - Or, should an atheist be forced to live without the ability to form a meaningful yet legally binding contract based on a loving relationship - just because they don't believe in God?
This is where I think Civil Unions come into play - for the atheist, for the divorced Catholic (unless they choose to be married through a different church), and for same-sex unions."I have an issue with atheists getting married too because it doesn't make sense. A marriage is a legally binding religious contract, an atheist doesn't believe in God/Religion so how can they put themselves into a religious contract?"
Rafini, why do the actions of two strangers who aren't harming, defrauding, or stealing from each other even matter to you? I mean, I get that it doesn't make sense to you for two atheists to get 'married,' but why does it matter to you that the government lets them do so?
If Congress passed legislation that says "eating shellfish shall no longer be considered an abomination unto the Lord," would that change the abomination status of the act of eating shellfish? Is God subject to the decrees of Earthly leaders? Would it change your opinion on the practice of shellfish-eating? Would it require you to eat shellfish in opposition to your own belief?
Why should religious people try to force others not to call their lifelong commitment to each other "marriage?"
Not even close to the same thing. Read what Brenda said. Additionally, it was not a "law covered under the UCMJ", because the UCMJ only applies/ied to military personnel. You can't hold someone accountable to something that doesn't apply to them. In your reference meaning to individuals not even in the military yet.
So, which is it? are military members supposed to,
"following orders from your superiors, without commenting or even complaining about the orders."
or decide when they don't like the orders to try and change them?What is a perversion to you is a way of living to others. Even if you choose to believe that homosexuality is purely a psychological exercise, that still doesn't give anyone the right to decide for others the rightness of a choice between consentual adults. In the life of Christ, the belief that a man, any man, could be the embodiment of the divine was considered a gross perversion.
While I am not christian, I would fight loudly and at length for your right to see it otherwise and would denounce anyone who saw fit to stand judgement over your choice. You're a (assumed) consenting adult making your own decisions about your life. I'd do the same about smoking in the privacy of your home despite finding the habit despicable. To me, that is the heart of what american 'freedom' is about.
Ediggity - Which is it? Both.
Military members are expected to follow orders from their superiors without comment or complaint unless given leave by a superior to speak otherwise... but they, like any other citizen, do retain the right to take part in the governmental processes of the United States. A right which is not superceded by even the orders of your superiors. This is demonstrated by the fact that your superior cannot order you to abstain from voting or select your vote for you.
When acting as a soldier, they are expected to follow orders without question or comment. When acting as a citizen, they are expected to formulate their views upon the political landscape and the direction they feel best serve their country and to act upon those views. The responsibility of the military member is to understand when they are acting as each and align their responses properly.It's sad that people like you post things like this. You are part of the problem:
"Military members are expected to follow orders from their superiors without comment or complaint unless given leave by a superior to speak otherwise... but they, like any other citizen, do retain the right to take part in the governmental processes of the United States. A right which is not superceded by even the orders of your superiors. This is demonstrated by the fact that your superior cannot order you to abstain from voting or select your vote for you."
The only thing that is semi accurate about that statement is that military members have the right to vote. The rest will require you to do a little reading to find out what military members can and can not do with regards to the "governmental process"
And please don't try to imply what is or is not "perversion" to me. I can speak and write for myself thanks."The rest will require you to do a little reading to find out what military members can and can not do with regards to the "governmental process""
Please, educate me. I appreciate references. I had been working off of the assumption that Article 88 of the UCMJ and and DoD Directive 1344.10 provided me an adequate understanding of what the US Military's stance on politics amongst military members constituted, but if I've missed some good old-fashioned required reading I would love to become more fluent on the issue. Based on these standards, a military member is expected to act in political matters only as a private citizen, never as a member of of their branch and to abstain from partisan efforts and actively taking part in organized movements. The right to act as an individual, private citizen is carefully avoided in the rights curtailed... but if I've missed something, you feel free to cite it for me.
For the record, I was not referring to what you thought was perversion, I was referring to Brenda's statement earlier in the thread and the general sentiment which went unquestioned in it, and more specifically aimed the part intended for you in particular with your name leading it. My apologies if I suggested your views were something other than what they are.Normally, i wouldn't use a site such as about dot com for a source, but they actually do a decent job summing up on their military politics piece.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military … litics.htm
Have fun. in addition to your references.Yeah, they agree with exactly what I said. Might want to read more carefully.
No, this is what you said:
"Military members are expected to follow orders from their superiors without comment or complaint unless given leave by a superior to speak otherwise... but they, like any other citizen, do retain the right to take part in the governmental processes of the United States. A right which is not superceded by even the orders of your superiors. This is demonstrated by the fact that your superior cannot order you to abstain from voting or select your vote for you."
Military members DO NOT "retain the right to take part in the governmental processes of the United States." like any other citizen. There is a whole list of things they can and can not do which does not apply to "any other citizen", so I think you should re-read your sources, and work on comprehension, because they do not "agree" with you.
"The military wants its personnel to participate in our democratic process -- within limits. DOD encourages active duty military members to vote, and has established several programs to help active duty personnel to register and cast absentee ballots. What career military officer or senior NCO has never had to pull a stint as unit "voting officer," or "voting NCO?" But, when it comes to actively campaigning for a specific political candidate or partisan objective, the military draws the line."
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military … litics.htm"I had been working off of the assumption that Article 88 of the UCMJ and and DoD Directive 1344.10 provided me an adequate understanding of what the US Military's stance on politics amongst military members constituted, but if I've missed some good old-fashioned required reading I would love to become more fluent on the issue. Based on these standards, a military member is expected to act in political matters only as a private citizen, never as a member of of their branch and to abstain from partisan efforts and actively taking part in organized movements. The right to act as an individual, private citizen is carefully avoided in the rights curtailed... but if I've missed something, you feel free to cite it for me."
Selective hearing must be a curse.Yeah, especially when you try to amend your statements. More like selective writing and memory on your part. Additionally, I can't hear anything you write or wrote, so selective hearing doesn't make any sense just like most everything else you type. Quit being a sea lawyer. The bottom line is the rights of the military member vs those of "any other citizen" are not the same.
These Generals may be thinking about unity through morality. If most of the servicemen and women support morality then there is a conflict of interest. Otherwise, let them serve.
There's a bunch of old soldiers who think war is for 'real men' and negros can't be soldiers - oops - Colin Powell proved that wrong.
Well, women in the military would wreck morale. What, women are real soldiers? real officers? in real combat jobs? Damn...
Well, whose left to keep out of the military - this is supposed to be an exclusive club for real men? homos? OK - we can keep them out and that makes us 'real men' and superior to somebody.I think that most people forget that the majority of our enlisted military, especially the infantry, are very young (18 - 23) And if you have never been in the military or been to Boot Camp then you have no idea of the mind-washing that occurs. In Boot Camp, a soldier's innocence and free will is replaced with a disciplined (like a beaten dog) orders-following mindset that is, yes, trained to kill people.
Males and females do not do Boot Camp together not because of Unit Cohesion but because of Social Cohesion which refers to the nature and quality of the emotional bonds of friendship, liking, caring, and closeness among group members and the sharing of a common path.
Military males and females work well together not because of Unit Cohesion but because of Task Cohesion which refers to the shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group.
Clearly, Gays can perform the tasks of any job they are trained for and Task Cohesion will allow the military to excel at its mission.
I'm of the opinion that Don't ask Don't tell should remain in place until after the soldier has finished Boot Camp and Advanced Training. Not because they need to prove themselves but to maintain the Social Cohesion through out the training period. After training, their sexuality should have no bearing on their career so long as no fraternization between enlisted and commissioned soldiers takes place.What you said about the Boot Camp thing makes sense to me. I'm a gay man, and I would never join the military myself, because I don't believe that killing people over our so-called freedom is worth the price of lives lost for what? Has there ever really been a winner? I don't think so. Just a whole lot of misery and constant questioning of if those involved are right.
But, I would say to those gay people who want to join, prove yourself. Be ok with allowing the military to give you a trial period, to see how you handle it and work with your unit. If you pass with flying colors, you should have every right to continue on with your duties without conflict over your identity. They kick people out for a lot of reasons during boot camp, why shouldn't being gay be one of them?
Then once you pass boot camp, they could NOT use your sexuality as a reason to give you the boot. Of course we know they will come up with a ghost reason to kick you out. But, you will at least know that they gave you the chance to try.
I know several gay people who have been in the military who left at their own will. They say that there are a lot of known gay people in the service, it is just never talked about, and they are part of the unit, and nobody really cares. It is usually someone from outside the unit that is on a witch hunt that finds the gays and boots them.
I heard there are even soldiers who routinely bait gay soldiers, and entrap them, with the sole purpose of getting them out. No one is sure if the ones who are doing the queer baiting are under orders. But, the former military guys I talked to seemed to think that they are.
One reason why I would never join.
Gays, and recently lesbians, have been serving in the military since the invention of the military. We went through this same BS back during the Civil War over the argument of letting blacks in the military, even though blacks served in our previous wars. The Military and same sex marriage bans shouldn't be an issue. These bans is discrimination at it's finest!
The transparent plan of the Scammers is to let gays into the military, so that the services can't meet their recruiting goals, so the Scammers can re-enstate the draft, then offer exemptions to the draft that clearly exclude heterosexuals, then send all the gays off to a conventional land war in Asia to get turned into hambuger.
You clearly put a lot of thought into your response.
It was on the news today that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the time has come to repeal DADT and insisted that reversing the policy would not be as 'wrenching' as many have feared.
Of course, Gates himself is a lame duck, having announced his plan to retire in 2011. (Is that January 1st or some date as yet unspecified?) So probably his opinion is no doubt discounted/ignored.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/Someone's sexual preference does not affect how they perform in ANYTHING. A gay man is just as capable as a straight, and a straight is just as capable as a gay.
To refuse or discharge a perfectly able, qualified, and skilled individual simply because they are a homosexual is a complete waste. It's like not hiring someone because they tested positive for pot. Very competent and proficient candidates are fired (or never hired) because they smoke. Similarly, gay soldiers are excluded, squandering potential any potential these men and women may possess.
Why shun individuals who are skilled and useful at the job you need them to perform? It doesn't make sense.There is a reason that combat troops are against repealing DADT. For any of you that have served as a combat troop, you know why. It's not about ability to do the job. It really isn't. The issue is, you have to shower, sleep, and just plain live in VERY close quarters. Let us not forget, that combat units are groomed to be hostile. It's not the boyscouts. They live and train to kill people. Even in peace time, life is made difficult to help form unity and toughness. I think at the combat level, it will effect troop cohesion.
All the gay men I know are not interested in harassing hetero men. Why put yourself through homophobic hate? Get real. If a homosexual man hits on a hetero sexual (yes, I know it happens) then there are some problems. And those types of problems run through humanity, not just homosexuals.
Hetero men make advances which are clearly unwanted on women, and sometimes on girls. It always goes both ways.
Point is, in GENERAL, homosexual men have the decency and courtesy NOT to hit on their hetero friends and coworkers. Hetero men, however, seem to have less sense of appropriate boundaries in hitting on women in such circumstances.That's completely irrelevant to this thread. I think you may be outing yourself as one who is less tolerant, because clearly there are people who served in the military posting on this thread who do NOT share your feelings.
It was pointed out that combat units are against it. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of the examples of people being okay with it were not from combat units.
I don't care what a person's preferences are. I am just not sure how much it could effect unit cohesion in units that are full of young aggressive males.
"If a homosexual man hits on a hetero sexual (yes, I know it happens) then there are some problems."
Not always. I've been hit on by gay men a couple times in the past. I turned them down. End of story. There was no problem.yeah, right?
Like - it's astonishing! If some gay guy hit on me (not that they would, I'm not much of a looker)... It really wouldn't take that much to end the "issue at hand".
"Dude, I like girls. I'll buy ya a beer, though"
Ta-da. Everyone's happy
Men have to realize that all gay men are not going to be interested in having sex with them just because they see them naked...
If you took a shower with 40 guys, do you think you might notice 1 you'd like to have sex with? (40 women if you're gay?)
Uninvited...
Its not the "all" I'm concerned about. It is the "one" who decides to make an unwelcomed smart ass comment who will cause the problem.
He'll end up in the bottom of a foxhole then all hell will break loose.Many of these same arguments were used against using women in combat roles.
At least women get seperate showers and living quarters. Should we just combine all of them? I still haven't seen any women in the infantry either.
True, and the same arguments before that were used against allowing blacks to serve in integrated units with whites. What the opponents are really saying is that there are enough prejudiced men and women in the military to cause significant problems. The answer to that is to expell them if they cause trouble, not the gay and lesbian men and women.
It is a shame that patriots who want to serve their country cannot simply because of who they choose to love. Shame.
It doesn't even matter what the majority of enlisted men think. It's the right thing to do. If we went by polls, there would be no blacks, Jews, women etc. in the military today. That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights, so that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of a minority.Who said gay patriots couldn't serve? All that is required is to leave your sexuality out of it. When I was in the military we didn't have a lot of heterosexuals running around telling everyone their sexual preference.
"If we went by polls, there would be no blacks, Jews, women etc. in the military today."
What polls are these? Could you direct me to them?If a soldier states that he or she is heterosexual, does he/she risk being discharged?
Are gerbils included in the standard issue field pack?Just do a little looking on the Net. NPR reported that when Truman integrated the military 65% of white service members opposed serving with blacks. That didn't slow Truman down one bit. And despite the resistance integration proceeded with few problems.
Truman? Really?
You want me to go back 60 Years or more for proof of how attitudes are today?
Times and feelings have changed a little in the last 60 years.
They really have...It's true that attitudes have changed. Nobody's advocating re-segregating the military, but a few diehards in the military are opposing the repeal of don't ask don't tell.
"If Truman had followed opinion in the military, he would never have issued Executive Order 9981. (Indeed, perhaps, as shown below, he would have created separate platoons for Jewish and non-Jewish soldiers.) Nevertheless, he did issue 9981–despite the objections of an overhwelming majority of the views of white service members and even though 1948 was an election year, one in which his future in the White House was very much in doubt. Truman chose to lead rather than follow, a lesson that President Bill Clinton chose to ignore in 1993, when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented."
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/7/ … -dont-tell
Within two weeks of his election, Truman issued Executive Order 9981, racially integrating the U.S. Armed Services.[130][131][132] Truman took considerable political risk in backing civil rights, and many seasoned Democrats were concerned that the loss of Dixiecrat support might destroy the Democratic Party. The fear seemed well justified—Strom Thurmond declared his candidacy for the presidency and led a full-scale revolt of Southern "states' rights" proponents. This revolt on the right was matched by a revolt on the left, led by former Vice President Henry A. Wallace on the Progressive Party ticket. Immediately after its first post-FDR convention, the Democratic Party found itself disintegrating. Victory in November seemed a remote possibility indeed, with the party not simply split but divided three ways.Indeed. Now gays have got to where black people were in the era of Truman.
"When I was in the military we didn't have a lot of heterosexuals running around telling everyone their sexual preference."
I call BS. You and your fellow soldiers never talked about your girlfriends/wives? Never got married? Never participated in or attended each others' weddings? If you mentioned your girlfriend, you told your sexual preference. If you mentioned your wife, you told your sexual preference. And I'm sure that at least some of your fellow soldiers talked about their girlfriends/wives. How? Because guys talk about their girlfriends/wives, whether to brag or to complain or to just bond with their fellow guys.
Don't ask, don't tell... More like, don't care!
I can care less if someone is a homosexual or not, I have my own things to worry about. I'm not on earth to tell them what to like. It is good to see that most people are like this as well, great news!This "close quarters" stuff is nonsense...
From the first day of Marine bootcamp on, we were in close quarters....90 men taking showers together, stripped naked together...and it was known that we had homosexuals in our unit...
When I was at my first station, in Arizona, it was more of the same...
In fact, the way our sergeants and other higher nco's put it, if you go to a gay bar, march in a gay parade, have gay pornography or sex toys, etc, it was your own business...they way they put it, "you could be doing research"....and they didn't care...
In Hawaii we had openly gay members of my battalion, and no one cared....(except for the officers and senior enlisted that this guy secretly video recorded having sex with him)...
Being a former Marine, and knowing that the Marines have a higher percentage of homosexuals than any of the other services, any talk about "the troops don't likt it....close quarters"...is nonsense...
Ultimately, it comes down to the man or woman next to you following training..protecting one another, taking down the enemy...surviving in a traumatic situation (combat) and living to fight another day....
Keeping homosexuals "in fear" helps the power of senior enlisted and officers who are gay..... If they find a "toy" (soldier/marine/etc.) that they like....(and the person isn't smart like that Marine I was telling you about) then the higher ranks can take advantage of you....and they do...
Imagine being gay and being a young enlisted man or woman....and imagine that there was an officer who was also gay...if the officer wanted to abuse the young enlisted sexually....it could definitely happen.. Then the young enlisted man or woman would have to shut his or her mouth about what happened, or risk being "outed" in some way...
By the way, many, if not most, homosexuals in the military look for a way out of living in the barracks, or on base period...
They often set up sham marriages....meaning a homosexual man or woman marries a heterosexual of the opposing gender, and they get to live off base in privacy...without fear of inspections...
Of course, military members get extra pay for living off base....so its a win-win situation...
This is a loophole that must be closed.... If we are interested in saving money...right?Thanks for sharing. Yep, speaking for my little corner of the military, the US Army Field Artillery, there's more gays than straights, especially the officers. I mean, for real , it's a gay pickup line at off-base bars to ask "Are you an officer?"
The biggest problem with gays in the military is the way the constant stress of living a secret, double life affects their duty performance. They might get all confused and sell a pile of secret documents ot Wikileaks, for example. Get rid of DADT, that problem goes away.
But really, nobody cares. All this hooplah is just meant to stir the pot and distract us while the Banksters steal all our money.How long were you on ship sharing a berthing area with 100 other jarheads? I spent 4 years in the infantry and didn't know any gay Marines. If they were and kept it to themselves I don't care. And judging by your duty stations, I'm guessing you weren't in the infantry, which is mostly what I've been talking about.
Here's the real problem:
"I heard there are even soldiers who routinely bait gay soldiers, and entrap them, with the sole purpose of getting them out. No one is sure if the ones who are doing the queer baiting are under orders. But, the former military guys I talked to seemed to think that they are."
This will disappear when Don't ask don't tell is repealed and proper command leadership is applied.
I agree with most of what you wrote Mikelong but like I wrote above, being openly gay during the training period of Boot Camp will cause problems with the social cohesion of the group. You said "..and it was known that we had homosexuals in our unit..." Can you honestly say it was accepted by all in your unit? A small handful may not have had a problem with it but face it, they mostly immature kids, at that time.
Granted, I've been out of the service since before Don't Ask Don't Tell was around (I got out of the Army in 1990) but the fact remains that the kids that are going through Boot Camp today are of the same mindset as the kids that bullied a gay student to commit suicide last month.
I believe that once they are finished with training and possibly Advanced training, they will be better prepared and disciplined to accept alternative lifestyles as equals.With proper leadership there will be few problems. I've worked with gays and never been hit on once. That's a non-issue. I was hit on once when I was a teen ager at a hotel pool. The guy was not obnoxious. He just made a couple of comments about my sun tan and engaged me in conversation. He gave up when it became apparent to him that I wasn't interested.
My workstation was the rear of a Light Armored Vehicle...
MEWWs platoon of 1st Radio Battalion roll with the Light Armored Regiments...
I've shared foxholes....and small, tight quarters with other men...
We also have Radio Recon...our Bravo Company...
Feel free to check out 1st Radio Battalion...the most deployed unit in the United States Marine Corps.
The grunts "worried" about the "gays" have been relying on us and our "gays" for half a century....and just realize that these men were in those berthings with you..Well, no they weren't. And if they were, they weren't talking about it or acting on it etc. Which is fine. To be honost, if they came out that they were gay after they've been through training with all these guys, it would probably not be as big of a deal. But, coming into boot camp being open, just makes things complicated from the start.
sidenote: Since when does the Marine Corps have foxholes? Foxes hide in holes. Marines fight from holes. That's why they're fighting holes.
Evidently, Wayne, different terms are used by different people...
I've used both terms....
Again, concerning bootcamp....there's no time, place, or privacy for sexual activity....Apparently you were unaware that the Navy tried mixing the sexes during boot camp. It didn't last long. Apparently there was plenty of time. The Army and Airforce tried it as well.
Don't assume anything Mr. Wright....
I know all about this...
I can also tell you that their bootcamps are completely different from the Corps....and anyone having any sex, legal or otherwise, would be subject to punishment...
If I left my barracks (again, in bootcamp..which would be pretty darn impossible seeing that there at least 3 are people on guard duty 24/7 in every squad bay)..to go meet up with a female on base, and I got caught, there would be hell to pay...
Though I believe you state that you had been in the military, your comments make me wonder....
With the way time is managed, the type of oversight that the D.I.'s have, and the intensity of training, the guys I was with had no time to use "happy socks" by themselves let alone try to find some place to get it on with someone... In fact,most of the guys couldn't even "get it up" throughout the duration of bootcamp.... I know there were a lot of allegations that there was saltpeter in the food and such...
I remember when this one particular recruit in my platoon actually became arroused... It was shower time, which meant that all 90 of us guys were either completely naked, or just wearing little towels around ourselves, and this one guy came in all excited... He said "Hey guys! Look at this!!" and he pulled off his towel to show everyone his "excitement"....everyone thought it was hilarious....plus, it gave them hope that their "junk" would start working again too...
Again.....homosexuals have been in the military since there was a military....
When I hear people complain about the "gays" it becomes very clear that there is a personal problem with the complaining individual as opposed to the larger issue.....
If there is an insecurity problem then that individual must have a few internal "quandries" to work out....
The way so many Marines play "grab-ass" with one another.....it is clear to me that homosexuality is not an issue at all...
Also, there is that wonderful term itself..."grab-ass"...
"Hey Marines! When you two are done playing grab-ass with each other perhaps you would like to join our formation?" ---I can't put a number on how many times I've heard that line....
"Grab-ass"...sounds pretty homosexual to me already....Doubt my service if you wish. I didn't make anything personal. I simply stated fact. Co-ed Boot Camps were tried and failed in the Navy, Army and Air Force. The USMC, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY never made an attempt. You will have to agree that the Marine Corps is not the most "Progressive" of the armed services. I have 20 years in the DOD, ten in the Navy, by the way.
Of course there have always been gays, homosexuals as you prefer in the Military. I have served with several. As I stated had no problems with them. Most were above average in fact. You, having served in the Corps should know better than most what that enviroment is like. You can't seriously tell me that open homosexuality will be readily accepted in the Marine Corps.
I'm in favour of a DADT policy for homophobes. Don't share your homophobic opinions and you won't be asked about them. If you're so insecure that sharing close quarters with a gay soldier affects your service, get out of the military. You can shoot and kill and blow people up, but you get squeamish if a gay guy gets too close? Give me a break.
I'm in favor of allowing military people, period, to do their duties and their jobs without bringing their drama-queen antics into it. This issue should've never even become an issue at all.
My God! We have two on-going wars and soldiers are giving their lives both literally and time-wise to protect this Country, and yet the gay agenda wants to become the center of attention. Such carp! Who gives a darn what their fetishes are!? They need to focus on doing their jobs instead of claiming "civil rights" to perform unnatural sex acts. Drama! Drama! Everything isn't ABOUT THEM, though they want to make it that way.
I am also in favor of legislating that calling someone who opposes the gay agenda a "homophobe" is hate speech. Heterophobia is what's caused this controversy in the first place, hatred for abiding by God's laws and the natural laws of man.When you insist being gay is a "fetish" and that it's all about "drama queen antics," you fully deserve the label "homophobe." Straight people don't leave their sexual orientation at home when they go off to serve in the military. They talk about their wives, girlfriends and families. When they return home, the media broadcasts their reunions and celebrates with them as they hug and kiss the ones they love. But a gay man wants the simple right not to be forced into the closet and he's told to shut up and know his place? Nonsense and bigotry.
The gay agenda is not the issue, the number of soldiers being thrown out of the army even though most 'didn't tell' but were 'found out'. Thats about 500 willing and fully trained soldier in the last year being thrown out of the service while territorials are doing multiple tours.
*That's* "carp".So, yeah, the ever-oppressed gay soldier gets the attention, while the straight soldier whose psyche and morale is diminished by a fellow soldier who wants to claim rights to perversion has no rights to an environment where his moral compass is held in place. Truth is that, just like any issue, when the moral foundation is allowed to crack, the whole institution starts coming down. You may think a politically-correct military is gonna be strong, but you are wrong. If a gay soldier has any moral strength, he/she will stop whining about twisted "rights" and start being a real soldier. Male soldiers whose temptations are toward other males have no business putting themselves or others into that situation, just like female soldiers have no business bunking with male soldiers. There are other ways to support our military without trying to insert that paradox into it.
When one group's so-called right to liberty infringes upon another group's actual right to liberty, injustice ensues and chaos begins. The machine crumbles. THAT is the agenda and will be the end result of this whole mess, if people don't wake up and stand up for what is morally right. There is no legitimate pride in immorality. And each person should have the integrity to limit their behavior on that scale. They used to. But the liberal agenda has jumped that fence, with the help of the majority of rebellious people who want to dance in the streets while our soldiers die in the field."while the straight soldier whose psyche and morale is diminished by a fellow soldier who wants to claim rights to perversion has no rights to an environment where his moral compass is held in place."
What utter nonsense are you spewing now? Do you have even one example of a straight soldier who has been 'traumatized' by a gay one? One real-world example, that's all I ask.
Even if you weren't speaking hypothetically, the proper response to this kind of harassment is the same as the proper response to heterosexual sexual harassment: the harasser gets a court-martial, and if found guilty, gets a dishonorable discharge.
- Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago
0AND for those people who have been wrongfully dismissed (if one is to assume they have been), on the basis of human rights (not "gay rights"), there should indeed be a recourse for them to regain their status as soldiers or have their names cleared and any perpetuators of physical violence prosecuted. But those cases should have never ever been the catalyst for this mountain of nonsense that's been allowed to invade our military system and our Nation in general. The wave of "civil rights" activism that's being allowed now is hogwash. All a person has to do is claim they're being bullied and some greedy lawyer will fit them into a little niche of "minorities" or "oppressed" groups of people just to make a name for himself or line his own pockets. It's ridiculous.
"The wave of "civil rights" activism that's being allowed now is hogwash."
Yes, people should just shut up and conform, right?People should shut up their mouths from spouting advocacy for perverted ideas, thereby conforming to the moral laws of God AND man, yes.
There was a time when people actually were held (and held themselves) accountable about good manners and integrity, whether they liked it or not.Perverted ideas in whose opinion? Mine is that you and your interpretation of your religion are perverted and hurtful to the country as a whole. The constitution protects my opinion as much as yours.
There was a time when people remembered that their beliefs and religions aren't the only ones that shaped the world, whether they liked it or not."People should shut up their mouths from spouting advocacy for perverted ideas, thereby conforming to the moral laws of God AND man, yes."
Excellent. Do you also have a plan for making the trains run on time?
I absolutely believe that homosexuals can exist openly...
If we have to base our society on appeasing bigots then what kind of nation is this?
What is even worse is that by backing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" one is encouraging people to keep themselves back from their unit.... Hide....lead a secret life...don't be honest with your team...don't be honest openly about who you are...
Really? Be a good "hider"?
There is no way to compare co-ed bootcamp to homosexuality in the military...
For those who point to the problems with the co-ed Army and Airforce, I knew airmen and soldiers who had sex while in bootcamp....but, I also look at the average basic training of the airmen and soldiers after bootcamp as well....My training schools were mostly joint-service...and I spent extensive time on both Army posts and Navy bases.... I assess the discipline standards (as well as pride) to be low compare to the Corps...
This isn't going to turn into an inter-service rivaly posting....however...
Brenda...you can keep creating the "demoralized heterosexual" military man/woman...but this isn't the reality...
In terms of perversion (which is what Brenda has commonly used to define homosexuality) I witnessed far more heterosexual debauchery in my service time to fill volumes.....
From senior enlisted taking advantage of lower rated women (who were drunk out of their minds), to the "hogging" crowd who competed each weekend to see who could "bang" the fattest girl (and they had trophies), to the two o'clock in the morning in a Denny's completely blasted (not me, mind you..I look out for my fellow Marines with a sober mind only) talking dirty to a guy in a dress, to the guy who brags about the "mother-daughter combo" he scored....... I have seen it all... Including the verbal abuse of women who didn't "put out"... They would still be called "sluts" to their faces and behind their backs....the spread rumors about which girls had what std's and which sexual acts which Marine did to whatever girl...
I remember showing up in Arizona, being handed my check-in sheet, and then being told, unofficially, that the Air Force barracks was right down the road, and every Marine male gets two "Air Matresses"...meaning two girls to play with...
I remember well my detachment in Arizona...200 Marines, 195 of which were male...whenever a new female showed up the guys would be lined up out the door to try to help her with her stuff....and then the competition would begin to see who would "score" on her first.... I have seen it all....
I can go on from here, and in much more graphic detail...
I think the military culture could use some real change...and it starts with being honest with how sexuality is used in the military...and the privilege of the heterosexual archetype...
While I am not gay, I firmly believe that it is time to acknowledge a civil rights issue when we see one..... It you are a sexual bigot, then that is your issue....at least your intolerance will be exposed...and then perhaps you can become more "civilized"..... Who wants to live in a society of wanton hate-mongers?
What "happens on float" does not always "stay on float."The military is an all volunteer force. Every military member takes an oath and is fully explained the policies, rules, regulations, and orders. DADT shouldn't even be an issue of repeal, because it is a policy under direct order enforced by the UCMJ. If one doesn't like the policies, rules, regulations, and orders then don't volunteer, and if you do volunteer don't complain.
I'll add that, frankly, DADT is effectively just like saying no gays in the military. I know from first-hand experience the stress and anxiety of trying to keep my sexual orientation a secret; did it until I was in my mid-twenties. Can you imagine as a straight person going into the military and being told you can't let on you have a wife and family? That if anyone finds out, your career is history?
I didn't go, if by that you meant join the military. I was talking about keeping my orientation secret in general. And the question "Why join?" is just my point. You may as well ban gays all together as tell them they can join if they keep their orientation secret.
Illegal orders are not to be followed...and the same is with illegal/unconstitutional rules, even within the UCMJ...
- sandra rinckposted 13 years ago0
Every time I see the heading, "Don't ask- don't tell" I think, don't ask, don't lie.
ya know i served ten years in the military. i am a democrat which most people say is a liberal. but all that i know that are the same sre not in agreement with this, including me.
i saw the day when if you walked in a public restroom to use a urinal, they would walk right up while you were using it to look at you.all public bathrooms were filled with men hanging around and walking in the stall to look at you. that was strange. alot of the people talking here have no connection to the real world. you simply sit in the comfort of your home and make decisions.everyone wants to seem nice so you are being beaten down. the proponents of the repeal, act as though they just want to do their job and they will,but thats not the issue.
people not wanting blacks or, women in other positions in the military is not the same. for blacks they didn't want them because they did not like them period(predjudice),eventhough the blacks acted exactly like the whites in every way on and off duty, only a different color. for women they didn't think they could cut the mustard. they got the chance and they do great in the right positions. this is not the same. we are not concerned with their level of competency. it is not the issue nor has it ever been the issue. so people that try to use or compare the two are comparing apples to oranges.
first let me ask the women if they want to shower or use the bathroom with a bunch of guys looking at you everytime you do it? how about the men that are hitting on you can come and watch you shower even though you can't stand them?
at 4;30 on friday evening, the military looks like a college campus. everyone is in civi's heading downtown. by twelve you begin to see the drunks coming back home and that is where this social experiment is gonna break down. flamboyant as they are, you can expect to see every possible combination of things that make them gay in the bushes, in the barracks, in closets, accidently walked in on in rooms etc. i'm sure that their will be a pda rule(public display of affection) so that shouldn't occur wink wink but everyone will know. their will be leather pants with no butt in them walking through the barracks, lipstick on guys and as i said every possible combination. now monday when it's time to go on patrol who wants to go with who?
how about hitting on the women all day. well we know this happens so what did we do? we seperated them, an understandably so. now what will the seperation be?
i don't think there is anything insecure about this view.gays want the people to have an insecurity about it or they try to use it as a whipping point to "MAKE" them feel bad about it.
repealing this won't improve their soldiering skills, it won't improve the military. it will only give gays a license to do whatever they want around people that don't agree. i don't see any need for this especially ound people that have to live so close together and at such a young age.I remember countless times that, when having to use the urinal, we would be three deep on just one...blazing away hoping not to spray on the others...
No one was thinking about sex...no one was "checking the other guy out"....we just really had to "take one"....and we had "tennineeightsevensixfivefourthreetwoone!" seconds to be in formation..Not to intrude on your question to Rattigan, Joe, and I am in no way speaking for Rattigan...
But may I interject....
As we should know, the honorable discharge comes with free (nearly free) health care for life...
The G.I. Bill and enlistment bonuses cannot be gained in any civillian form....especially to a young person with little to no training/knowledge...
Three hots....very nice ones depending on where one is...and a cot...free travel...
The ability to get away from family, "home", start a new path...
To then say that "we really only want straight people, but will tolerate you "others" if you pretend not to exist".....is beyond ridiculous and justifiable....
The only hinderance of the repeal of DADT is the religious fundamentalists and their bigotry.... Again..why should we lower our standards to intellectual crevasses to appease their hate?
Let those who "don't like gays" stay home, and miss out on the education, health care, home loans, and numerous other benefits that truly honorable....meaning honest, reliable, and responsible...earn as their just reward...
Let their heaven be in heaven, and let the rest of us try to make some kind of heaven on Earth.....No it doesn't. I was honorably discharged and I did NOT get free or nearly free healthcare for life. In fact, I have been rejected several times for any healthcare whatsoever.
I totally agree with you Sandra. The cost would be prohibitive, and those who received an honorable discharge after serving less than a year would break the bank in no time!
mike the military started one way and everyone new what is was before they got there. i knew i would have a great many pushups to do, too many! i didn't get there and then try to turn the military around to my liking. that is all that is happening here for whatever reason you may say, but it boils down to gays wanting there lifestyles to be "ACCEPTED" by people that are not gay. according to the reason you just gave then we should allow the blind, mentally challenged, felons and anyone that wants va benefits in then huh.
that is their choice. i don't like it but,i'm cordial to them and i don't think this should be forced on a bunch of innocent hormone filled teenagers either and the answer from you to that would be. . .?
I and every veteran I know is able to enroll at a VA Hospital...
Depending on the amount of income one makes, there may be some co-pay....and for dental you have to pay for the tooth extraction, per se, but it is far cheaper than finding an outside dentist...
When did you serve?
(Don't mind the questions...I also used to work for the VA, so I am curious to find out why you are not covered)..
In terms of the GI Bill, it is optional...and it hasn't always been open for all... It used to be "white only".... My benefits paid one thousand dollars per month for two years..tax free..while I was in school... My military service opened a lot of doors...and not just for myself..
The benefits post-911 are phenomenal... I don't speak out of my own experiences, but the guys in my unit have all since come back, mostly earned bachelors if not post degrees, and one guy in particular is currently in Moscow going to school.... I met up with him before he ran off to the University of Chicago for graduate school....I couldn't believe how much money he was being given....
Again, I am curious as to why you have been rejected....Joe, you may not have sought to change a system, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't change...
Just imagine if African Americans in the military, Japanese, and others who had served just sat and took it when GI benefits went to whites following World War II and Korea....
"Oh well...the system didn't think I should have these benefits...who am I to change the system"....Really?
I'm not buying it.....
Its time for bigots to finally be outed for who they are, instead of giving them any cover to hide behind.... DADT is a travesty of law..ok i notice that you use the word bigot on anyone that doesn't agree with homosexuality. then i ask you to embrace heterosexuality and if you don't then you my friend are a bigot.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions, prejudices or group, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
i hear you name calling and what is the answer to my question?
my family has been in every war since the spanish american war, that we know of. we've never been denied benefits and neither have gays. however if you are court martialed for drugs, a crime or whatever the offense, you will not get those benefits. so maybe we should go back and get the awol, bad urin tested people. insubordinates, bad attitudes, conscientious objectors etc.
we start to digress. i just believe that removing dadt will begin to taint and create a seedy environment on our kids! is there anyone that can't understand that?"I just believe that removing dadt will begin to taint and create a seedy environment on our kids! is there anyone that can't understand that?"
I can understand that you believe that. I don't understand why you believe that. Can you explain exactly how the repeal of dadt will begin to taint [the military] and create a seedy environment?
Embrace heterosexuality?
Okay? I'm hugging myself? So what?
Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bigoted policy.....
Those who support it support bigotry...even if they themselves may not explicitly be bigots...
I would like to hear an argument against homosexuality that wouldn't involve some form of bigotry....
Sir...if you believe that removing DADT will result in a "seedy environment for our kids" you must have never served.....
Read a few of my posts in this thread where I share the evidently "wholesome" environment they are participating in...
In fact, I'll spread a bit more "family fun" for you....
When I was in "A" school there was a group of guys who liked to sneak into one anothers rooms (and the rooms of others) when they were asleep and take turns putting their "junk" on one anotner's faces...and worse.. One guy, after pt in the morning, would run upstairs, making sure he was the first one, just so he could strip naked and do various things with his "things" as we all walked by....
Again....this is heterosexual behavior....
And he was quite a popular guy amongst the entire Marine Detachment....and had his share of "air matressess"....he also would give girls different nicknames like "gonorreah"...which he would use to their faces...
Are you getting my drift Joe? I'm not making this stuff up..this was the "norm"....
How would two people of the same gender loving one another have a worsening affect?
To equate homosexuality to the use of illegal drugs is ludicrous....
How many wars your family has fought in, or how long your family has been here is irrelevant....
And I never called you a bigot...
But, I am very curious to find out why you think homosexuality is inappropriate....Looks like the Senate blocked the DADT repeal 57-40:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities … ilitary-/1I don't understand why homosexuals are a special class.
So why is there a need for them to be recognized by the military.
The military like any organization has its rules and regulations, and if you want to get in you apply.
If your application is accepted then you get in, and once in you have to follow the rules.
Is there anything about homosexuals that bestows a right?
There are only two things that make a homosexual.
1. Preference
2. Genetic Defect
Preference
We don't consider the Mormons preference for multiple wives a RIGHT.
We don't consider the people that prefer to have sex with animals or children as having a RIGHT
There is no Right to DRive A Vehicle, You need to get a license, and you have the meet the requirement.
There is no Right to get married, You need a license, and you have the meet the requiremens.
There is no Right to commit crimes because someone prefers that instead of working.
There isn't even a Right to have Sex, there are limits and requirements on that.
The point is that just because you prefer to do something doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional Right to do it.
GENETIC DEFECT
Many Babies are born with congenital defects, and as sad as that is they don't have any more Rights than babies born with out congenital defects.
The LGBT may just be a case of eggs that got confused and didn't follow the blueprint.
If that is the case, then we should treat LGBT in the same way that we treat anyone with congenital defects.
Defects here is not used in a derogatory or even inflammatory intent, it is mere a statement of malfunctions in DNA.
---------------
So where is the RIGHT for LGBT, other than possible protection against being persecution for admitting it. Sort of like being a Republican at a Democrat rally, or vice versa.
Remember these so called Rights are double edged swords that could also be applied to those other people preferences mentioned above.
If you want to reply to my comment, then at least answer to the questions here and not generalizations.
The main questions Preference or Genetic Defect or ?
What Right is being claimed?
BTW, I am not a HomoPhobe, I have no fear of them, I just disagree with them and their Rights, which generate mostly from the Left. ~:}
If prefer HomoNot.
ThanksI'll take the counterargument on this one.
Firstly, any argument that is based on the idea that the military takes in volunteers who accept its regulations is a reason why DADT is acceptable is bunk. Period.
That argument only works if it is being suggested that military members should disobey orders such as DADT because they believe differently. That has not been suggested (though I am sure there are liberals that might find this acceptable, they have not spoken in this thread).
The military regulations are a series of rules, limitations, expectations and operational guidelines which reflect the military's current beliefs about what constitutes a proper military, operation and soldier serving in the aforementioned groupings. These guidelines have never been set in stone nor suggested to be meant to be unchangeable. We (the nation) change them on a yearly basis in a variety of ways. So the idea that because the regulations state something it should be so, and that we should not question the wisdom of it because it lies within those regulations is both paradoxical and irrational.
Secondly, "preference" and "genetic defect"
PREFERENCE
It's ironic that you have listed most of the things you have, as there is a clear strain in legislative thinking about -all- of the things on your list : That limitations exist to protect the public against an action which is willfully or negligently dangerous to one or more individuals.
(Before I begin, I should state that the counterarguments here are sticking to fact, rather than my own opinions on any matters. I reserve my own opinions on many of these things.)
We don't consider the Mormons preference for multiple wives a RIGHT.
-Because the legislative thinking of the time witnessed cases of this displayed a serious trend of multiple women who lacked many of the rights of men of their time were being indoctrinated into polygamous relationships which left them at the mercy of the husband. This, coupled more importantly with a serious fear that mormonism in Utah was giving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints control over a frightening amount of land, resulted in the laws that you are referring to. It was not nearly as cut and dry as you've supposed and it would behoove you to avoid delving into certain legal stances that may be more questionable than you were aware.
We don't consider the people that prefer to have sex with animals or children as having a RIGHT
-Both of these are considered situations in which a nonconsentual party through lack of sentience or majority, is being harmed physically, emotionally and/or psychologically by coerced fornication. Again, another case of protecting from harm.
There is no right to drive A Vehicle, You need to get a license, and you have the meet the requirement.
-Again, the licensing process is specifically aimed at ensuring that an incredibly powerful weapon in the form of a ton-plus vehicle is being operated with full recognizance of the dangers and with training in proper operation. Of special note is that you -can- drive a vehicle in the united states without a license under a number of specific provisions. One example is the right to drive a vehicle on private land that is not intended for public access (such as a farm). In the united states, you can be eight and drive a thresher on a privately owned farm without a license.
There is no Right to get married, You need a license, and you have the meet the requirements.
-This is patently incorrect and plays on a common misunderstanding of US marriage laws. A civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same things. One can be religiously married by any church without any permission or jurisdiction from the government on any terms that you like. Only a civil marriage, which imparts a number of legal rights and expectations, requires a license. This is intended to protect the individuals involved from being forced into a legally binding contract which they may not fully understand or be capable of agreeing to under their own recognizance. Another case of protecting those who might otherwise be unable to protect themselves.
There is no Right to commit crimes because someone prefers that instead of working.
-You're absolutely right -- Because the fundamental idea of a crime is that it involves an action which harms another individual or the government in a clearly observable manner. Government's alllll about stopping that harm.
There isn't even a Right to have Sex, there are limits and requirements on that.
-Yes, there are limits and requirements.. such as consent by an individual who has reached their legal majority capable of answering in their own recognizance. In short : Limits and requirements which shield the parties involved from harm.
The point is that just because you prefer to do something doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional Right to do it.
-Actually, that's incorrect. The constitution specifically states that in the second sentence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The term liberty specifically refers to the constitutional right to be free, and the pursuit of Happiness refers to the constitutional right to seek what makes you happy. What follows after this are specific limitations upon when this is -not- the case, and detailing specific cases that it -especially- should be protected. The implicit statement here is : If we don't tell you otherwise in the form of a law, you have that right--and if a law prevents you and this is found incorrect, it can be changed.
GENETIC DEFECT
I would love to take this section seriously but... there's just no way that half of this isn't just plain group-based hate speech. If we assume that it is in fact a genotypic feature, then almost everything you've stated in here would never be tolerated if compared to other features. If it is genetic, then try switching the topic of this section to 'black' or 'female' instead of 'homosexual' and see how that goes over. I don't think I need to state anything else about that.
The idea that this is a defect is similarly uninformed. Genetics does indeed have a definition of the word 'defect' but it isn't what you seem to think.
"Defects here is not used in a derogatory or even inflammatory intent, it is mere a statement of malfunctions in DNA."
No, a malfunction in DNA is called a mutation and is indeed not derogatory or inflammatory... a -defect- refers to a mutation which is detrimental to the survival of a species. As homosexuals have proven that they are capable of sexually reproducing even if it goes against their desires, it is unlikely that you could find an accredited geneticist willing to use that term when discussing the potential issue, anymore than they would suggest that frog species that exhibit periodic explosive growth of asexual members is a 'defect'.
BTW : When someone calls refers to a HomoPhobe, this is usually a misunderstanding. You may think they are referring to a fear of homosexuals as the word suggests. They aren't usually. They are using the term homophobe as a euphemism for hate-filled ignorant bigot, because the person attempts to use weak logical arguments, incomplete understandings of science and the ever fun tool of religion (something that nobody is expected or required to accept, much less respect) to argue a stance. Perhaps you would be wise to reconsider your stance on being called a homophobe. It sounds so much nicer.
You're welcome.Firstly, any argument that is based on the idea that the military takes in volunteers who accept its regulations is a reason why DADT is acceptable is bunk. Period.
That argument only works if it is being suggested that military members should disobey orders such as DADT because they believe differently. That has not been suggested (though I am sure there are liberals that might find this acceptable, they have not spoken in this thread).
The military regulations are a series of rules, limitations, expectations and operational guidelines which reflect the military's current beliefs about what constitutes a proper military, operation and soldier serving in the aforementioned groupings. These guidelines have never been set in stone nor suggested to be meant to be unchangeable. We (the nation) change them on a yearly basis in a variety of ways. So the idea that because the regulations state something it should be so, and that we should not question the wisdom of it because it lies within those regulations is both paradoxical and irrational.
Opinion Duck says: Your answer is meaningless, the question is why are LGBT special to have the military or any organization be pressured by them.
Secondly, "preference" and "genetic defect"
PREFERENCE
It's ironic that you have listed most of the things you have, as there is a clear strain in legislative thinking about -all- of the things on your list : That limitations exist to protect the public against an action which is willfully or negligently dangerous to one or more individuals.
(Before I begin, I should state that the counterarguments here are sticking to fact, rather than my own opinions on any matters. I reserve my own opinions on many of these things.)
We don't consider the Mormons preference for multiple wives a RIGHT.
-Because the legislative thinking of the time witnessed cases of this displayed a serious trend of multiple women who lacked many of the rights of men of their time were being indoctrinated into polygamous relationships which left them at the mercy of the husband. This, coupled more importantly with a serious fear that mormonism in Utah was giving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints control over a frightening amount of land, resulted in the laws that you are referring to. It was not nearly as cut and dry as you've supposed and it would behoove you to avoid delving into certain legal stances that may be more questionable than you were aware.
Opinion Duck says: That has nothing to do with their preference. Stick to the point as the law doesn't just single out Mormons it is applied to everyone.
We don't consider the people that prefer to have sex with animals or children as having a RIGHT
-Both of these are considered situations in which a nonconsentual party through lack of sentience or majority, is being harmed physically, emotionally and/or psychologically by coerced fornication. Again, another case of protecting from harm.
Opinion Duck says:
There is no substance to your assertion. All of these situations could be done without harm, and with consent.
.
There is no right to drive A Vehicle, You need to get a license, and you have the meet the requirement.
-Again, the licensing process is specifically aimed at ensuring that an incredibly powerful weapon in the form of a ton-plus vehicle is being operated with full recognizance of the dangers and with training in proper operation. Of special note is that you -can- drive a vehicle in the united states without a license under a number of specific provisions. One example is the right to drive a vehicle on private land that is not intended for public access (such as a farm). In the united states, you can be eight and drive a thresher on a privately owned farm without a license.
Opinion Duck says:
Again you have missed the point. There is no Right.
.
There is no Right to get married, You need a license, and you have the meet the requirements.
-This is patently incorrect and plays on a common misunderstanding of US marriage laws. A civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same things. One can be religiously married by any church without any permission or jurisdiction from the government on any terms that you like. Only a civil marriage, which imparts a number of legal rights and expectations, requires a license. This is intended to protect the individuals involved from being forced into a legally binding contract which they may not fully understand or be capable of agreeing to under their own recognizance. Another case of protecting those who might otherwise be unable to protect themselves.
Opinion Duck says:
Marriage without a license is not recognized as a marriage.
Another missed point.
.
There is no Right to commit crimes because someone prefers that instead of working.
-You're absolutely right -- Because the fundamental idea of a crime is that it involves an action which harms another individual or the government in a clearly observable manner. Government's alllll about stopping that harm.
Opinion Duck says:
The point here is that preferences are not Rights.
.
There isn't even a Right to have Sex, there are limits and requirements on that.
-Yes, there are limits and requirements.. such as consent by an individual who has reached their legal majority capable of answering in their own recognizance. In short : Limits and requirements which shield the parties involved from harm.
.[/i]Opinion Duck says:
Putting an age restriction is a rule, like saying that only a male and a female can be married. Puberty hits at about 11 to 13 and in the old days children were married at around 13, so this was changed by society of later times.
Again there is no Right and there really isn't any harm to do it the way it was done.
.[/i]
The point is that just because you prefer to do something doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional Right to do it.
-Actually, that's incorrect. The constitution specifically states that in the second sentence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Opinion Duck says:
Thisis the most vague and meaningless reference that you have made so far. It is as ridiculous as "All Men are Created Equal", or "This is a Free Country".
.
The term liberty specifically refers to the constitutional right to be free, and the pursuit of Happiness refers to the constitutional right to seek what makes you happy. What follows after this are specific limitations upon when this is -not- the case, and detailing specific cases that it -especially- should be protected. The implicit statement here is : If we don't tell you otherwise in the form of a law, you have that right--and if a law prevents you and this is found incorrect, it can be changed.
Opinion Duck says:
You have just undermined your previous justification between Rights and Requirement. You are using subjective and meaningless interpretations that you have made of the constitution.
The Constitution was an idea and over the last fifty years that idea disappeared thanks to the liberals. Do you really think that the founders of this country were even remotely thinking about forming a gay country. The Supreme Court has continually messed up in interpreting the Constitution. How do nine well to do people sitting in seclusion for their entire tiem on the bench have any idea about whet is the correct interpretation for the well being of the country. In most cases the Supreme Court decisions have been a five to four decision. Which means that it really wasn't a great deicsion because even the court' majority couldn't agree. Supreme Court Decisions should have been required to have the same percentage among the court, as it takes for the states to ratify an amendment.
Again you failed to make a argument that works.
.
GENETIC DEFECT
I would love to take this section seriously but... there's just no way that half of this isn't just plain group-based hate speech. If we assume that it is in fact a genotypic feature, then almost everything you've stated in here would never be tolerated if compared to other features. If it is genetic, then try switching the topic of this section to 'black' or 'female' instead of 'homosexual' and see how that goes over. I don't think I need to state anything else about that.
The idea that this is a defect is similarly uninformed. Genetics does indeed have a definition of the word 'defect' but it isn't what you seem to think.
Opinion Duck says:
Wow, if you were bowling blindfolder you would have hit more pins than you have here.
Gender is the main genetic plan,so male and female are built into the DNA. Race is an adaptation that doesn't change the purpose of the DNA. LBGT changes the attributes of gender as a result of an incomplete process. It is the case where the body and the mind are not fitted for the result. The only reason that we have reproductive systems is to reproduce. That doesn't mean that we have to reproduce but that is the purpose of our DNA, as it is for more other species. It is more reasonable than not to make the conclusion that if babies are born with a purpose that wasn't part of the DNA process of the majority that the process wasn't completed as intended. Unlike wild animals we don't live by the rule of the survival of the fittest. So we take weak genes and we put them into the big DNA pool, and over time they are all around us. Does that mean that is a good thing, No. It is probably the cause of most of our prevalent and deadly diseases today.
The laws of incest were expressly made because of this problem. You would probably try to make an argument that it would be a violation of their constitutional rights. Your constitutional arguments are not compelling because you interpetation would say that smokers really do have constitutional rights.
If we allowed preferences, then why is sex for money illegal?
"Defects here is not used in a derogatory or even inflammatory intent, it is mere a statement of malfunctions in DNA."
No, a malfunction in DNA is called a mutation and is indeed not derogatory or inflammatory... a -defect- refers to a mutation which is detrimental to the survival of a species. As homosexuals have proven that they are capable of sexually reproducing even if it goes against their desires, it is unlikely that you could find an accredited geneticist willing to use that term when discussing the potential issue, anymore than they would suggest that frog species that exhibit periodic explosive growth of asexual members is a 'defect'.
[b][i][color=red]Opinion Duck says:
Another missed point, Gays have not reproduced on their own ever. Before technology the only way that they could reproduce was because of bisexuals. These bisexuals would propogate the defective genes to other bisexuals and even heterosexuals.
I don't know how you think that your arguments on this forum are compelling?
Mutation or defect it is the result that is important. If there is a genetic cause to the LGBT population then forcing it on to the rest of society is only meant to have the entire population with these genetic defects.
.
BTW : When someone calls refers to a HomoPhobe, this is usually a misunderstanding. You may think they are referring to a fear of homosexuals as the word suggests. They aren't usually. They are using the term homophobe as a euphemism for hate-filled ignorant bigot, because the person attempts to use weak logical arguments, incomplete understandings of science and the ever fun tool of religion (something that nobody is expected or required to accept, much less respect) to argue a stance. Perhaps you would be wise to reconsider your stance on being called a homophobe. It sounds so much nicer.
Opinion Duck says:
That is so BS, the majority of the time that I see the word "homophobe" being used, it is in the context of being bad, derogatory and inflammatory.
If the LBGT champions don't want to be called fags, queers, and worse, then they should refrain from euphamisms themselves.
.
You're welcome.
.
After your entire reply, you have failed to answer the question that I poses when I made my original contribution to this forum.
LGBT, A Preference, or a Genetic Defect
If it is none of them, you haven't said what that other might be that causes them from being the end result of why there is male and female.
Thanks for making all my points.
.Having you play semantics and reading only half of anything I posted is a delight.
Quick bullet points :
If I pass a law against turbans in the United States, it might strike folks undergoing chemotherapy, but I think most would agree this is a clear movement against middle-eastern cultures. Moving against polygamy during that period was clearly a move against mormons, despite it 'applying to everyone' as they were a clear and obvious majority in those impacted. Further, the Edmunds Act actually went further ontop of that law and specifically aimed at The Church of LDS property rights through it. Yeah, no confusion there.
Can you prove there's no psychological or emotional harm visited upon animals or children when engaged in sex? Because almost to a T, modern studies beg to differ.
Again -- learn to finish reading. I specifically stated civil and religious marriages were different terms and not to confuse them. A religious marriage is recognized with or without an agreement by that religion. If you're talking about civil marriages, you need to be specific.
Licenses are only required on publicly accessable land. There is a Right on private non-publicly accessable land. You missed the point. The government is only regulating driving on land that is clearly intended to allow others in (and therefore exposes them to danger).
If you're actually going to found an argument on the sole strength of colloquial evidence such as 'ancient cultures did it', you might want to try that argument with eating three-day rotten food, incest, and using urine to treat mosquito bites. Otherwise, you need to accept that 'ancient cultures did it' isn't conclusive evidence of a wise choice and need to back it up with more modern information on the subject. If you research sex standards, at best you will find wildly conflicting reports about the impact of sex on many of the parties we currently exclude and at worst, it tends to go against ancient wisdom on the subject.
Don't hate me for the interpretation of the opening articles of the Constitution, as that is the original interpretations as seen by the US legal system and current legal precedent.
Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)
"[The pursuit of happiness] represents the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment."
and lest you think that this limits the scope to only employment or career,
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
"[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
As for semantics, the psychological definition of homosexuality does not refer to having sex exclusively with your own gender, it refers to attraction to your own gender primarily or exclusively. If you think that no homosexual man has ever concieved a child without the aid of modern fertilization methods, you need to get out there more. You can bandy the word bisexual around as you like, it's an interesting debate point in circles gay, straight and everywhere between-But it doesn't change the rest.
Oh, and as a sidenote - Smokers do have rights, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is the grounds that state bans on public smoking were enacted. Love smokers or hate them, that was the majority argument used both on the floor and to uphold the laws.
- Onusonusposted 13 years ago0
If a person is deemed physically fit and mentally stable then I think they should have no problem joining the military as long as they can maintain a military standard of conduct.
I would rather see them looking to axe the out of shape people who keep the rest from performing at the standard level of opperations.
While in the Army I ran long distances in large formations under the principle that "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link," which means that we run as fast as the slowest person, and it was always a snail's pace.
In my oppinion if everyone is held to the same standard in at least the physical sense, the military would be far more compitent.Onusonus
I agree, the requirements are the important part, especially for the military.
There is no Right to serve in the military, and you get in and stay in by their rules. Their rules are to be a military force and not a social club.
Thanks.But, there were a time when they didn't allow blacks and women in the military. What makes gays and lesbians any different?
I'm pretty sure that Black people have fought in every war since the establishment of the United States. Although I'm not sure wether or not precolonial Gays and Lesbians were treated with todays standard of tolerance.
Yes that's very true that blacks fought in previous wars before the Civil War and so did a few women (disquised as men in some cases). But blacks were never fully intergrated until after WW2. Since gays make up 10% of the population, it's obvios that they were in the military since the invention of the military. They kept to themsleves and they fought and died with distinction like their fellow soldiers.
I agree there's no right to serve in the military, but having bad rules costs them opportunities at sometimes optimal members. For instance, in my last year of high school I had a burning desire to enter the Navy. I was at the top of my class, an athlete, I scored in the 99th percentile on my ASVAB and pulled a 138 on my DLAB. I passed the security clearances required for a CTI and was offered a shot at being an officer in the navy. After months of preparing myself I finally decided that I couldn't stand the idea of dedicating my life to my country when my country couldn't handle my life. It broke my heart, but I strongly believed in the ethical code they were impressing and felt that keeping that lie violated the trust that I would hope to have with future brothers in arms.
I have to wonder-if the military seeks the best of the best and judging by their standards, I qualified for that in at least a few respects, how is it a good idea to keep standards in place that obviously cost you prime candidates?Don't expect the Constitution, Society, the law, or political parties to define and support the best course for the country.
They have allowed Smokers to cause problems for themselves and non smokers, and since 1964 they allow smoking with just a warning label as their answer. Yet, in the 1970s several people died from a tained process of Tryptophan made in another country, and they banned it. In recent times Tryptophan is back but with limitations.
As for immigration, the government itself is violating, Equal Protection, and discriminating against immigrants that are going through the full legal process of immigration. While refusing these legal immigration applicants into the country, they want to wholesale the entire population of Mexico as citizens of the US.
Obama and the Federal Government won't enforce the Federal Immigration Laws, but they will sue Arizone for trying to deal with their own problems from the border because the Federal Government won't do it.
The border problem is not just illegal aliens, it is drugs, and national security from terrorist activities.
The taxes that put higher tax rates on the rich is also discrimmination, yet the government does it. They are bound by that Constitution that you like to reference.
They allow each state to determine the minimum alcohol drinking age, yet it should be a federal minimum age. Or else they should allow the states to determine at what age someone can be drafted into the military.
It is also discrimmination to draft only males. You can't have equality if it is not applied as in this example.
Marijuama is not really that different from Alcohol or Tobacco yet neither of them are listed in the Federal Constrolled Substance Act. Marijuana could be regulated just like Alcohol and Tobacco. I could likve without all three.
A Drivers license should be a qualified right rather than a mere privilege. We need to drive to earn a living, but we need to prove that we can drive or at least know how to drive safely. Although many people in the United States drive without a license, or insurance.
Marriage and Children should not be part of the IRS Tax Form. The Federal Government has enumerated people into units. I am for replacing Personal Income Tax with a National Sales Tax. Most states have a State Sales Tax and the National Sales Tax could use those same state mechanisms for sales tax.
We would then not have to distinguish between single, married or children.
It is also discrimination to give free medical services to illegal aliens but not to citizens that don't have insurance.
There are many more examples of where the Federal Government violates our Constitution. That is my point why the Constitution is not the answer to the problems of abortion, homosexuality, or any social issue.
Even my Beck-watching, very conservative husband is all for repealing DADT! I think I've made him more tolerant of others. lol
As for being a Christian and being tolerant at the same time, look at the example Jesus provided. He "hung out" with the dregs of society - prostitutes and tax collectors. "Judge not..."The difference is that you're actually a Christian, while some others claiming to be Christian are just "today's pharisees."
This is not a question of being more tolerant.
It is a question of why the majority has to follow the rules, but others want to make their own rules.
This includes the Congress and the President, and I am not talking about all the ones that we have had since the founding of the democrat and republican parties.
Having these two parties is the root cause of the problems in this country."It is a question of why the majority has to follow the rules, but others want to make their own rules."
No, it's a question of changing rules that are discriminating against a minority for no good reason.
Look, under DADT, a gay person can be a soldier, but he can't make any mention of his boyfriend (or her girlfriend), can't keep his boyfriend's (or her girlfriend's) picture in his (or her) footlocker, etc. But straight soldiers can talk about their boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, and wives. They can apply for--and get--leave to to get married or attend their friends' and family members' weddings. If they haven't got a girlfriend, they can talk about wanting to meet a girl.
But if a gay soldier talks about his boyfriend, or talk about hoping to meet the right guy, boom! Discharge. And none of this has anything to do with combat readiness.
Fair? Heck, no.
I have to wonder, why are so many anti-gay people doing their very best to make sure gay people stay out of harm's way? It's funny...Good point, Jeff. You'd think they'd want them on the front line!
I just don't understand this at all. Why would one's sexual orientation make him or her a less proficient soldier?? I applaud them for their patriotism!The military is not the vehicle for gays to try and validate there preference.
Again it is a preference and not a right.
Minorities can and should be discriminated against, if there reason for being a minority is against society.
Mormons are discriminated on both a religious aspect and on how they choose to have relationships.
They have had to change the way that they used to do things under their religion. Gays don't have any difference and they don't even have a religion that allows it.
So if the Mormons can live with it why can't the gays."Minorities can and should be discriminated against, if there reason for being a minority is against society."
And who decides if a minority is "against society?" You?
"Mormons are discriminated on both a religious aspect and on how they choose to have relationships."
Polygamy between informed, competent, consenting adults should not be illegal. The problem is that historically, polygamy has not been between informed competent consenting adults. There has usually been coercion or deception or both involved. The answer is not to use polygamy laws as a justification of another brand of oppression, but rather to reform polygamy laws to prohibit deceptive and coercive polygamy. (I think we can all agree that deception and coercion should not be part of marriage).
I'm reminded of a story about individual sticks, and a bundle of sticks, and how it's harder to break a bundle all at the same time.
Can anyone help me to recall the Latin name for a bundle of sticks? Anyone? Bueller?
There is a good reason, they don't fit into any part of our culture or society. It is a square peg into a round hole.
There is discrimination from every part of society and a lot from the government itself.
The minority has to have a Right and a reason to change the rules, and preference is not a Right."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Unless the preference infringes upon another's rights without their consent, then yes it is.It does indeed infringe upon people's rights. The right to engage in daily life and personal life and workplace/military duty without being subjected to lewd or inappropriate behavior and speech.
There is no such right. You are confusing preferences with rights.
"The right to engage in daily life and personal life and workplace/military duty without being subjected to lewd or inappropriate behavior and speech."
Yes, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to walk around with a gag in their mouths to keep them from saying something lewd.
We simply don't say lewd things, and if someone does, he gets chewed out by his boss.
You seem to be assuming that gay people will necessarily be saying and doing lewd things all the time. But in my experience, most of the lewd behavior (and the most lewd behavior) comes from my fellow straight people.
Opinion, I disagree with much of what you have said...
To say that the current administration isn't enforcing immigration laws is completely baseless.... It has been clearly shown that ICE has been more active during the past two years than during the entire 8 year period of Bush....
In terms of the undocumented population, I think you need to ask yourself a few questions....
Why do we go to places like Vietnam and Iraq....blow the place to hell, and then enable people from those nations to emigrate as refugees.....while at the same time causing the same destruction in El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, and elsewhere in Central America while refusing to enable those refugees the same treatment?
I can tell you why, but I'd like to read your response....
In terms of "tolerance".....concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell (the purpose of this thread)...this has no bearing...
An illegal order or law is no order or law at all...and that is basic military knowledge... The fact that Americans have been too bigoted or insecure to realize that homosexuality is a civil rights issue demonstrates their own weakness and complicity to encourage discrimination....
Opinion, you bash the two party system we have, but when I read your hubs I see a definite GOP taint..... There is no doubt about this...
Having the Democratic and Republican parties are not by any means the root cause of problems in this nation...
The real problem is that too many Americans know next to nothing about their political responsibilities....and charlatans like Palin and Bush could run around passing themselves off like credible candidates....
The problem is that big money.....the Mellons et al...dominate our system...
Heritage Foundation? Mellon-Scaife Foundation....and many more... Look at what these organizations push for and who they finance, even beyond political races...
Check out the connections between Scaife-Mellon and the Social Contract Press.....(among other ridiculous groups).... Note how they also support the ongoing publishing of the "Camp of the Saints"...
Read that book.....and then let us discuss the "real" problems....
Get to know the Mellon Family....and then look at American foreign and domestic policies.....There are only two things that make a homosexual.
1. Preference
2. Genetic Defect
Neither one is a RIGHT
I need an answer from the other side, is it preference or defect. And on which do you base any constitutional protection, and specifically where in the constitution.Po\\
Police are arresting the homeless, the constitution doesn't seem to help them.Not the wrong forum Opinion...
Does this mean you have no answers for the points I raise?House passes DADT, what do you think will happen in the Senate?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities … nt-tell-/1I think Senate will pass DADT as well.
Although I haven't read anything linking the two, I would not be at all surprised if DADT is somehow a tit-for-tat gift for extending the tax cuts....
Otherwise, the timing is just too coincidental...Your order is reversed. Genetics is the primary determiner of sexuality. And it would be really nice to delete the value judgment. As Jane Bovary said,it's a genetic VARIATION not a defect.
Just like variations in genetics can lead to all kinds of differences between people. Do you need them spelled out for you?
Dwarves come from a genetic variation. Should we not allow them to marry or serve in the military either?
How about left-handed people?
Albinos?
People with wine stain birthmarks?
How about geniuses?
Where does it end????Does the straight soldier or Marine have the right to not shower with a gay man/woman?
All soldiers/sailors/marines have the right not to be harassed by others of any orientation, in or out of the shower.
I'm not asking about harassment. I'm asking in general.
no - there is no right to refuse a shower with a same (physical) sex person - as far as I am aware in any armed forces anywhwere. However in a 'don't ask don't tell' situation there can be no complaint because the situation would not be recognised, would it ?
So I personally don't have the right to not shower with someone that may be looking at me in a manner I feel uncomfortable with?
Don't be so paranoid. Many men feel "short-changed".
HA HA. Not worried about that part of it Ron. I could stir your coffee from here if I wanted to.
That's a pretty lewd statement. Be careful, or you'll have Brenda thinking you're gay.
I guess objecting to someone looking at you would get you laughed out of court ? and 'feeling uncomfortable' was no kind of reason for anything when I was in there
You can imagine putting up your hand and calling "hey sarge, I feel really uncomfortable shooting at those nice enemy soldiers over there, could I go to the back of the line please" So if I don't have the right to object to taking a shower with someone that may be enjoying watching me shower, then women shouldn't either right? So the military no longer needs seperate facilities for men and women. This should save tax dollars lots of money.
NO - the right is in place to protect them from you buddy !!
To protect women from a man that may be sexually attracted to them? Is that what you're saying?
Not it's not. It's a silly point.
You have the right not to be harassed by others.
You don't have the right not to be worried that others might harass you.
There are gay men in the military and in the military showers right now. So the problem is not who is looking at who.
I would repeat that no other westernised nation had trouble with openly homosexual people serving. So can someone explain to me why Americans are uniquely unable to cope. Are they especially bigoted, particulalry coy about who sees their weiner?They are not unable to cope. They're simply unwilling to put up with crap being shoved in their faces. That's their right to protect their sense of common decency.
Your discomfort with homosexuality should cause you to refrain from making references to things being shoved in faces or down throats.
"They're simply unwilling to put up with crap being shoved in their faces."
Is there a regulation about crap, and whether it's allowed for someone to shove it into another's face? I don't think there's even a policy about scat fetishes, is there?Please stop it. You're gonna make John Boehner cry.
I'm just asking, if I went back into the military and there were openly gay men, do I have the right to take a shower away from them and not share a room.
Psycheskinner-Would you want to shower or room with a man in the military?The people who object, in effect, are saying that there are so many homophobes in the American military, especially the Marine Corps, that repealing the arguably unconstitutional law would adversely affect military performance. Bigots in the late 1940s made the same argument against integrating blacks and whites in military units. Truman didn't let those objections slow him down. He issued an executive order, and the American military was integrated with few problems. The same thing will happen when "don't ask don't tell" is repealed.
"Integrating black and white in the military - with few problems."
That is not my experience, in the late 60's, maybe 1970, I visited an American 'battle ship' where the colours were segregated into different mess rooms and did not commonly use each other's 'parts' of the ship. I had a few beers on each side of the divide and both told me that the ship was a dangerous place for anyone straying into the others 'territory'. As a Brit I was welcomed, or at least tolerated, in the black mess deck.So because I don't want to shower with a gay man that makes me a homophobe?
So if a woman doesn't want to shower with a man, does that make her a heterophobe?Wouldn't you rather shower with a man you know is gay rather than one you don't know is gay and is keeping it a secret?
No, his fellow soldiers would certainly object to the smell.
By repealing DADT, we are our way of joining the rest of the industrilized countries, but we still have a ways to go. We're still lagging behind in health care and education. This country need to do some adjustments to the health care bill and convert to universal health care.
Female soldiers also have the right not to be harassed, whether in or out of the shower.
Nobody has the right never to feel embarrassed, if that's what you're fishing for.I guess my whole point is, what about the rights of someone that doesn't want to be looked at in a manner that they might feel violated in some way? What about the rights of someone that doesn't want to share a room with someone that will have their gay boyfriends over to the barracks to hang out and may cause an uneasy atmosphere in the only place they have a limited amount of privacy already?
I do not feel that I am intolerant. I have no problem talking to, eating with, working with, being friends with, etc. a gay person. I don't however feel I should have to be put in a situation where I have to expose myself physically to them. Nor, be made to live in an environment where other's may be coming into my living space and participating in any activities that would make me feel uncomfortable and that my quality of life is even worse than normal military life is already.
I'm sure I'll be called a bigot or homophobe. To be honost I no longer care. However, if DADT is going away, I believe there should at least be some segregation (poor word to use but best my limited vocabulary could come up with) when it comes to living spaces, just like there is now with males and females. In my eyes, a woman showering in front of a straight man is no different than a man showering in front of a gay man."I guess my whole point is, what about the rights of someone that doesn't want to be looked at in a manner that they might feel violated in some way?"
I suppose you could always say something like, "SAaaaaarrrrge! He's LOOOKING at meeeeeeeee!"
I'm sure that will get exactly the results it deserves to get..Deleted
This is what's going to happen. It's going to get a lot of attention. As it should. The military will be weaker for it.
Ok fine. I concede. Let gay people serve openly. And if a straight person is going to have issues with sharing a room or shower, they just shouldn't join.
This will happen too. Some will leave. Again the military will be weaker for it.
The bigger problem would be enlistees being too obese to be eligible:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02306.htmlThat's pure speculation. What isn't is that the Army was verifiably weakened by DADT. There was a shortage of Arabic-speaking soldiers during the critical early stages of the war on Iraq. This was exacerbated by the dismissal of many qualified translators under DADT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opini … jamin.htmlStrange, you would think a culture so against it wouldn't have that phenomenon.
By the way, the biggest issue with getting translators is the DLAB standards. Even native speakers routinely score too low to qualify.
And of course it's speculation. It hasn't happened yet. I'ts an opinion. One not only shared by myself.
http://wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewst … ryid=90524
That's speculative and probably incorrect. Some few may leave, but they'll be replaced by equally capable and less prejudiced replacements.
The same thing will happen that always happens when our country moves forward. Those who cried about all the horrible things that would happen when [insert any one of the following: slavery is abolished, women have the right to vote, blacks can serve alongside whites in the military] will either get over it or become the lunatic fringe (some already are).
Yes, but the resulting odor may make him more unwelcome in the unit than Ru Paul or Harvey Firestein.
I think a lot of people forget the importance of Unit Solidarity. It's not a nice thing to have. It's required. A divided Unit destroys combat readiness. So while some things may not be fair, they are not without reason. As long as the Military is dominated by a western style, uber macho male your going to have problems with homosexuals serving openly. Your options, change the attitudes, that takes time. It can't be legislated. You can also simply not allow the majority, white christian males to serve. After all they are the problem right?
"As long as the Military is dominated by a western style, uber macho male your going to have problems with homosexuals serving openly."
The same argument was made against integrating the armed forces, and later, integrating units, back during the civil rights era. But white and black soldiers serve side-by-side, despite some of each group having prejudicial ideas about the other group.
Eventually, straight soldiers and gay soldiers will serve side-by-side, despite some of each group having prejudicial ideas about the other group."The same argument was made against integrating the armed forces, and later, integrating units, back during the civil rights era. But white and black soldiers serve side-by-side, despite some of each group having prejudicial ideas about the other group."
True, that took time though. My point is this. DADT has opened the door enough to change the hearts and minds. However, there has not been enough time. You can see a HUGE difference in the attitudes of the senior and junior ranks. You can also see a huge difference in attitudes of Combat Units and Support Units. We are a war. There are enough distractions already.
So are height and weight restrictions descrimination? Physical strength restrictions, descrimination? Apptitude restrictions, descrimination? What about restrictions on prior affiliations? What about quotas, descrimination?
A bath house is a much better place to pick up a man than a shower. If a soldier is in a bath house, reasonable assumptions can be made.
Now that Don't ask don't tell is history what do we get?
"I didn't ask but you're gonna tell me anyway?"
"I told you but you better not tell?"
"Does this camouflage go with my boots?"
"Does this rucksack make me look fat?"
Seriously who gives a crap?"Seriously who gives a crap?"
The people who give a crap are mostly the ones who want to keep the gays out. Most rational people don't care one way or another, and think the restriction is--excuse me, was--silly.
Hooray! What heartening progress we are making!
With the senate and house votes, soon our gay servicemen and women can serve their country with the same civil rights afforded to other workers under EEOC laws. Hallelujah!
They can go to war and even shower with other servicepeople and not be booted out just for being gay. What a concept!
However, the majority of them still don't have the right to marry. So if they are lucky enough to make it through the war and come home, there will be no recognized spouse waiting to greet them at the airport.
And yes, I do realize marriage is not federally regulated.
Too bad. Looks like our Congress might be coming to its senses!
More like it's coming to its senses before the composition changes.
Will it survive a filibuster in the Senate? Did Brown and Murkowski come on board?
The funny thing about the Corps is that the mindset within believes that they have the largest percentage of in-the-closet homosexuals....
That probably explains the high opposition. It's probably the same people.
Like I've said before....keeping young enlisted and young officer homosexuals under pressure can create quite a pool of people to take advantage of....
Sexual predation is not an uncommon thing, even in the military...I don't doubt it at all.
I remember a friend explaining that the reason all the right-wing closet cases are against DADT repeal and marriage equality is that it would reduce the pool of available closeted men to pick from.
Related Discussions
- 72
The Dumbocrats Are AT It Again
by fallsfella 14 years ago
The Dumbocrats are at it again. Now they have hurried through a vote to repeal the "Dopn't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. What do these people think with? It sure isn't the brains the Good Lord gave them. Do these people know or care what they aqre doing? I served...
- 7
Pros and cons of allowing women in combat?
by alexandriaruthk 11 years ago
Pros and cons of allowing women in combat?or should women be allowed in combat?
- 49
What do you think of the announcement today that women will be allowed to serve
by Jim Higgins 11 years ago
What do you think of the announcement today that women will be allowed to serve in combat?Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made that announcement today, opening up thousands of frontline positions for women in infantry, armored and even elite commando units. What will be the reaction when one is...
- 43
Should Woman be allowed in combat roles in the US military
by Credence2 11 years ago
Hi, folks, the link that I provide is from an article written by Patrick Buchanan, not one of my favorite guys. He is blunt in his opinion and I think just as wrong. http://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-surrend … 00599.html
- 45
Transgender athletes and fairness
by J Conn 2 years ago
It appears that this issue is gaining traction with a pair of stories from today. What are your thoughts on transgender athletes and sports?South Dakota bans transgender athletes from competing in women's sports:https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-dakota … 50773.htmlPenn athlete that...
- 29
U.S. Women Soldiers in Combat. Yes or No and Why.
by LiamBean 11 years ago
Should combat roles be opened to women?