Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-06-2010, 05:22 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,330,973 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
Mccain did not misjudge what "commanders" would say. The discrepancy is that some commanders are not being heard, and some commanders are being politically correct. It is true that the military does not care whether a soldier is gay. What is also clear is that (gay or not) all soldiers must put service before self. The Don't ask policy is a fair compromise... BUT, the gay rights people want more.
The military succeeds when members put aside their individualism, and fight for the team. By allowing gay soldiers to "tell" you are opening up a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. The military culture (and the military law) is a lot different than civilian life. By telling gays that they can be "gay' you are giving them a false sense of reality. yes, they can admit that they are gay... NO, they can not really act gay because the military will still not allow ANY behavior that does not fall in line with military policy.
here's some things to consider...
Do you think we should allow gay pride parades on military installations?
Do you think that servicemen should be allowed to participate in any public gay events? (i.e. parades)
Should rainbow flags be flown on base?
If a soldier had a gay marriage, (i.e. Massaschussets) what is his status in the military? single? married? other? What about benefits?

As you can see, there are many issues that will need to be addressed if they just change the law. It's not a simple matter.
You have some odd ideas about what constitutes being open about the fact that they are gay rather than straight. What is this nonsense about "pride parades and rainbow flags" on military installations? I have to wonder what exactly do you mean by "acting gay"?

How about just being able to talk about their same sex partner, just like straight soldiers can openly talk about their opposite sex partners, without the fear of being investigated and tossed out?

In many other countries - yes it has been a rather simple matter for quite some time now. It's embarrassing that this is even an issue in the US in the 21st century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2010, 07:24 AM
 
3,117 posts, read 4,571,875 times
Reputation: 2880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
Mccain did not misjudge what "commanders" would say.
Yes, yes he did. Most of them have come right out and said to end it. He thought they would be just as homophobic as he is. As soon as he found out that wasn't the case, his whole tune changed.

Quote:
The discrepancy is that some commanders are not being heard, and some commanders are being politically correct.
So now there are some who want to have a voice but don't, even though everyone and their dog has spoken? And the ones who are in favor of removing it are just being PC? Give me a break

Quote:
The Don't ask policy is a fair compromise... BUT, the gay rights people want more.
Everyone with an ounce of common sense wants more. Citizens of this country shouldn't have to "compromise". They are just as equal as you are, whether you like it or not. I find it telling that so many people (maybe even you) are fine with letting illegal aliens serve, but not citizens who happen to be gay.


Quote:
The military succeeds when members put aside their individualism, and fight for the team. By allowing gay soldiers to "tell" you are opening up a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.
The removal of DADT isn't so soldiers can start wearing rainbow armbands and start talking in high-pitched voices. Are you really that dense? The removal of DADT is so they could actually go out on a date in public without fear of being fired from their job, which is presently the case.

Quote:
The military culture (and the military law) is a lot different than civilian life.
Now you're just rationalizing your own homophobia.

Quote:
By telling gays that they can be "gay' you are giving them a false sense of reality. yes, they can admit that they are gay... NO, they can not really act gay because the military will still not allow ANY behavior that does not fall in line with military policy.
Ohhhhh, so this is so they can "act" gay. Tell me, what exactly constitutes "acting" gay? Do tell. All this time I thought it was so they could merely be in a position where they don't have to go to extraordinary steps to hide their personal lives.


Quote:
here's some things to consider...
Do you think we should allow gay pride parades on military installations?
Do you think that servicemen should be allowed to participate in any public gay events? (i.e. parades)
Should rainbow flags be flown on base?
If a soldier had a gay marriage, (i.e. Massaschussets) what is his status in the military? single? married? other? What about benefits?
Here's some things for YOU to consider: You've constructed a really pretty strawman. Feel free to burn it down at any time and just admit you're one of those people who is stupid enough to think you're better than someone else because of your preferences.

Quote:
As you can see, there are many issues that will need to be addressed if they just change the law. It's not a simple matter.
No, the only issues I see that need to be changed are people like you being able to have a say in things of any import.

And yes, I'm as straight as they come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,754 posts, read 40,833,208 times
Reputation: 62031
Why not let the military vote on it sort of like a California proposition?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 01:34 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,695,958 times
Reputation: 710
[quote=Xanathos;16899856]Yes, yes he did. Most of them have come right out and said to end it. He thought they would be just as homophobic as he is. As soon as he found out that wasn't the case, his whole tune changed.

[I]Yes, some commanders are in favor of lifting DADT, But some commanders also want to keep it. It is not a slam dunk either way.
[/i]



So now there are some who want to have a voice but don't, even though everyone and their dog has spoken? And the ones who are in favor of removing it are just being PC? Give me a break

If you think that the military doesn't silence certain voices then you are mistaken. Remember General McCrhystal? The rolling Stone article? Fired for speaking against Obama... General Pace? He spoke out against gays. He was also fired! These top level brass want to keep their jobs. They know that they will face retribution by going against Obama & Admiral Mullen.


Everyone with an ounce of common sense wants more. Citizens of this country shouldn't have to "compromise". They are just as equal as you are, whether you like it or not. I find it telling that so many people (maybe even you) are fine with letting illegal aliens serve, but not citizens who happen to be gay.

No, I am not in favor of allowing illegals to serve But, this policy is about gays wanting more. If you remember back in 1993 when DADT was passed, it was hailed as a victory for gay rights


The removal of DADT isn't so soldiers can start wearing rainbow armbands and start talking in high-pitched voices. Are you really that dense? The removal of DADT is so they could actually go out on a date in public without fear of being fired from their job, which is presently the case.

You are missing the point... The current policy works because it gives gay soldiers a clear choice. Most gay soldiers are good troops that would rather serve their country than flaunt their gayness. If you life the ban then you risk bringing in people who are not as dedicated. have you noticed that the "don't ask" part of the policy has not been a problem? The problem arises when gay soldiers start "telling" (ie. flaunting) their gayness. The military really doesn't care about it until it becomes a distraction.
If a commander ordered certain establishments "off limits", there would still be soldiers who would go. No problem, until they get caught


Now you're just rationalizing your own homophobia.

No, I just don't care. If a soldier is gay they should keep it to themselves. I don't want to know.

Ohhhhh, so this is so they can "act" gay. Tell me, what exactly constitutes "acting" gay? Do tell. All this time I thought it was so they could merely be in a position where they don't have to go to extraordinary steps to hide their personal lives.

It is not just about hiding personal lives


Here's some things for YOU to consider: You've constructed a really pretty strawman. Feel free to burn it down at any time and just admit you're one of those people who is stupid enough to think you're better than someone else because of your preferences.

I gave some examples of potential problems... You chose to ignore the realities, and deflect your ignorance towards me. Nice try

No, the only issues I see that need to be changed are people like you being able to have a say in things of any import.

So, even you want to silence my voice. Thanks for proving my point

And yes, I'm as straight as they come:

It's ok, you don't have to hide anything from me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 01:38 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
4,422 posts, read 6,223,487 times
Reputation: 5429
Everyone I know who has been in the military has told me the percentage of gays in the military is much, much, higher than that of civilians. It's just astounding that this still can't be repealed in 2010!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 01:41 PM
 
1,728 posts, read 4,710,439 times
Reputation: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Why not let the military vote on it sort of like a California proposition?
The actual people in the military is constantly changing. Every year, there could be 250,000 new soldiers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 01:44 PM
 
3,117 posts, read 4,571,875 times
Reputation: 2880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post


Most gay soldiers are good troops that would rather serve their country than flaunt their gayness.

No, I just don't care. If a soldier is gay they should keep it to themselves. I don't want to know.
Again, thanks for proving my points. Out of the god knows how many gay friends I have, only one "flaunts his gayness". That's just him being him, and there's nothing wrong with that. The others you would never know unless you saw them on a date or something. You seem to have this weird rationale that "teh ghey" is all Nathan Lane in 'The Birdcage' and that the move to repeal DADT is so our troops can start wearing feather boas to work every day, and that's an incredibly ignorant POV.

As to your 2nd sentence, how kind of you to "tolerate" men and women putting their necks on the line for your false sense of security from terror. You are essentially saying "I find you distasteful, but I will tolerate you so long as I don't have to become informed as to which way you swing". How magnanimous of you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
It actually is very simple. Stop the hate, Stop the bigotry. Stop the venom, let them serve.
No, you have it backwards.
Service is a privilege, not a right.
And those who accept service of another have the right to object.
Ergo, the public servant is required to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than the public at large.
No one objects to homosexuals who are celibate and abstain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Staring at Mt. Meeker
220 posts, read 775,134 times
Reputation: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
It actually is very simple. Stop the hate, Stop the bigotry. Stop the venom, let them serve.

As far as any behavior that does not fall in line with military policy, someone who breaks military policy should be subject to discipline whether they be gay or straight. No one is trying to argue that. However, it shouldn't be one set of rules for gays and another set of rules for straight people.
The rules of engagement are very clear and apply to all. How does this topic affect what actually happens on the ground, at sea or in-the-air?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 02:01 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,695,958 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos View Post
Again, thanks for proving my points. Out of the god knows how many gay friends I have, only one "flaunts his gayness". That's just him being him, and there's nothing wrong with that. The others you would never know unless you saw them on a date or something. You seem to have this weird rationale that "teh ghey" is all Nathan Lane in 'The Birdcage' and that the move to repeal DADT is so our troops can start wearing feather boas to work every day, and that's an incredibly ignorant POV.

Yes, and thats why I say that the DADT policy works well. If you change that policy then you end up with a mixed bag.

As to your 2nd sentence, how kind of you to "tolerate" men and women putting their necks on the line for your false sense of security from terror. You are essentially saying "I find you distasteful, but I will tolerate you so long as I don't have to become informed as to which way you swing". How magnanimous of you.
If someones tells me that they don't want to know about my private life, then I do not continue to discuss it when they are around. It is called courtesy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top