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.
yes, you are technically correct. But, in garrison (non deployed, non combat situations), the normal duty hours would apply. If the gay member lived on base then yes he would be more vulnerable. But his supervisors would probably be home and not hanging around the barracks looking for gays They have personal lives too, and unless someone was causing trouble then they should have no problems.
I have been in the military for 20 years, and I have not seen any of the witch hunts that people talk about. The DADT policy gives people the freedom to think whatever they want (nobody can restrict a persons thoughts anyway) In most cases, a gay serviceman would have to ACT gay in order to face punishment.
*It is VERY RARE that someone would be recalled while on leave.*
so basically, it is the gay members conduct that causes him to get in trouble (in 90% of the cases)
People love to defend gays by saying that it is something that they are born with, or something that they can't control. Well, how you conduct yourself is something that everyone should control. Military members are asked to adhere to a stricter code of conduct than ordinary citizens. When a serviceman vilolates this policy then they get punished.
There are people in EVERY community who think they (and they alone) deserve special treatment and want different rules applied to them. There's an elderly homeowner here in my condo complex who thinks, just because he's been here since the mid-70s when the complex first opened, he shouldn't have to follow the rules about parking or keeping his garage door closed or picking up his dog's mess in the park. During the time I worked in the tax office I ran into several people who thought my job was to fill out their tax return the way they wanted instead of the way the tax laws say it is to be filled out. And you're right - anytime someone doesn't want to follow the rules, it's a problem.
Thing is gays are not asking that new rules be instituted in the military to apply only to them. They see a rule that simply makes no sense in the grand scheme of things and want that rule eliminated so that NO ONE has to follow it any more. As it is, DADT seems to be a 'special rule' that applies only to gays.
Good point.
DADT does apply only to a specific group of people.
Art.125 applies to everyone equally.
To get rid of DADT, and enforce Art.125 [like we used to do before DADT] would once again be treating everyone equally.
... so basically, it is the gay members conduct that causes him to get in trouble (in 90% of the cases)
People love to defend gays by saying that it is something that they are born with, or something that they can't control. Well, how you conduct yourself is something that everyone should control. Military members are asked to adhere to a stricter code of conduct than ordinary citizens. When a serviceman vilolates this policy then they get punished.
I agree entirely.
Homosexuals are 'caught', either by bragging about it repeatedly to everyone [after their NCO telling them to stop], or else they are caught in the act.
If you can not control your physical actions, then you do not belong in uniform.
What a bunch of BS... gays are more deserving of respect? what?
Respect is earned my friend. And, what is it that gay people must do that is deserving of this respect?
I stand by my previous statements, but let me clarify.
I say that gays CAN serve just as well as anyone else. The question is whether or not they are dedicated soldiers. When I hear people complain that gays are under so much stress because they can't be themselves, I have to wonder... Do I really want that person in my unit? If they can't control their sexual behavior then how will they handle combat?
One more point that I have to call you out on: You claim that the military is singling out gays for something that is out of their control? Ok, lets look at this.
DADT: Even if I believe that gays can not control their attractions... there is no restrictions against that. The problem is sexual conduct (or a big mouth)
The gay member has to go out of their way by acting gay or engaging in gayness
I'm sorry, but if gay people can't comply with the rules for 8-10 hrs a day then they shouldn't be in the military
What does anyone else have to HIDE to be in the military? You think that gay people can just turn off their gay, but honestly, that's not the case. Especially if they are lucky enough to have someone waiting for them at home. It's not just about sexual conduct (read the restrictions on homosexuality in full). A gay person can't get married if they are in the military, can't mention their partner and still have to do the same duty as everyone else. Only everyone else isn't carrying the same baggage. My solution: let them be honest. Yours: maybe they're too gay to serve.
You're an anti-gay bigot. And your responses are coming from this, not from any sort of logic or humanity. And honestly, I don't want to see policy every written from a perspective like that.
Homosexuals are 'caught', either by bragging about it repeatedly to everyone [after their NCO telling them to stop], or else they are caught in the act.
If you can not control your physical actions, then you do not belong in uniform.
I certainly hope that attitude goes for straights, too.
I know young soldiers who have been very physical and not kicked out of uniform.
You're saying that NO HET ever puts anything about their families in the workplace.
Obviously you brought your marriage into the workplace based on your comment. Did you say "no comment" when they asked. Did you tell them that hearing about their lives was inappropriate in the office setting?
On my last sub guys were written up for doing that.
A spouse is not issued in your seabag therefore you do not bring your spouse issues to work, period.
I never showed any pictures of my wife or children onboard. My supervisors never met anyone in my family. It would have been completely inappropriate.
A few rank - equals have been to my home, but only a few. And mostly because we knew each other through church.
I have known men for years, lived underwater with them, and after years of that and being transfered onto other commands, have never met their wife.
many other militaries are unionized...or are based on a draft (Compulsory service), still many other militaries dont allow females at all, still many other militaries dont allow gays
sorry, but you cant lump together just for your agenda
Apples to oranges? No. More like Granny Smith to Washington.
Still apples.
You and others HAVE no answer or explanation, other than the American solider appears to be less developed or mature than European, Canadian, South American, Australian or Russian soldiers.... or, at least, that's what I understand based on your representations.
No personal attack, though your post obviously was, and if you look, I DID post a link, the one that directly stated that ALL homosexual and bisexual people in the military were to be discharged. It was a very specific link to the active article concerning the military.
Or have you ignored the fact that I DID backup my statement with facts.
Note - the below link is VERY important!!! Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > Chapter 37 > Section 654 § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
Title 10 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here.
And this can just as easily be rescinded when DADT is abolished.
Since this was passed while DADT was law, what protections did DADT afford military members?
In israel Women are combat troops, we don't do that. In australia, they store their beer in the submarine torpedo tubes. We don't.
And why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
The arguement that "so and so does it" is a sophomoric response. Just because someone else does something in a manner different than we do, is not a reason for us to change our ways.
That's not the point. #1, you have given no real reasons why it is detrimental to 'change ones ways'.... other than some amorphous and ambiguous "we want to avoid problems."
You don't find it the least bit hypocritical to claim that the army fights for freedom and equality when it doesn't afford same? Even the Soviets pointed that out back when people with your mindset continued to advocate for segregation of the armed forces.
Again, with its policy, the US military aligns itself closer to the militaries of the theocratic dictatorships we're SUPPOSED to hate and bring democracy to (like in the Middle East), and less like our Western Civilization cousins, who we PRETEND to be the "leader" of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
While DADT is not perfect, it is a good stepping stone until such a time that we can implement an open policy without problems. As it stands now, there will be problems.
Just like segregation, right?
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.
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.
They have personal lives too, and unless someone was causing trouble then they should have no problems.
