Relevant Questions About Obama's New 'Gay' Force (Clinton, examples, gay people)
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.
I'm really failing to see his point. Unless he's trying to somehow reverse argue that homosexuals are just like you and me in most respects, however they just prefer their own sex for sex.
Oh man, another nugget. This dude doesn't know much about gay people. But he wants to talk like he does. .
The guy who wrote that article doesn't have a clue. Would you want to fight that guy in the UK link above? Do you think he's gonna swing a handbag at you and say "Don't hit me, pweese!! I'm a pretty boy!" ... looks more like he could shank you, down a pint and spit on your dead corpse.
One of the most worrisome questions will have to do with housing. Women and men are housed in separate housing for obvious reasons and now we will have two more distinct sexual groups to decide about how to house. Could we have to have 4 separate barracks for 4 distinct sexes?
I'll go back and read the article later, and I'm not all for the repeal but you know... Gays and lesbians have always been in the military and they've been housed the same way since the military was instituted.
Do you think that now because they can serve "openly" that some non-gay troops will have issue with gays sleeping in the same barracks?
They all still have to adhere to the same code of ethics and regulations to serve honorably. I'm wondering why something would change...
Speaking of non-stereotypical gays, would you like to call THIS guy "unfit for service?" (Esera Tuaolo - openly gay NFL player) I don't know about you, but I'd love to have him in our military!
Here are 5 relevant questions that will have to be answered by someone once Obama signs the Repeal of DADT law whether we like it or not. These questions have never been even approached in debate and should have.
Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst se the eventual weakening of our armed forces.
One of the most worrisome questions will have to do with housing. Women and men are housed in separate housing for obvious reasons and now we will have two more distinct sexual groups to decide about how to house. Could we have to have 4 separate barracks for 4 distinct sexes?
I read the questions, I didn't read his hypotheses' regarding each. The author's short paragraph for each is an offense and doesn't do justice to the men, some of whom may have been straight and some of whom might have been not quite so straight, who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces with other men, some of whom may have been straight and some of whom might have been not quite so straight.
The questions are simply an attempt to provoke the questionability of the men and women of the Armed Forces to muster their competencies to treat their fellow Service members as equals. Most all children who have grown up to serve in the Armed Forces have attended schools and churches with others, with whom, collectively, all may have been straight and/or some of whom might have been not quite so straight.
There have been few incidences of sexual problems while classes have been in session, or in lunch rooms, or lecture halls. Some churches may report other statistics but you don't see a whole lot of self proclaimed self righteous straight boys running from church because some mate in Sunday school happens to have a squeaky voice.
DADT is over. The country can now enter in a more mature social interaction, having learned and accepted that male society is composed of some who may be straight and some of who might be not quite so straight. And in this country, we don't profile. Ask any terrorist.
It'll be good to see men grow up and accept their own sexuality and, frankly, that of other men.
1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater? they have already been living on base and in theater for years
2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow? Already a system in place, men have accused higher ranking females of harassment
3. Will base commanders be required to host "pride" events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation's cities each year? Ridiculous
4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well? No, the military always looks the other way with adulterers, haven't you heard of shore leave?
I didn't think any of these questions are actually relevant
Speaking of non-stereotypical gays, would you like to call THIS guy "unfit for service?" (Esera Tuaolo - openly gay NFL player) I don't know about you, but I'd love to have him in our military!
Or how about some of the openly gay rugby players (including one the the best to ever play the game). I think they'd do pretty well in our military (even if they aren't American)
Does anyone remember the reason why Clinton instituted DADT in the first place? From what I have read about it, DADT was instituted for the protection of homosexual service members.
As I've said on other threads I still have the same question. What does it mean to serve "openly"?
The answers I've received are, "Gays will be able to invite their partner to official events, can receive benefits without fear of being removed from service" etc etc etc.
If people think that problems won't come from this repeal they are delusional.
If you want to discuss the questions please get after it. If you only want to play the game you are playing now please forget me. I want only to discuss the questions and the elementary article. The questions aren't very hard to understand because of that so lets get at it.
OK!
Here's what I think...
Those aren't 'questions' at all. They're homophobic right wing talking points designed to cast aspersions at the president and anyone else who supported the repeal of DADT. Very transparent BS is all it is.
My prediction:
Allowing gays to serve will be even less disruptive than allowing women to serve in combat billets. And what a bunch of crap we all had to hear from conservobots when THAT was an issue 20 years ago.
Here are 5 relevant questions that will have to be answered by someone once Obama signs the Repeal of DADT law whether we like it or not. These questions have never been even approached in debate and should have.
Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst se the eventual weakening of our armed forces.
One of the most worrisome questions will have to do with housing. Women and men are housed in separate housing for obvious reasons and now we will have two more distinct sexual groups to decide about how to house. Could we have to have 4 separate barracks for 4 distinct sexes?
Try four new sexual groups, gay men, lesbian females, and male and female bi-sexuals. I guess they all get private rooms now, while the straights get tossed into three and four person rooms.
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.
Relevant Questions About Obama's New 'Gay' Force
