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.
Kicking someone out not for how they perform as a soldier, but for being gay is hate and venom period.
It was a policy that maintained order and discipline for many years.
Quote:
As far as the importance of unit cohesion and morale argument, what bs. The unit is not going to have any less cohesion because they know somebody is gay. What an asinine comparison taken right out of the playbook of those who said the exact same thing about integrating the military.
BS according to you. I'm betting you haven't served a day in uniform, and if you have, it was as a non-combatant. These facts disquaify you from passing judgement on things of which you are ignorant. The race card you play is an irrelevant red herring. See my previous post dealing with the false analogy your side's playbook attempts to impose.
Should we feel honored that we have 10+ million illegals?
Should we feel lucky about the drain they put on social services?
My step daughter would love to attend college here but she can't get a break on tuition. But criminals can? Whats wrong with that picture???
""" Being repelled by unusual sexual proclivities does not constitute hate and venom.""
No, but trying to deny legal Americans their rights IS!
No one is trying to deny anyone anything. What are you talking about?
Quote:
""""the importance of unit cohesion and morale to the effectiveness of a fighting force"""
Total ignorance of how gays have fought well and honorably for this country since it's been a country is no excuse to deny their rights.
But you do have the freedom to hate those who fought for you....even if it is treasonous and anti-American...
Again you miss the point in your emotional state. No one is denying that there have been gay service members since our nation's inception. The point is not that gays cannot and should not serve. The point is that open homosexuality is harmful to unit cohesion and discipline, and should not be a critical issue for our military to deal with when it is involved in two pointless wars and facing other threats to our country.
Do you people actually believe that such nonsensical social engineering does not consitute a tangible distraction to our service men and women, who have quite enough on their minds thank you just trying to figure out what in the hell the country expects from them, while trying to stay alive?
Quote:
If you don't want a segment of legal Americans to have their full share of rights as citizens then I'm sure you'd be quite content if they didn't have to pay their full share of taxes ....right????
No one has a "right" to handicap our military so that they can feel good about themselves. And you may be assured that once the sexual harrassment suits start to pile up in our military, and the ACLU and Lambda take straight soldiers to court for offending the sensibilities of gays, a substantial chunk of our tax dollars will go to pay the shysters and reward the crybabies. So put down the boa and don't try that little song and dance, okay?
Content of original post is a perfect example of the energy that powers racism. To color an entire segment of people with a single brush stroke is indeed the stuff of racism and deserves to be pointed out.
I know many conservatives, so I know that not all conservatives are hateful people, but the conduct of the audiences at the last three debates clearly shows a pattern of heartlessness and cruelty in a large segment of the party.
Yes, only few people booed a serving soldier. But something like that shouldn't be dismissed as "no big deal" like so many have been saying--whether its one boo or 5000. It's simply wrong, and it wasn't even called out at the debate, supposedly by people who claim to love their country more than liberals. It's dismissed here on the forum, yet if it happened at a democrat event, they'd be trying all of us for treason on the spot. The tea party's bloody fanaticism and the GOP establishment's inability to stop it--makes this one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of the party of Lincoln.
I know many conservatives, so I know that not all conservatives are hateful people, but the conduct of the audiences at the last three debates clearly shows a pattern of heartlessness and cruelty in a large segment of the party.
Yes, only few people booed a serving soldier. But something like that shouldn't be dismissed as "no big deal" like so many have been saying--whether its one boo or 5000. It's simply wrong, and it wasn't even called out at the debate, supposedly by people who claim to love their country more than liberals. It's dismissed here on the forum, yet if it happened at a democrat event, they'd be trying all of us for treason on the spot. The tea party's bloody fanaticism and the GOP establishment's inability to stop it--makes this one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of the party of Lincoln.
Yes I agree. Sort of like a certain presidential candidate that accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes when it was popular to do so then recanted when it wasn't.
Or Liberal universities banning recruiters.
How about elected rep calling our soldiers jack booted storm troopers?
I agree it should never happen and should never be excused.
The left has no morale high ground when it comes to our troops.
Having our troops identify themselves by their sexual orientation is a step toward a weakened and less effective military.
The armed forces are about defending the nation, not individual self-actualization.
The end of Don't Ask Don't Tell appears to have resulted in an obession with Do Nothing Except Tell. This is not a step in the right direction.
Don't be ridiculous. All it means is that someone's sexual orientation will no longer be an issue.
It results in a stronger more effective military when you don't have soldiers fearing someone will 'out' them and leading a double life.
Just being able to talk about their spouse/partner at home, or write emails/letters to them as straight soldiers are able to, makes a huge difference when soldiers are putting their lives on the line.
The armed forces are about PEOPLE defending the nation.
Yes I agree. Sort of like a certain presidential candidate that accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes when it was popular to do so then recanted when it wasn't.
Or Liberal universities banning recruiters.
How about elected rep calling our soldiers jack booted storm troopers?
I agree it should never happen and should never be excused.
The left has no morale high ground when it comes to our troops.
Never claimed the left did. I remember those incidents, and didn't like them either. But it annoys me when the same self righteous right wingers who accuse us of nothing short of treason just for being left wing turns around and belittles an insult to a soldier as "no big deal"--a man willing to put his life on the line for you and me. In any other situation it would be a very, very big deal.
All the DADT repeal means is they can't be discharged if anyone finds out they're gay. It doesn't mean they have to wear a pink uniform, or put GAY on all of their forms...
Can someone still elect not to tell? And can others still elect not to ask?
If A) what I quoted from you is correct, if B) the answers to my questions are yes, and if C) this doesn't cause any real big issues, than I'd say it was a 'win-win' for everyone, and I'll be happy.
My ex-girlfriend / now best friend was in the active duty Marines for five years and the Air Force reserves for three. I've met a wide variety of her military buddies, both those who are retired and those who are still active, and both men and women. I haven't conducted a formal survey, but I've gleaned some knowledge over the years.
I think there is a variety of attitudes -- some would be absolutely fine with serving with gay or lesbian comrades, some would be hesitant, some have no problem with gay folk in general but feel in certain situations there may be some friction (no pun intended), some are "against" homosexuality but have a tentative peace with it as long as they don't have it shoved in their face (no pun intended), and then you definitely have a certain subset who appear to be militantly (no pun intended) anti-gay and/or hard-core homophobic. These last ones I believe would simply NEVER tolerate an openly gay comrade, and it's this observation and this attitude that I'm mostly worried about when I mention I'm not so sure about this.
And that's why I ask the questions at the top of this post right after the quoted part and why I'd love to hear the answer.
I've always said "tolerance does not have to equal nurturance" -- the standard I hold myself to is to be tolerant of all others, but I don't necessarily have to condone, encourage, or support others. That said, when I look back at the gay friends I've had through the various phases of my life, I find all of them were unique individuals whose sexuality was a part of what made them awesome, and I find I'm better for having known each of them.
Last edited by Nepenthe; 09-25-2011 at 06:55 AM..
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.
