Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ask, Tell (Take two).

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2010 at 8:03pm
My point-by-point thoughts as someone who has spent some time in uniform.  (NOTE:  As a disclaimer for those who don't read carefully, I know these are not Whale's positions on the subject; I just chose to respond as I did because it was the easy way to do it.)

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I think were crossing wires here

Appears so. I didn't see your previous posts, sorry about that. 

For some fun, here are some calm and well thought-out reactions from the conservative forum FreeRepublic.com. They make for a really entertaining read. 

Quote This will destroy the US military, just as it has destroyed the Israeli, UK, Australian, Canadian and Germnan armed forces.

Last time I checked, the Israelis were still pretty badass.  As for the others, the UK and Australia still have respectable military forces as well.  Makes one wonder where this clown is getting his/her information from.




Quote So now that this has passed, I think they should make separate platoons of only openly homosexuals. This should be the first platoon in, as no one else would want to be in front of them.

Actually, there were several quite successful armies in the classical world that relied on gay units. Someone should hate less and read more.


Quote any assholes who supported this have been traitors and upheld the commie manifesto . . .

I support this and I have the cold-war ribbons to prove that I don't support any commie manifestos.

. . .  to any who say this is not big deal then get your head out of your ass as this now means they can say they can die for their country . . .

Wow, this individual is seriously confused:  He/she hates "them" so much that he doesn't want them to die

. . . but cannot marry therefore they should be overturning DOMA, then it is the law recognized by the feds . . .

This sounds about as logical as the "old enough to die for my country but not old enough to drink" argument and probably has a similar chance of causing a major legal change at the Federal level

. . .  therefore teach it in schools. . .

If you can't successfully indoctrinate your own children to believe/accept your personal standards to the point that they can withstand outside influences such as education, you either have really poor personal beliefs or are a piss-poor excuse for a parent

. . . and then make Revs etc marry them otherwise they are hate crime

Someone needs to read the constitution again
 

Quote By voting to repeal, it can probably be assumed that you are condoning consenting sexual encounters in the shower or the barracks.

Dude, this already happens between males and females in the dorms.  (Plus, if you aren't involved, how is it any of your business anyway--probably one of those people that believes the police should have the right to investigate/prosecute any sex act other than heterosexual copulation in the missionary position.)

It means that the gay lifestyle language and physical mannerisms may be displayed while in uniform and that ‘flippy’ salutes must be tolerated.

No, dumbstick, it doesn't.  The proper way of performing the military salute is specifically spelled out in regulations and deviation is not acceptable for any reason.  (I.e. those with British heritage don't get to salute like Benny Hill, those who were born left-handed still have to deliver it with the right hand and just because someone is gay they won't get to give fluff-salutes.)

It means that cross dressing on off duty hours is acceptable when visiting social establishments on post.

Probably not.  The military already has certain dress standards in place for members wearing civilian clothes on military installations specifically for the purpose of maintaining professionalism and this is an area where I expect they would do more of the same.  (These vary between the services and from post to post but the most universal one I know of is the AF prohibition on the wearing of earrings by male members in civilian clothes on base.)

And surely it means that any objection to the above will be met with instant litigation and possible charges brought against those in command.

Possibly, but there are means in place to deal with such complaints.  Furthermore, having been the subject of such a complaint (IG complaint for being prejudice against unwed mothers--actually I was prejudiced against people who fail to show up for work two days in a row because they have neglected to acquire a baby sitter 2 months after the birth of their child) I can say that they are normally resolved in a fair and impartial manner that best serves the needs of the military.

 

Quote Democrats= party of perversion and communism.

Okay, I'll give them that one.

 Now making the US a nation not worth fighting for.

Not now, not ever.  If anything, our respect for lifestyles we may not agree with makes us worth fighting for even more.
 

Quote our finest do deserve better, than having to troll gay bars.

Huh?
 

Quote I’ll no longer advise young people to sign up. I’m sure there are many others who feel the same. The military can troll for their new recruits in the gay bars.

Unless you're a recruiter, you can tell people whatever you want . . . I doubt anyone will listen.
 

Quote WHY is a gay Military a priority-issue at all for the US Senate?

Umm . . . might have something to do with the freedoms/equality this nation is based on?

I wish I could blame Reid alone, but 62 other treasonous, treacherous Senate-slime also deemed this Priority #1.

These 62 others, and Reid, were voted for by their constituents.  Part of representative democracy is sometimes not having things always go the way you want.


Folks, there are clearly forces behind the scenes sabotages the Republic.

Actually, there are . . . but this has nothing to do with those plots.
 

Quote So now the openly perverted and insane will have a role in the defense of this country!

One, it annoys me when someone states an opinion as a fact.  (I.e. the "perverted" and "insane" part.)  Two, I think anyone that wants to defend the nation, is capable of meeting the requirements and following the rules of the military should be allowed to do so.
 

Quote Our nation is lost to perversion. A grim day. A grim day indeed. This is NOT what our military has fought for over 200 years. Shame on all of those who voted for Sodomy over security today!!!!
I am very sure that no Senators raised their hand and said "Sodomy?  Heck yeah, I'll give that a yes vote!"  On a more serious note, I wonder why some people feel it is there duty to worry about the morals of the nation as a whole.  If they raise their kids right, they will never be tempted and everyone else will live lives that will eventually leave Heaven much less crowded for those who feel this way.  (Assuming they are right of course and that such bigotry and hatred doesn't get them a one-way ticket to a warm eternity.)
 

Quote The absolute end of ever again holding any respect for the institution of the American armed forces. Game over.

Frankly, if you are the type of person whose loyalties are so easily swayed, I am not interested in your respect and would probably feel better about myself without it.

I would gladly support any portion of the military brave enough to revolt.

. . . and I would gladly reenlist (if possible) to take part in quelling such a revolt against the legal government of this nation.  I do not want to live in a nation where the laws spring from the barrels of guns held by a military that is not answerable to the civilian authorities.
 
 





Edited by Mack - 19 December 2010 at 10:45am
Back to Top
Glassjaw View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Took down Mike Tyson

Joined: 13 July 2004
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 6454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glassjaw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2010 at 8:58pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

That's true, but isn't the real focus of this discussion the tension provided by knowledge of sexual orientation? That seems to be the going issue I've seen every time this is brought up. Why not forget the orientation aspect and go straight to the professionalism aspect. I don't worry about the orientation in the workplace because, in am ideal professional enviroment, that's not a topic of conversation anyway.

Maybe there's just something I'm missing here.

I find this to be due to societies confines of what's acceptable.  I can't speak first hand here, but it would seem to me that the last thought on my mind while in battle would be whether or not the soldier standing next to me were gay or not.  Of course, however, military careers aren't limited to front line action.

Personally, whoever has an issue with another's sexual preference needs to GTF over it.  It's not as if homosexual activity hadn't existed before we (RE: Humans) were around.  On top of that, I doubt it was shunned nearly as much before (certain) religions came into power.
The desire for polyester is just to powerful.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2010 at 9:44pm
Mack, well said.

When were you in, and who with?





I also note that FE has been conspicuously absent since his last foray into this thread...
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2010 at 10:02pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Mack, well said.

When were you in, and who with?

USAF--a little over 23 years (roughly '81-'05)



OH NOEZ!!!!  Da gayz may getz da equal rightzez!

Link

Originally posted by linked article linked article wrote:

Yet the repeal is far more than just a single policy shift. The overturning of "don't ask, don't tell" is likely to create a ripple effect in addressing other gay-rights issues, as many states continue to debate issues including same-sex marriage and the right of gay partners to share benefits the same way legally married couples do. With gay service members serving openly, it will become difficult for policy makers to justify, say, withholding visitation rights or survivor benefits to the same-sex spouse of a wounded or fallen soldier.


Itz a slippy slope of sodomy!!!!!  It meanz the end of 'Merican life az we knowz itz!!!!!  Think of what this will do to the childrenz!!!!   etc.  etc.






Edited by Mack - 19 December 2010 at 12:14pm
Back to Top
Evil Elvis View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Crusher of Dreams

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evil Elvis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 12:14am
Originally posted by Snipa69 Snipa69 wrote:


I think the issue needs to be addressed from the root problem=Stereotypes. Everyone here who has brought up the idea that having openly gay members of the military means you will have a onslaught of the flamboyant types from w=West Hollywood. That is generally not the case when you have men and women signing up for the armed forces. I have served with gay members of the military (found out after they were discharged from service) and you would not have been able to tell them apart from a strait person. We are also making the harsh assumption that all gay people want to have sex with everyone be them strait or gay. This is also not generally the case. While there are gay people out there who may try and hit on strait people even after being told they are not gay, this is generally not the caliber of person you will find serving in the US Military. Having started my service as a Special Forces Operator in the USMC and transfered into the SpecOps community of the USAF I can tell you that it DOES make a difference as to what branch that person also chooses to join. The USMC has a strict command policy and expectations of how to conduct ones self as a member of the United States Marine Corps. The Air Force has always been a bit more lenient on command procedures depending on what your specific MOS is. As I continue on my career path in the Special Forces Community working mostly in part with the United States Army, I still conduct myself with a high level of discipline and authority. If I were to be an admin or say a crew chief, this would most likely be different. Not to say any one branch of the United States Military is more difficult, I have witnessed every day an enlisted person addressing his or her CO by first name; no rank mentioned. 
The Military has its way of breaking down EVERYONE who completes any portion of boot camp/basic training or OCS to follow a strict set of rules and codes under the UCMJ. The enforcement of these codes will still be upheld to the highest level by those tasked to do so. This means that any service member who assaults or harasses another will be charged accordingly. That goes for both verbal and physical assault. 
However I have made this argument before and I'll make it again. I DO NOT support this repeal because it puts those who decide to be open about it in danger even during boot camp because you have those in the service who want NOTHING to do with openly gay members. The reality is that if a Drill Instructor does not deem a candidate fit they will drop them either by approval from the chain of command or by a training accident. It happens and there is no hiding from the reality of it. You will also now have more service members assuming certain members are gay and attacking them with no evidence; not like if they had any it would be justified but it makes people paranoid. 
Communal showers would continue to take place. Segregating the Military goes against the directive put in place my Truman even if it was done for safety and comfort reasons. Separating shower time and such WOULD be giving "special rights" to gays and that just doesn't fly in the military be you gay or strait. You all conduct yourself by the same code and guidelines and anyone who tries to be a black sheep suffers. 



I agree 100%
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 1:29am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Itz a slippy slope of sodomy!!!!!  It meanz the end of 'Merican life az we knowz itz!!!!!  Think of what this will do to the childrenz!!!!   etc.  etc.


I do actually think that this will provide momentum to repeal anti-gay legislation, for example DOMA.  I certainly hope so, anyway.  The reality is that homosexuals are punished economically and emotionally because they are provided the legal tools that come with marriage in this country, and something should be done to equalize it.  As I said to someone on another forum (who is far more intolerant than anyone here, and unfortunately a commissioned officer in the Navy), how exactly does gay people getting married affect you?
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

As I said to someone on another forum (who is far more intolerant than anyone here, and unfortunately a commissioned officer in the Navy), how exactly does gay people getting married affect you?


They might breed and make little galylings and then there would be more of them.    Oooooh Nooooez!
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 12:59pm
This could very well be one of the biggest steps forward for the gay rights movement. 

It's hard to judge steps forward though. It was a long time between when the U.S. Military was desegregated racially and when minorities were granted full rights in the U.S. But, during the civil rights movement, the argument of "Well if they can die for their country they should be allowed to use the same restaurants," were used. 

Civil rights work very slowly. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 2:11pm
I think you're right about that Whale, I don't expect some sort of massive set of gay rights legislation in the near future.  But I think this may be the key to repealing DOMA and providing the same rights to gay couples that straight couples enjoy.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 5:58pm
Frankly, I would be opposed to comprehensive legislation extending gay rights.

My reason for this is that I don't believe that the legislature is the appropriate venue for that. It should not be deemed the role of a fickle democratic legislature to do that. Extending rights to gays should NOT be a matter for the usual legislative expediency and horse trading.

I would like to ser the legislature withhold from this, and so force the appropriate final resolution of the issue- gay rights being read into the constitution wholesale by the Supreme Court. Legislation allows us to think, incorrectly, that as an electorate we have any business making determinations about the inclusiveness of rights. That inclusiveness should be presumed and entrenched; only the *imposition* upon rights should need to be justified by legislation, and still then tested against the constitution.

Legislative approaches to rights make me suspicious. They should properly fall into the constitutional sphere.

Edited by brihard - 20 December 2010 at 5:59pm
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 6:58pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

They should properly fall into the constitutional sphere.

That worked so well the first time around. Ermm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 7:01pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

They should properly fall into the constitutional sphere.

That worked so well the first time around. Ermm


The Constitution, as an organic, living document, has shown a tendency to 'mature' in it's conceptions of rights as successive Supreme Courts have read it in a more liberal manner. Many things that used to be constitutional now, plainly, are not.

Now that said, a constitutional amendment explicitly extending all equality protections to gays would not go amiss.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

 
The Constitution, as an organic, living document, has shown a tendency to 'mature' in it's conceptions of rights .

It matures at about the speed of cold mollasses. 

Case in point, the first time around, we have the Fourteenth Amendment telling us this: 

Quote  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

And that amendment passed in 1868. 

Now, how long was that until the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 

In a vacuum, you are correct. It should be the U.S. Constitution backed up by the Supreme Court that sets civil rights. But, the way it ends up working in the real world is far from it. Especially with something like the DOMA in the way. 



Edited by agentwhale007 - 20 December 2010 at 7:08pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2010 at 8:40pm
Oh, I know. I'm saying how I would like to see it; not how it is or likely will be. I just resent that people think that they can democratically decide who does and who does not get rights simply for inherent qualities. It's about the single most egregious example of the concept of the 'tyranny of the mob' in a democracy... Not everything is proper for democratic methods to be deciding.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.