Obama and the Gay Military...

[Sledge]

OK, Mister National Enquirer. You manage to say things like "Bill is saying that..." and then say something that I never said and then come back and defend yourself by saying that you never technically quoted you.

Go back to law school and find more loopholes to push your way through.

Didn't say that either. By the way, I love the bit that goes "defend yourself by saying that you technically never quoted you." I can see the problem with that, I wonder if you can?

But at least this attempted derail is shorter than your previous attempt. As you don't have a response to anything I said, let's leave it alone and try and get a response to this: You're saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in the military so that religous extremists will be more comfortable. Why is that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That does not make any sense and is not applicable. DADT is not about seperation.

You continue to miss the point that your arguments apply just as much to when Truman and his integrating of the service as they to now to homosexuals.

So by your own standards it was entirely wrong of Truman to integrate the service in 1947 like he did.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I do not think so. With Truman, you are not talking about something that makes people different only in skin color.

Google the science of gaydar. This can be thought of as real physical differences. Even if it is just brain chemistry, it is still physical difference.

Yep as opposed to say skin chemistry which doesn't matter no matter how many people got lynched for it.

We are also talking about human nature. It can be argued that people are taught to be racist. But being repulsed by what one might consider a sexual oddity is something people are born with. People are born with how they view sexuality. No stroke of a pin or a passing of a law can change that.

The blacks needed to be protected from their racist colleges just like homosexuals need to be protected from their homophobic colleges.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you are a little off the mark here. The military also has rules regarding sexuality and sexual practices with straight people. Noone has rights in the military apart from what is granted by the officers above them.

Wrong, they have the rights granted to them by law same as anyone else. They are somewhat different rights, but the officers have no say in the matter, it is what congress passes that matters.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now, don't get ahead of me. I am not saying that being gay is a malformity that we need to sacrifice. I can almost read your mind. This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that to the outside modern world, we look at this practice of the Native Hawiians and call it barbaic and unnecessary. Ah, but the tribe that practice this rutual became the fiercest and strongest and most dominant. This is not only because of natural selection but because by doing this ritual, the tribe was not burden with the task of taking care of the helpless. It was not distracted with humanitarian efforts within its own ranks.


The United States military ought not be concerned with nor burdened with humanitarian and political correctness within its own ranks. It is a burden it can do nothing but slow it down. It is a sacrifice, I know, but nothing good happens in this world without sacrifice.

All good reasons against the integration of blacks into integrated units in 1947.

 

[Sledge]

By the way, why does Noone get rights in the military but no one else does?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope. You'll notice I didn't quote you at all, so I can hardly have misquoted you. You misuse the English language again. I am beginnnig [sic] to expect it.
So gay marriage should be allowed not because there's absolutely no reason gay people shouldn't marry, but so that you can tell who is gay at a glance? Maybe we could just make them all wear a yellow star.

That's Jews, homosexuals had to wear pink triangles.

 

[Sledge]

Maybe we could let them design their own badge this time, just to show we're not homophobic. We just want to know who they are. At all times. There's nothing wrong with that, right? I mean, Bill thinks we need to know who's gay, and he's not homophobic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Noone has rights in the military apart from what is granted by the officers above them.

That is why officers can beat and even execute enlisted men as they see fit.

I know from experience, Mister Man.
Military personel do not even have freedom of speech.
In fact, without permission, we are not even allowed to poo or sleep.

This is a slightly different stance than what you said above you realize.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is not what I said, sillypants. Having dinner is not having sex.

The sex part is irrelevant, a male soldier mentioning going to dinner with his boyfriend gets kicked out. It doesn't matter if they have had sex or not.

 

[funk de fino]

Noone has rights in the military apart from what is granted by the officers above them.

I know from experience, Mister Man.
Military personel do not even have freedom of speech.
In fact, without permission, we are not even allowed to poo or sleep.

I think you are nothing but a rageaholic resorting to lies to support your ideology.

You are a liar Bill. You have no idea what rights servicemen have. I served longer than you. Your short term stuff does not impress me.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

The Department of Defense has said as far back as the 50's that being homosexual in the military poses no additional security risk.

The Deparment of Defense has said as far back as 1992 the reason for not allowing homosexuals to serve for reasons of morale and discipline is modeled in the same way that these reasons were given for racial integration. It then went on to say that allowing homosexuals to openly serve would have similar but less widespread issues and no impact on security or military effectiveness.

There are currently drafted plans on dealing with allowing military men and women to serve while openly homosexual. The plans largely amount to removing literature (such as sodomy regulations in the UMCJ) that contradict this and stop investigations of suspected homosexuals. Sensitivity treatment is not needed as according to the Department of Defense studies most serving members of the military are familiar with homosexuals and are not personally bothered by them. Other than discharge from service, punishments and crimes against homosexuals are still against the UMCJ (homosexuals still being people and all) and would be dealt with in the same way. Just without the inspiration of the military being officially opposed to homosexuality.

Some generals have already suggested following the law that allows the military to not discharge homosexuals if the military finds them useful. The military can use just about anyone after all. The biggest fear for not doing this is political, that civilian politicians of social conservative natures would begin a witch hunt against any military branches that enacted this without civilian leadership ordering this.

So as far as I can tell, the biggest reason DADTDP is not dropped in practice or the ban on homosexuals completely lifted is fear the political social conservatives still maintain enough power to make the brass' lives difficult and the social progressives unwillingness to lose political capital giving the military brass the go ahead.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You are a liar Bill. You have no idea what rights servicemen have. I served longer than you. Your short term stuff does not impress me.

It is possible he is not a liar, he might be legitimately unaware of the UMCJ.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I do not think so. With Truman, you are not talking about something that makes people different only in skin color.

Google the science of gaydar. This can be thought of as real physical differences. Even if it is just brain chemistry, it is still physical difference.

We are also talking about human nature. It can be argued that people are taught to be racist. But being repulsed by what one might consider a sexual oddity is something people are born with. People are born with how they view sexuality. No stroke of a pin or a passing of a law can change that.

You maintain, then, that homophobia is not a choice but an inborn orientation?

Is it genetic, perhaps? Have any twin studies been conducted?

But if people just are, or are not, born bigoted, then why do followers of the hate-oriented lifestyle put so much effort into propaganda aimed at recruitment to their perverse and deviant ways? If it is a fixed orientation, then why even make the attempt to turn decent people into bigots?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Plus racial differences are more than just skin color. Though race is largely subjective (at one time in the US Germans were not considered white in the US, at a later time most Hispanic ethnicities were considered white, most Argentinians are white but would be considered non-white hispanic in the US if they are tanned, ect ect ect). Different lineages have vastly different traits. Those traits tend to be clumped along racial lines. These traits are not just limited to skin hues. Which some white people are darker than some black people. People in the US also largely think they can tell apart members of different races by the sound of their voice. Accuracy and the truth varies widely but it is at least generally accepted by the public at large that different races sound different regardless of upbringing.

Besides, while homosexuals generally do not on average match up with personality of the average straight members of their gender, that is only averages. "Gaydar" doesn't pick up the huge portions of the homosexual population that do not conform to the average. Plus it picks up false positives on plenty of straight individuals. Psychological profiles are difficult to pin down. Both men and women have masculine and feminine personalities, completely separate from their sexuality. "Gaydar" is generally based around picking up masculine cues in women and feminine clues in men, or failing that cultural clues that have adopted among various homosexual subcultures.

As times change the more "gaydar" will become useless. At least in urban areas men dancing with men is no longer an indicator. During Fleet Week I went out to a dance club with a group of female friends. Plenty of sailors out. Plenty of male sailors dancing with other men. Okay, the usual navy jokes aside I doubt they were all homosexual. One started dancing with me and started laying out plots on how to infiltrate and break up the women dancing with each other and get laid. An amusing night to say the least.

 

[Alan]

I made a factual statement. The rules in the U.S. military are unequal between sexual orientations. When will you realise that this is true no matter where I live? No matter what problems exist in Australia (which I trying to fix)? Because of it being a factual statement that is true no matter where I live, your nice little story about Brazil matters as much to what I said as "my cat's breath smells like cat food". That's nice, dear.

You going back to pretending that sexualities are equal in the U.S. military, are you?

You do not show me the time and respect to read and consider those questions I have asked you repeatedly. So "show me the time and respect to read and consider my analogy about Brazil. You reap what you sow." is hilarious anyway.

Now answer my questions.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You are a liar Bill. You have no idea what rights servicemen have. I served longer than you. Your short term stuff does not impress me.

Agreed.

Military members have freedom of speech. The only time it's limited is that we cannot use the Military (or our uniform) to endorse any particular cause.

I can personally support whatever cause I wanted to support - as long as I made the distinction between my personal support and military support.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Agreed.

Military members have freedom of speech. The only time it's limited is that we cannot use the Military (or our uniform) to endorse any particular cause.

I can personally support whatever cause I wanted to support - as long as I made the distinction between my personal support and military support.

Next you are going to say that they don't have to vote as their superiors tell them.

 

[dirtywick]

Agreed.

Military members have freedom of speech. The only time it's limited is that we cannot use the Military (or our uniform) to endorse any particular cause.

I can personally support whatever cause I wanted to support - as long as I made the distinction between my personal support and military support.

It's also limited when you're speaking about superior officers, and I'm sure there's more. It's not as awful as it's made out to be, however one would be wise to be careful in what one's wording was when criticizing the President, for instance.

Of course, one would probably have bigger employment issues at a regular job for talking bad about their boss anyway, so I suppose it's really not that different.

 

[funk de fino]

As far as I can recall I was not allowed to be a member of a political party. However I had a "**** the poll tax" poster up in my barracks and nothing was said.

Incompletely masked word edited. Members, please be aware that you may not, under any circumstances, even one so innocuous as the one above, use any incompletely masked or cleverly misspelled version of a banned word on the public forums.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky