Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Rocky,

rabid white winger here agreeing with you. I cant believe it, but I found our common ground.

Patriotism knows no sex or sexual orientation. I am proud I served and served proudly besides both gay and straight military members, Dont Ask Dont Tell or not.....

Doesnt change my political belief though, even rabid right wingers can disagree with a thing or two their party believes....

Captain
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Notice the past posts of the two rabid right wingers who replied to this post so far? A little gay bashing goes a long way and sometimes begs the question from Shakespeare: "Maybe thou protest too much?" Can you spell C-L-O-S-E-T?????????? Roll Eyes


Can you point out where I was "gay bashing"? Or is it impossible to impugn ANYONE who is gay for ANY reason now? Wow, total immunity from everything... as provided by useful idiots... can you say stupid? Wink Roll Eyes
Actually don't care either way, does not affect me, however, I have worked most of my life without any need to openly "declare" my affection for the opposite sex. I don't recall ever being "asked" or "telling" as far as work goes. I guess now I am free to flaunt my heterosexuality, with no regards to circumstances, right?
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Actually don't care either way, does not affect me, however, I have worked most of my life without any need to openly "declare" my affection for the opposite sex. I don't recall ever being "asked" or "telling" as far as work goes. I guess now I am free to flaunt my heterosexuality, with no regards to circumstances, right?


Don't bet on it. You will probably be accused of creating a hostile environment or some other such silly leftist nonsense.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Actually don't care either way, does not affect me, however, I have worked most of my life without any need to openly "declare" my affection for the opposite sex. I don't recall ever being "asked" or "telling" as far as work goes. I guess now I am free to flaunt my heterosexuality, with no regards to circumstances, right?


Please explain why you chose to be a hetero?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Actually don't care either way, does not affect me, however, I have worked most of my life without any need to openly "declare" my affection for the opposite sex. I don't recall ever being "asked" or "telling" as far as work goes. I guess now I am free to flaunt my heterosexuality, with no regards to circumstances, right?


Please explain why you chose to be a hetero?


Didn't see any references to choice mentioned anywhere in this thread/topic. If you are looking to steer this somewhere else, maybe start a different topic/thread, I'll respond to your topic there, once you get it going.
this is the most idiotic carp I've seen in a while...well, not really with this administration... but, this is so pathetic my head's spinnin!!! IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR THE JOB OF CONGRESS TO PRACTICE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SOCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE MILITARY!!!

If General Petreus went to King Barry and said..."We could end the war in Afganistan if openly gay folks could be in the military." then awesome!!! Pass this bill!!! This has zero to do with protecting our country and making the military stronger and everything to do with feelgoodism politics. What a garbage waste of taxpayer time and dollars that was spent by politicians dealing with this issue. We are a country led by morons....really sad.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
this is the most idiotic carp I've seen in a while...well, not really with this administration... but, this is so pathetic my head's spinnin!!! IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR THE JOB OF CONGRESS TO PRACTICE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SOCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE MILITARY!!!

. . . . We are a country led by morons....really sad.


Giving fish the right to vote was, retrospectively, a bad idea.

Less than 2% of the population serve. Why should gay people be kicked out for doing something 98% wont do? As someone who has been in since '96, I have served with gay men and women and not once has it kept me for doing my job. Openly or not, gay people are still held to the same dress, weight, physical, ect standards as heterosexuals. What is the problem? To the poster about the thong in the DFAC, well I have seen some Field Artillery guys do some crazy stuff in my time that would be considered worse than that.
Homosexuals have served in the military since there was a military. I know from personal experience that MANY homosexuals used their sexuality as a "Get out of the military free" card when they got tired of serving for whatever reason. They didn't like being away from home. I know one guy who came out because he missed his boyfriend and began the processing out phase of his career shortly thereafter. His plan backfired, though, because his boyfriend enlisted while little Mr. Servicemember was deployed. I can say "little" because he was little.
Despite the many instances of "come out to get out," there were many members of the military who were honored to serve and wanted to stay in, but word got out that Lieutenant So-and-so was seen in the rainbow district in Providence or New London, so he MUST be gay. "Let's give him the boot."
There are also instances of a gay guy getting married to a heterosexual woman so both can receive all the benefits.
Regardless, what does "serve openly" mean? Does it just mean that they can be in the military and everyone knows they're gay and that's okay? Does it mean there have to be new uniform regulations to accommodate the preferences of some? Will there be a new rainbow service ribbon so everyone will know how to act around their homosexual counterparts? What's going to change?
While I was active duty, I knew the ones who were gay and it didn't matter as long as they did their jobs. Military bearing is a huge part of our personnel inspections and performance evaluations. If you know anything about military bearing, you can guess where I'm driving with that one. Flamboyance isn't exactly conducive to military bearing. Granted, not all homosexual men are flamboyant, but the ones who are tend to have a hard time containing themselves. Does the repeal pave the way for those homosexuals who wouldn't normally have enlisted to think they can carry on business as usual, just for Uncle Sam now? I don't think that will work. Congress, in all their infinite wisdom, surely covered all these bases before passing this legislation.
quote:
Originally posted by Elvis Wearing a Bra on Head:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
this is the most idiotic carp I've seen in a while...well, not really with this administration... but, this is so pathetic my head's spinnin!!! IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR THE JOB OF CONGRESS TO PRACTICE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SOCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE MILITARY!!!

. . . . We are a country led by morons....really sad.


Giving fish the right to vote was, retrospectively, a bad idea.



Your ill attempt at humor has failed. "Carp" was used instead of "crap." Carry on. You're bound to get it right eventually.
Tomme got the "carp" thing. lol

This ain't about being gay or not being gay in the military. It's something for libs to hang their hat on. They don't care about gay people, they care about getting lib progressives to vote for them. Bottom line, when the military is concerned, the ONLY bills getting signed by the president are ones that progress the mission. Winning wars, protecting soldiers who protect us. This bill DOES NOT DO THAT! Thus it was just another politically motivated distraction, and a massive waste of time and money by the federal government... big shocker right??
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Dont ya just hate when the gov goes out and guarantees civil rights for all taxpaying citizens, especially those willing to volunteer to die for some yet unnamed mission in the mideast.


No but I do hate it when the gov and everybody else tries to go out and make legitimate and mainstream a severe form of degenaracy.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Dont ya just hate when the gov goes out and guarantees civil rights for all taxpaying citizens, especially those willing to volunteer to die for some yet unnamed mission in the mideast.


since when did anyone say gays couldn't serve? Sex should not be a part of the military, thus who someone has sex with is irrelevant. This is grandstanding plain and simple. Like I stated, the only way this should be an issue is if commander's of the armed forces went to the prez and told him it would help win wars. I have never seen one report of this happening, thus this bill is a waste. This is about idiots in suits and ties wasting our time and money on another politically motivated photo opportunity that is outside the scope of federal responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Bull. Civil rights laws in the USA prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. The members of the AFUS should have the same protections. We once segregated the AFUS based on race, the expansion to sexual orientation just took longer.


What's "BULL" is comparing people's sexual preference with people's race. Issues based on ethnic background should not be confused with or mixed with issues based on sexual preference. That's lunacy.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Sexual orientation is settled civil rights law. The gays are here. And there. And everywhere. And they dont all have a wide stance or evangelical TV shows. Many are Catholic priests. Many are in the military, estimates say about 2%, or 20,000.


Child molestors are here. And there. And everywhere. Rapists are here. And there. And everywhere. Serial killers are here. And there. And everywhere. There have been reports they were born that way... should we slide them into civil protection category also?

I don't care who somebody has sex with. Completely meaningless to me. But back to the topic at hand, it is not the federal government's job to practice social experiments withing the military. The federal gov't is only to use the military to protect the citizens of The United States of America... not to push a social agenda.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Civil rights laws did that, I didnt. The gay members of our AF are being denied their civil rights. Or rather were being denied.


How are they being denied civil rights? That's simply not true. That is the sensationalized jazz that's been rammed down our throats by lib progressives pushing an agenda that is meaningless to the protection of this country.
Right now, gays and lesbians are actually denied 1138 rights given to heterosexuals. Here are some of the ways in which GLBT people are not equal under the eyes of the law:

* Marriage: In all but four states, same sex partners cannot legally wed.
* Protection from Discrimination: In many states, you do not have the right to protection from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
* Joint Taxes: GLBT couples cannot file taxes jointly; as a result, taxes for a GLBT couple can be significantly higher.
* Hospital Visitation: GLBT couples have no legal right to visit a spouse in the hospital and can be barred from entering the room by medical personnel.
* Estate Taxes: GLBT couples cannot pass their estate to a spouse tax-free, which creates a huge tax burden that can result in the loss of a spouse's home or business.
* Job Security: In a majority of states, employees can be fired just for being gay.
* Immigration: GLBT partners are denied special consideration for the immigration of a spouse, often resulting in a painful separation when a loved one is from a foreign country.
* Property Taxes: GLBT partners must pay property tax when transferring property between spouses.
* Social Security: GLBT partners are not eligible to receive a spouse's Social Security pension or many other government benefits.
* Medical Decisions: During a medical crisis, GLBT couples cannot legally make treatment decisions for their partners.
* Domestic Violence: GLBT people cannot get domestic violence protection orders against a partner or former partner.
quote:


The fact that you attempt to equate race with sexual preference ended any credibility you thought you might have.


Why not? You are denying someone their rights based on the who they are. Like it or not, gay people were born that way. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. That is the problem with this country. Blow hards like you try to dictate how others are treated when you don't even understand a person's inner being.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The fact that you want to equate child molesters, rapists and serial killers to gays, ends any credibility you thought you might have.


I don't think PR was equating gays to any of those groups. He was merely asking the question, "Should everyone who was 'born different' be granted preferential treatment?" "Oh, they were born that way, so it's okay." Maybe he was saying that just because certain types of people are everywhere, it doesn't mean they should be treated differently. I don't know. I DO know that the repeal was more of an agenda than something that was REALLY thought out and deemed necessary.
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Article 125. Sodomy states:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


While this one may be hard to enforce, don't you think a whole, pardon the pun, butt-ton of military personnel will soon be charged with this? Unless they re-write the UCMJ, military officials will be WELL within their rights to bring someone before the green table for this one.
Or. . . "You can be gay, but don't have sex." Of course, this article applies to straight personnel who partake in "unnatural carnal copulation." Can doctors determine whether the anus was used as anything other than a check valve?
The biggest problem I see here is battlefield blood availbility. The biggest, the statistics show, harbor of HIV+ is in the gay population. So much so, that the CDC has forbid those from engaging in receptive acts from donating blood. A recent survey I had read shows that up to 20% of gay males could be HIV+ and not even been detected at this point.
In battlefield situations how will it be addressed? I know we currently try to practice avoidance with any and all blood and bodily fluids, but in the real world we know that cannot happen. In a battlefield situation, there is no way for it to happen.
This is a pandora's box which will be opened and there are many issues that will have to be addressed.
I cannot find fault with giving them rights to marry, hospital visitation, or tax filing, but what we could be talking about here is an unfair exposure of potential fatal pathogens to their fellow soldiers, I am sorry if I seem crass, but these types of things have to be looked at, and considered when you endanger people knowingly.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×