Do you agree with this? Why or Why not?
This should really be left up to those serving in the military. If they are comfortable with gays serving, then it doesnt need to be there. But if they are uncomfortable knowing they are fighting alongside a gay person and it can impede their performance, then DADT should be kept in place.
Weren’t gays not allowed in the military before DADT? So wouldn’t they need new legislation allowing homosexuals to serve? I thought Clinton’s DADT legislation was an attempt at incrementalism to allow gays to serve openly in the military…
Bureaucracy Bureaucracy Bureaucracy. We’re all shooting at the same guys so as long as you have an American flag on your arm patch who cares if you’re gay. How much money and time has been wasted debating this issue on the Hill?
Analyze_This Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Weren’t gays not allowed in the military before > DADT? So wouldn’t they need new legislation > allowing homosexuals to serve? I thought > Clinton’s DADT legislation was an attempt at > incrementalism to allow gays to serve openly in > the military… Don’t ask Don’t tell = if you’re gay, you can’t openly say you are. So they aren’t necessarily banned from serving but obviously takes away freedom of speech. Why would a gay person want to serve in a military protecting rights they don’t even have? I always thought it was an archaic rule and am fine the repeal.
I was thinking they should just make one of the branches gay. Since the USMC is the smallest branch, let’s make it the gay one.
murders&executions Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was thinking they should just make one of the > branches gay. Since the USMC is the smallest > branch, let’s make it the gay one. It already is.
Glad it was repealed, sorry that it was ever implemented. If a gay person wishes to volunteer for their country’s military (something that many straight people, including myself, would not do by choice), then good for them. They should be allowed to serve. I for one don’t think that being gay is ‘by choice’, so that obviously influences my feelings on gay rights. I mainly feel this way after seeing the ostracism that many gay people are greeted with by their families, communities, potential/current employers, etc. Why would someone choose to be gay? It’s certainly not for any perks that come with the status that come with being an out homosexual in many parts of the country. As to one of the common arguments that gays could be “distracting” to straight folks in the military, there is unfortunately certainly some truth to it. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the military who aren’t comfortable being around an out gay person. However, I think the sweeping generalization that all gays would be distracting to all straight people is ridiculous. There will be a proportion of straight soldiers who are bothered by a number of gay soldiers. However, I think that some really die-hard opinionated folks on the subject seem to think that the 508th Parachute Infantry regiment will immediately turn into a production of “The Birdcage”, or that gay soldiers are going to spend every waking moment trying to hit on or ‘recruit’ straight soldiers. Both of these scenarios seem pretty far-fetched. Anyhow, that’s my opinion. I’d be curious to hear some well-formed arguments from the other side. I’m sure there are well-informed folks who see it the other way.
CFAcountry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This should really be left up to those serving in > the military. If they are comfortable with gays > serving, then it doesnt need to be there. But if > they are uncomfortable knowing they are fighting > alongside a gay person and it can impede their > performance, then DADT should be kept in place. I agree with this as I and most likely everyone on this board has never served in the military nor has any real idea of whats it like. In my personal opinion though, I don’t really see why being openly gay would materially affect anything so I think its a good thing it was repealed. I also think the media has focused way too much attention on this considering there are much more pressing matters going on.
Analyze_This Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Weren’t gays not allowed in the military before > DADT? So wouldn’t they need new legislation > allowing homosexuals to serve? I thought > Clinton’s DADT legislation was an attempt at > incrementalism to allow gays to serve openly in > the military… Yes, being discovered as gay in the military was grounds for discharge (I think it was even a dishonorable discharge). Moreover, before DADT, a superior officer could ask an officer or enlisted person if they were gay. If they were, merely asking would put the soldier in a no-win situation. If you said you were gay, you were out; if you were gay and lied, you could stay if they didn’t discover your lie, but if it was discovered, you would be reprimanded for the lie and then discharged. DADT was an executive order designed to eliminate this practice. I believe that DADT may have served its purpose (of incrementalism). An entire generation has grown up accepting that there are gays in the military and that they shouldn’t be discharged solely for being gay. A generation of soldiers has figured out how to live with closeted gays and there have been no serious repurcussions. What remains now is to have a system that allows gays to serve openly in the military. A simple executive order as commander-in-chief should be sufficient, although even that may not be necessary, as the different branches of the services may have independently modified their service codes to allow it. There is still the question of what constitutes “behavior unbecoming of an officer.” The benchmark presumably will be that things that heterosexual service men are allowed to do will be permitted to homosexual servicemen. One does wonder what this means for things like fraternization and inter-service dating. The army and air force, for example, have different rules about whether two members of the same service can have a romantic relationship, even if it is a heterosexual one. One service (the army, I believe) says that a relationship is prohibited only if one reports to the other in the chain of command, whereas the other says that all relationships are prohibited. In the navy, which of course is based on the idea of service members serving together on ships, I believe no romantic relationships are permitted, because they can distort unit cohesion in cramped environments. So services will have to figure out a policy for what is allowed in terms of one member hitting on another. This will presumably be a good thing to clarify for both homosexuals and heterosexuals in the military.
I wonder how these Marines gonna react when their general and lieutenant finally coming out of closet.
God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. You want to know the answer between Religion and gays? I’ll tell you. Look in the Bible, look Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. We all know who sinned first (come on ladies do you have to eat everything?). I know you were hungry and there was a snake talking to you, stick to that story, we’ve bought it this long. It’s kind of cute too. Now God has to punish us for ALL MANKIND. What was women’s punishment? Do you know? Painful childbirth and menstrual cycles. Men’s punishment? We have to deal with women. That’s why I get upset when people say “God hates gays.” God doesn’t hate gay people he’s just mad because they found a loophole in the system. Wouldn’t that upset you? You come up with a great punishment and they’re like "You know what? We’re just gonna bang each other."It’s gotta be easier than all that “Nah nah nah hey where are you going? When are you coming home? Listen, listen, LISTEN!” quote
If I was gay, I would love to have a ban on me serving in the military. I bet 99% of gay people would give up the right to be in the military for a guarantee that they will never be drafted.
murders&executions Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was thinking they should just make one of the > branches gay. Since the USMC is the smallest > branch, let’s make it the gay one. /golf clap
brain_wash_your_face Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. You > want to know the answer between Religion and gays? > I’ll tell you. Look in the Bible, look Adam and > Eve in the Garden of Eden. We all know who sinned > first (come on ladies do you have to eat > everything?). I know you were hungry and there was > a snake talking to you, stick to that story, we’ve > bought it this long. It’s kind of cute too. > > Now God has to punish us for ALL MANKIND. What was > women’s punishment? Do you know? Painful > childbirth and menstrual cycles. Men’s punishment? > We have to deal with women. That’s why I get upset > when people say “God hates gays.” God doesn’t hate > gay people he’s just mad because they found a > loophole in the system. Wouldn’t that upset you? > You come up with a great punishment and they’re > like "You know what? We’re just gonna bang each > other."It’s gotta be easier than all that “Nah nah > nah hey where are you going? When are you coming > home? Listen, listen, LISTEN!” > Which comedian was that? It sounds like Dave Attell
Sounds more like Phillip Platt
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > murders&executions Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was thinking they should just make one of the > > branches gay. Since the USMC is the smallest > > branch, let’s make it the gay one. > > /golf clap Good lord, imagine the parades…
Black Swan Wrote: > > Which comedian was that? It sounds like Dave > Attell Daniel Tosh, although the quote doesn’t really give the delivery credit.