• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

And The Favored Status Begins

Leave time is a big deal to a young Marine or other military guy
I remember the opposition to asking Don't Ask Don't Tell being right along these lines.

Personally, I opt to give the men and women wearing our uniform for being, well, men and women as a pose to toddlers. I'm sure they'll recognize that something needed to be done to offset the fact that 37 out of 50 states discriminate against people paid to lay down their lives for 50 out of 50 states.
 
Leave time is a big deal to a young Marine or other military guy

I'm sure it is. I still opt to give the men and women wearing our uniform for being, well, men and women as a pose to toddlers. They should be a lot more offended that 37 out of 50 states discriminate against people paid to lay down their lives for 50 out of 50 states.
 
Since when is the need to get married so urgent that you can't take a little extra time and plan it out for when you have leave?

The point is that a homosexual couple will need to take more leave since they'll have to go to another state, vs. a heterosexual couple that doesn't need to spend a couple days traveling just to be allowed to get married.

I think that 7 days is more than is really needed, but I think giving them a couple extra (one day to travel there, one to travel back) is fair.
 
and as I've said, that's a real problem you have. I stated to CT and I'll reiterate. I don't feel the government should tell you who you can and cannot marry but to give 1 soldier 7 extra days of paid leave and not give the other guy the same benefits is counter productive. You don't bring equality about by promoting policies of inequality. All this breeds is discontent.

I completely agree, you don't gain equality through in equality. So being that gay people are lower things like this will continue to exist. We are arguing fit the same thing, but until the states get their act together this has to be the way it works. Once the inequities are gone thus will change until then we are stuck
 
I completely agree, you don't gain equality through in equality. So being that gay people are lower things like this will continue to exist. We are arguing fit the same thing, but until the states get their act together this has to be the way it works. Once the inequities are gone thus will change until then we are stuck

The homosexual community would do well in the court of public opinion to say "Thanks but no thanks". To this and any other policies which resemble it. Besides everything else that's wrong with it, what are these guys doing that they need 7 extra days, traveling by stagecoach?
 
The point is that a homosexual couple will need to take more leave since they'll have to go to another state, vs. a heterosexual couple that doesn't need to spend a couple days traveling just to be allowed to get married.

I think that 7 days is more than is really needed, but I think giving them a couple extra (one day to travel there, one to travel back) is fair.

The military has, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER given extra leave for getting married. The policy wasn't because marriage was legal everywhere but, rather, because a soldier's first responsibility is to the service. As the old saying goes "If Uncle Sam wanted you to have a wife he'd have issued you one".

This ludicrous ruling overturns all of that and carves out a special niche for gays.
 
The homosexual community would do well in the court of public opinion to say "Thanks but no thanks". To this and any other policies which resemble it. Besides everything else that's wrong with it, what are these guys doing that they need 7 extra days, traveling by stagecoach?

Not sure. I think it would speak volumes for equality if gay people simply didn't take this leave.
 
This ludicrous ruling overturns all of that and carves out a special niche for gays.
Kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, right? After all, that was a law just for gays too.

Damn them homosexuals for getting all the benefits of extra scrutiny!
 
The homosexual community would do well in the court of public opinion to say "Thanks but no thanks". To this and any other policies which resemble it.

I think the court of public opinion should be happy that gay folks are still proud to sign up to risk their lives on behalf of all of us despite how many of us think it's okay to treat them like second-class citizens.

I think it would speak volumes for equality if gay people simply didn't take this leave.

I think it speaks volumes that gay folks are still proud to sign up to risk their lives on behalf of all of us despite how many of us think it's okay to treat them like second-class citizens.
 
Kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, right? After all, that was a law just for gays too.

Damn them homosexuals for getting all the benefits of extra scrutiny!

I'm quite sure that we had gays in the military long before DADT. We disciplined soldiers all the time for inappropriate sexual behavior including adultery and gratuitous public displays of affection. The soldiers, airmen and sailors that couldn't comport themselves appropriately in public were considered to be a distraction and a problem for troop discipline so we had them either shape up or ship out. That applied to banging your girlfriend in the barracks shower too.

If a soldier had homosexual relations and never got caught then, for all practical purposes, he wasn't a discipline problem so we just didn't care or, like as not, even know. The goal was always to maintain discipline. I'd even go so far as to suggest that if a soldier was "kind of weird" but performed well, maintained discipline and maintained esprit de corps then his "weirdness" was generally overlooked.

This whole idea of carving out special niches for people is TOTALLY contrary to good military discipline and I guarantee you we'll see problems because of it.
 
So because you've been mistreated it is another's turn? That will win the hearts and minds....

Really? You feel so abused and persecuted because gays have to often go to another state to marry and you miss out on the accommadation? That is how you want to present yourself? "Whoa is me who can get married anywhere." Good luck with that pitch.
 
I'm quite sure that we had gays in the military long before DADT. We disciplined soldiers all the time for inappropriate sexual behavior including adultery and gratuitous public displays of affection. The soldiers, airmen and sailors that couldn't comport themselves appropriately in public were considered to be a distraction and a problem for troop discipline so we had them either shape up or ship out. That applied to banging your girlfriend in the barracks shower too.
So telling someone you were gay is roughly the same level of distraction as banging your girlfriend. Well, apparently not the same level, because my guess is having sex with another heterosexual wasn't enough to get you thrown out of the military.

If a soldier had homosexual relations and never got caught then, for all practical purposes, he wasn't a discipline problem so we just didn't care or, like as not, even know.
The same as a heterosexual, right? And if the heterosexual WAS caught say, I don't know, having a girlfriend, then he would also be thrown out of the military, correct?

The goal was always to maintain discipline.
The goal was to suppress homosexuality. Don't kid yourself. The goal was about suppressing homosexuality, which was in apparent violation with the ideas of a religious nation. Clinton, who signed it, has said on several occasions DADT was basically the best compromise he could come up with in response to a Congress who wanted to ban homosexuals from the military completely.

This whole idea of carving out special niches for people is TOTALLY contrary to good military discipline and I guarantee you we'll see problems because of it.
I would agree it's wrong to treat one class of people different from another. Of course, I would have agreed with that sentiment all along. But just as you have, in this very post, rationalized a law which carved out a special niche for gays, it seems kind of strange to be against the idea of other people rationalizing a policy which carves out a special niche for gay as a type of reparation for previous discrimination.

To be clear, I have no idea how you feel about DADT. Maybe you've been against it from the very first day. I'm kind of speaking to the larger point, and you are serving as the "other side".
 
Last edited:
I'm quite sure that we had gays in the military long before DADT. We disciplined soldiers all the time for inappropriate sexual behavior including adultery and gratuitous public displays of affection. The soldiers, airmen and sailors that couldn't comport themselves appropriately in public were considered to be a distraction and a problem for troop discipline so we had them either shape up or ship out. That applied to banging your girlfriend in the barracks shower too.

If a soldier had homosexual relations and never got caught then, for all practical purposes, he wasn't a discipline problem so we just didn't care or, like as not, even know. The goal was always to maintain discipline. I'd even go so far as to suggest that if a soldier was "kind of weird" but performed well, maintained discipline and maintained esprit de corps then his "weirdness" was generally overlooked.

This whole idea of carving out special niches for people is TOTALLY contrary to good military discipline and I guarantee you we'll see problems because of it.

Heterosexual soldiers could be known heterosexuals without being drummed out. The same was not true of homosexual soldiers. DADT and the military's bias against homosexuality had nothing to do with being caught in the act or or committing adultery -- unless, of course, simply being homosexual or in a homosexual relationship is what you'd count in "inappropriate sexual behavior."
 
Really? You feel so abused and persecuted because gays have to often go to another state to marry and you miss out on the accommadation? That is how you want to present yourself? "Whoa is me who can get married anywhere." Good luck with that pitch.

AM I in the military right now? You better bet your ass I'd be indignant beyond all believe if I was and you got 7 more days to enjoy with your spouse than me.
 
AM I in the military right now? You better bet your ass I'd be indignant beyond all believe if I was and you got 7 more days to enjoy with your spouse than me.
Now you know how homosexuals felt for 20 years and still feel in parts of the country today. Congratulations, empathy achieved.
 
AM I in the military right now? You better bet your ass I'd be indignant beyond all believe if I was and you got 7 more days to enjoy with your spouse than me.

Personally, I'd be indignant beyond all belief if one of the millions of American citizens I keep safe day after day bitched and moaned that I was getting extra time to travel to another state to be recognized as an equal citizen.
 
I think the court of public opinion should be happy that gay folks are still proud to sign up to risk their lives on behalf of all of us despite how many of us think it's okay to treat them like second-class citizens.



I think it speaks volumes that gay folks are still proud to sign up to risk their lives on behalf of all of us despite how many of us think it's okay to treat them like second-class citizens.

I agree, i tried to get into the military before DADT was lifted it was a serious concern of mine, however not the reason I didn't serve. I agree with you on this. To sign up and keep yourself quiet about who you are.
 
Now you know how homosexuals felt for 20 years and still feel in parts of the country today. Congratulations, empathy achieved.

and that's what you're not getting...I shouldn't have to feel that. Because you did doesn't mean that I have to. Whatever transgressions that occurred need to be remedied not heaped onto another.

What you're doing is taking one group and pulling them down, to be like another, an oppressed group. That's slave morality. I'll have no part.
 
Personally, I'd be indignant beyond all belief if one of the millions of American citizens I keep safe day after day bitched and moaned that I was getting extra time to travel to another state to be recognized as an equal citizen.


and that's the thought process which will never make you equal.
 
To those who are whining about this...would you trade places with a gay person?
 
To those who are whining about this...would you trade places with a gay person?

Why one earth would I want to? The main argument of the proponents of this asininity see it as some form of reparation or they view it as a tit for tat, a "see how you like it". Homosexuals want to be treated as equals but then want favored status and special accommodations. You don't assimilate by being treated special.
 
Why one earth would I want to? The main argument of the proponents of this asininity see it as some form of reparation or they view it as a tit for tat, a "see how you like it". Homosexuals want to be treated as equals but then want favored status and special accommodations. You don't assimilate by being treated special.

I don't see this as a tit-for-tat. I see it as the military providing some flexibility to offset the ... position ... of a number of state governments. It's not like it's an award that was handed out in a lawsuit, that would have bugged me.
 
Why one earth would I want to? The main argument of the proponents of this asininity see it as some form of reparation or they view it as a tit for tat, a "see how you like it". Homosexuals want to be treated as equals but then want favored status and special accommodations. You don't assimilate by being treated special.

I have a feeling homosexuals had nothing to do with this policy taking effect. Most likely it was decided upon by a group of straight people.

Me personally I dont like this policy. All it does is put this idea into peoples heads that gay people want special privileges when that isnt what the vast majority of gay people want at all. Of course I also think its kind of dumb to get worked up over this policy knowing the entire reason it was put into effect is to compensate for the fact that heterosexuals get special privileges in many states.
 
and that's what you're not getting...I shouldn't have to feel that. Because you did doesn't mean that I have to. Whatever transgressions that occurred need to be remedied not heaped onto another.

What you're doing is taking one group and pulling them down, to be like another, an oppressed group. That's slave morality. I'll have no part.
Umm...how exactly are you being oppressed?

But you're right, you shouldn't have to feel that. And neither should they have either. But they did, and still do. It's just hard for some people to feel sorry for you when you've been granted full freedom to express who you are all along and then complain others are now finally earning that right after decades of discrimination.
 
Back
Top Bottom