disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Until, there are some reports of actions gainst gay soldiers, then they'll be bigoted homophobes, in addition to brainwashed murderers.
Wait until a republican is elected in '12 and something bad happens to a gay soldier. Then, we'll be hearing all the usual hatin' on the military, like when Bush was in office.
:shrug: there is no everybody wins 1000% option. that's why DADT was a good compromise - it allowed homosexuals who wanted to to serve, without demanding that others suffer for it.
see, i want DADT to remain in place because removing it will cause increased stress on the combat units that can least afford it; which inevitably results in the loss of limb and life.
People who make these ridiculous arguments are the same people who claim that gay marriage will result in the destruction of straight marriage.....the facts say otherwise.....just as gay marriage in some states and other countries has not led to the destruction of straight marriage.....gays in the miltary has not even been a blip on the screen in every country that allow gays to serve openly.
Its nothing more than right-wing hysterics to desperately try any argument to maintain a loosening grasp on their bigoted ideas.
see, when i talk about the intellectual bankruptcy of playing the "bigot" card.... this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Bigoted views are bigoted views...and bigots are bigots....you can't escape the facts by trying to spin it and claim "intellectual bankruptcy"....nice try though.
Bigots claimed that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage....the facts say otherwise
Bigots claim that allowing gays to serve openly in the military will destroy the military...the facts say otherwise.
Oops. Wanna try again CP?
WTF are you talking about?...First....you'll be hard pressed to get a Republican elected in 12
...in any event....there was no more hatin on the military under Bush than under Obama.
In fact, if anything.....people were MORE supportive of the military under Bush because people were correct in saying that our military should NEVER be used a pawns to fight a personal agenda camoflauged as a war based on lies.
How does ANYONE suffer when people are allowed to serve based on merit? Seriously....can you give ONE example of anyone that suffered as a result of a gay person serving openly in the military?
The only way a Democrat will be in the White House after the '12 election, is if someone beats O'Bama in the Democrat primary. Even then, maybe.
Is that an echo from Democrats in '04 about Bush43?
oh really? So, tell us, what's O'Bama going to run on? Jobs? Energy prices? The Economy? Libya? Fiscal responsibility? Lower taxes? What? Ya'll better hope his campaign slogan isn't, "Four More Years!". :lamo
So far, the only thing he can brag about is killing UBL and everyone knows the only reason that happened, is because he kept Bush's policies in place.
:shrug: there is no everybody wins 1000% option. that's why DADT was a good compromise - it allowed homosexuals who wanted to to serve, without demanding that others suffer for it.
Dutch soldiers at Srebrenica.
I believe it was heroic Navy Seals that got BL.......As far as DADT as Yogi Berra says, "Its not over until its over."
As far as Hussein Obama goes, his days are numbered..........
:roll: if you can demonstrate a single member on this thread claiming that repealing DADT will "destroy" the military I would be much obliged.
an ad hominem, a non sequitor, and a straw man fallacy, in the same post. congratulations!
The military is an organization. Have I said one word against the individuals. No I have not. I do not subscribe to the ideals of the military industrial complex that is the world. I can certainly find the idea of military repugnant without singling out individuals or groups of individuals as is being done by the assault on gays serving in the military. They are separate entities totally.The military is the people in the military. I cannot speak for other countries militaries, but the US military is made up of some of the absolute best people you could ever hope to meet.
If said straight people are so worried they have mental problems and should not be in the military anyway. You though no matter how you put in or want to sugar coat it are supporting a bigoted policy as is the military. If they can't deal with gays serving openly cut them loose.katiegrrl, why do you want to kill members of the military?
see, i want DADT to remain in place because removing it will cause increased stress on the combat units that can least afford it; which inevitably results in the loss of limb and life.
So, since you oppose my means, you must obviously oppose my ends, right? Ergo, you must be bigoted against veterans, and want them to suffer and die.
THAT, is the failure in logic that you are engaging in here - you are mistaking someone's means for their ends, and in particular you are mistaking opposition to your means with opposition to your ends. You want gays to serve openly because you don't want them to be discriminated against, ergo you assume anyone who disagrees with you must want them to be discriminated against. But that no more follows than the above claim that you hate and want servicemembers to die.
You will find in debate you will do much better if you do not attempt to engage in ad hominem fallacies, or attack the motivations of those you find on the other side.
NOW, as to "picking on select groups". The military is not the business world. We are not regular government service. We are not like your job. We have a brutal task and a brutal task master, one who kills us without mercy or hesitation if we fail, and often even when we succeed. Hence, when we hire, we don't care anything about you - other than whether or not you increase or decrease our ability to do our job with the least loss of our lives. The military "discriminates" against the very short, the very tall, the very fat, the very stupid, those with asthma, those who are color blind, those who are too young, those who are too old, and yes, those who are homosexual. None of these "discriminatory policies" are due to bigotry or hatred or anything of the like - we don't have some kind of fear of the asthmatic - they are due solely and only to our natural interest in seeing that we are able to do our dangerous job with the least loss of our own lives.
that requires a level of intimacy and cohesion in our combat units that is likely unlike any workplace you have ever known. we live together, eat together, drink together, s--t together, piss together, f--k together, bathe together, sleep together, work together, cry together, bleed together, love each other deeply, and know each other in and out. men who would abandon their marriage vows will unhesitatingly risk their lives for their fellow - because that bond is more powerful than their marriage. This is necessary to do our job. When it's 'Ski out there, lying in the open, screaming, you run to him whether or not there is fire, whether or not there are explosions, whether or not there are IED's.... because it's Ski. I knew the body language of my squad mates better than I knew the body language of my wife. You all holler about how it's unfair for me to compare the situation to naked pictures? sure, some of my buddies have pictures of me runnin' round with my tallywacker flapping - because that's just how it is in the grunts. you are more intimate with each other there than you have been with any other group you know, and one of the ways you do so is by joking with each other in the most intimate and offensive ways you can think of.everyone see's everyone naked, and you will feel the totality of each others' body pressed up against you when it's cold. when you joke around, you joke around with an ease and intimacy that would never be allowed anyone else... but because you have that level of intimacy and cohesion, nobody get's offended and everyone things it's hilarious when two guys 69 each other on the table at the armory at 0430 to demonstrate how they feel the Corps is ****ing them in the face by getting them up this early for no good purpose. It's just expected when you find out that the New Guy has the amazing ability to pull his ball-sack over a full-sized dinner plate... and you immediately force him to demonstrate this mutant power to everyone else in the platoon. Bonds are built because there are no boundaries. remember when that video of one of those british princes came out, and it was him joking back and forth with one of his platoon mates, calling him racial names? you could tell who knew what they were talking about based on who thought that was offensive - because that's just life in the grunts, man. i can look at charles and explain how he's getting 0200 watch because he's as black as my pubic hair, and he'll have natural camouflage that way because Charles knows that A) he can abuse me right back and B) i love him, and when the **** goes down i will never, ever, ever leave him. and if he falls we will get drunk on the anniversary, and tell tales of him, and through us he will live on - and he will do the same for me. good, successful squads and platoons have their own personalities, corporate personhoods that are made up of the multiple beating hearts of the individual pieces woven into one corporate soul. they have to have this, because only when I am able to take the pain for Ski can I help him when Jones goes down; because I know that he and Jones came in together through bootcamp... and because that is the only way that Ski can get back up the next day and go back out.
I have now lost more Marines to suicide now than I have to the enemy. It's a bitter pill. In EVERY case they have been separated from their unit when it happened. Because when you lose the cohesion, intimacy, support, and trust in each other that you have in a good unit... many can't handle the power of the brutal taskmaster we face. Three of those losses were because of the buddies they had lost... no one was there to dilute their pain through shared corporate personhood, and so they were overwhelmed.
introducing open homosexuals reduces that ease, reduces that intimacy, and reduces that unit cohesion. It makes us less able to function as a single body, a single heart, a single corporate soul. It makes us less able to meet that brutal task masters' demands, and the price he demands for failure is high.
and that's why I think repealing DADT is a bad idea. not because I care one way or the other about homosexuals or homosexuality - but because I have one iron standard that i judge everything by: will this help or hurt the ability of those small units to function well? You could be an 85-pound blind idiot, and if you will help them to survive, I want you in; you could be Rambo and Jesus Christ rolled together, and if you hurt their ability to succeed and survive, then I want you "discriminated" against. Because I don't care if others feel equally treated, loved, affirmed by society and their fathers, or whathaveyou. I care first far-away and foremost only about the ability of that small unit to succeed and survive; and for that they need an intimate level of unit cohesion that precludes the possibility of sexual tension.
:shrug: there is no everybody wins 1000% option. that's why DADT was a good compromise - it allowed homosexuals who wanted to to serve, without demanding that others suffer for it.
That has been refuted. Hearsay second hand evidence denied by basically every one, including all the investigations into the event. And you know this.
If said straight people are so worried they have mental problems and should not be in the military anyway. You though no matter how you put in or want to sugar coat it are supporting a bigoted policy as is the military. If they can't deal with gays serving openly cut them loose.
My husband and I have both had our training.
Mine included only one question about berthing arrangements and comfort level (that was handled pretty well by our officer who was giving the training). And, there is some talk that the plan right now is to eventually incorporate some sort of benefits arrangement for same sex partners (after a few years, and from what our officer told me from the info he has gotten) should getting SSM legalized take a lot longer than expected.
My husbands' training included a message from his leading officer that was basically "no change". Although that really isn't true, since an issue that came up in the past year involving a fight between girlfriends shows that there are at least some things that will be treated differently once DADT is officially repealed, including domestic fights (now, at least some military police recommend that no matter the circumstances of a fight between a same sex couple and which was to blame, they should not claim themselves as a couple since they could technically still be discharged for doing so, until the repeal is final, at which time domestic disturbance/violence laws/rules would apply to them as it does opposite sex couples in similar relationships).
If said straight people are so worried they have mental problems and should not be in the military anyway. You though no matter how you put in or want to sugar coat it are supporting a bigoted policy as is the military. If they can't deal with gays serving openly cut them loose.
Actually, with DADT repeal, every one does win. If not now, then in a very few years.
Except of course the homosexuals being harmed..wait...you said "others". Is the harm caused to a homosexual somehow less than that of a heterosexual that thinks two guys kissing is yucky?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?