- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Explain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????
Comfort in the shower and I hate fags excluded please.....
The overall effectiveness of the military comes before personal desires.
but the 'founders' of our constitution did NOT suffer homosexuals, witches nor any others that fall under a similar umbrella
perhaps you should consider the context of the original framers
they were hardly 'open-minded liberals'.
The military is outside of the constitution. It, the military is under the rules the congress decides... they could decide only left handed midgets could serve and no one could complain.
I am getting very disgusted with random people in favor of openly gay people in the military, however ignore everything about the thread and just continue to say something like "gays should be able to serve in the military and everyone is equal". Then people make arguments to go against it. They wait awhile, then repeat. That seems to be the left wing tactic on this thread.
How about someone give me an answer on this instead of waiting then later on saying oh i think gays should be able to serve openly.
Thoughts?
Absolutely nothing, of course, as has been shown in a growing list of otherExplain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????
Back from what progressive agenda? Very well thought out response to my rant by the way, perhaps you should consider becoming a hostage negotiator...Wow, just wow. This post is prefectly displays the kind of irrational nonsense that holds a nation back.
In my expected norm I like to think those around me share the same thinking to feel comfortable... like when I go to work it would shock my norm if everyone were nude and look at me and giggle and say, what you didn't get the memo? It is as stark as that, I can work among nudists for a lifetime as long as they keep their clothes on.The comment on social experimentation doesn't make sense because gays are already serving in the military. I'm expected to believe that these gay people will now, if they honestly answer a question regarding their orientation if they wish to, will all of a sudden start hitting on same-sex members all of a sudden or what?
Of course they both exist in the real world, travel to NYC and the only bubble of gay normality is in Greenwich Village... outside of that bubble norm is the majorities norm where gays are abnormal and a shock to the norm.Now what is the gay lifestyle and what is the straight lifestyle? To use such a term shows you live in your own bubble. Both of the above do not exist in reality, only in your imagination. And why should anyone care what the majority thinks?
America is great because it was founded by social conservatives that supported free market capitalism and practiced Social Darwinism leaving compassion of the weak for the family, church and community. If you read history clearly then you would see the founding Americans to be more like the enemy we now face in their thinking... they view us as heathens of a lower god as we viewed the Indians and Mexicans as people's of a lower god... the war of 1812 was a defining point that endorsed the "Manifest Destiny" of our higher god justifying the conquering of "uncivilized lands". All that were not of our kind were infidels required to submit to our higher god or die. To not acknowledge what made America is to live in a parallel universe created by America haters that think Americans are bad and the liberal founders tricked the bad people to install a fair government to protect and raise the weakest to the level of the strongest.The majority has condoned everything from slavery to child labor, why should we care about their assumptions? You may think you're better than me, but no governmental stamp of approval changes the fact that we are both human beings. The difference being how we live and I choose to accept reality and the facts and not to rant on about a "higher god" which means as much as "hptpdjf", ie nothing. Unless you can give a detailed description of this "higher god", one which if it created the world also created the gay mammals that populate it. For them to do what is natural for them to do, be gay mammals, and to call them "abominations of nature" is the height of absurdity. And since when did something have to be natural to be good? What the hell are you doing on the internet then?
I think it is you that is being intellectually dishonest... you live in a bubble among those who support your view and ignore the reality of the differences that have caused the agenda to be where it is at present. Write a letter to the Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division and ask to address units of his personnel on your intellectual assessment of gay strait progress in acceptance in America and conduct a poll of the soldiers and share it with the General. Perhaps then you may find it is you that's in the bubble.If anything you have demonstrated that it is you that is not my equal as you have taken it upon yourself to wallow in ignorace instead of seeking to heighten your intellectual capacity.
It was a different time than now... gays were whispered about by adults outside of the reach of children... my half brother was an avid baseball fan and named his son Robert because his baseball hero had a nickname "Bullet Bob" for his fast pitch abilities... The only bullets his Bob shot were in the back of his lover’s throat or rectum... no bragging rights or dreams were fulfilled to "speak of."I'll go out on a limb and guess that your half-brother didn't want to tell you about his gay son because he didn't want to see you embarass yourself with an irrational, heavily emotional display.
Very good point, we live in a democratic republic and any law or policy we don't agree with should be brought to the attention of the lawmakers for re-evaluation.Actually, Plenty of people could complain.
And they WOULD complain too.
Founding Documents• 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
• 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
• 16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
• 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
• 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Such a strong and compelling argument with no evidence to support it.Of course he has a clue and I will tell you why. Very simply, it's not about the gays, it's about the military. Military effectiveness comes before personal desires and that is the bottom line. He does not need to know what it is like to be gay to know that it can and will decrease military effectiveness.
In the 1940s, racial segregation by law was widespread and racial discrimination was common in the United States. Although the U.S. Constitution guarantees "equal protection of the laws for all persons," the Supreme Court's interpretation at that time required only that the states or the federal government provide equal yet segregated facilities for whites and non-whites.
During World War II, most African Americans and Japanese Americans who served in the U.S. Army did so in racially segregated units. Many states had laws requiring African Americans, Latino/a Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans to go to segregated schools, work at segregated jobs and live in segregated parts of town.[1] Segregated facilities were not considered inherently unequal until 1954.
I am getting very disgusted with random people in favor of openly gay people in the military, however ignore everything about the thread and just continue to say something like "gays should be able to serve in the military and everyone is equal". Then people make arguments to go against it. They wait awhile, then repeat. That seems to be the left wing tactic on this thread.
How about someone give me an answer on this instead of waiting then later on saying oh i think gays should be able to serve openly.
For starters, people in the military are not guarenteed freedom of speech and other rights that are guareneteed from the constitution. All military members are subject to the rules and regulations of the UCMJ. Many of these rules and regulations contradict the constitution.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is it will decrease overall military effectivness. Ive said it 100 times now: whether it is morally right or wrong doesnt matter. Military effectiveness is the bottom line. If people would feel uncomfortable around openly gay people, wouldnt trust them, or whatever the case may be -- it will decrease overall effectiveness.
I am yet to see someone claim that military effectiveness isnt the number one priority.
Thoughts?
Anyways...The Marcum court rejected the argument that, under Lawrence, Article 125, UCMJ, was unconstitutional on its face. It stated that “an understanding of military culture and mission cautions against sweeping constitutional pronouncements that may not account for the nuance of military life.”
Explain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????
Comfort in the shower and I hate fags excluded please.....
Let's think about this Caine. If people would feel uncomfortable around gays, not trust them or just be disgusted to be around them, it would decrease overall effectiveness.Yes, I have thoughts.....
How do you know it will decrease military effectiveness?
I am not saying anything about me. I am speaking in general. I never said I am bothered about gays, but I do know how many people feel about it.Are YOU saying, SpooK, that you would be less capable of completing your assigned tasks as a member of whatever damned ship you happen to be working on just because a gay person is working near you?
Or does this have more to do with...
A. Comfortable Showers..
B. "I hate fags" mentality
And, if you are less capable of completing your assigned tasks only because you have to work near a gay person, Why? Does it have something to do with...
1. Comfort in the shower
2. "I hate fags" mentality
???
Do you really think that a unit working together would not be capable of getting the job done and protecting each other during a time of war because there are gays around?
If so, why do you think that is?
Is it because of..
1. Comfort in the shower
2. "I hate fags" mentality
And, if so, do you think it would cause a soldier to act irresponsibly and negligently enough to """"""accidentally"""""" kill one of his battle partners who """"happens"'"" to be gay?
If so, Why? Would it have something to do with.
1. They wanted a comfortable shower
2. They hated fags.
And, if they hated fags enough to kill one who is an ally, do you think this type of immature mentality should be encouraged?
How is there no evidence? What exactly are you disagreeing with? Posting "evidence" like the Executive Order 9981 isnt exactly evidence. I dont see how it is helping you make any sort of point.Such a strong and compelling argument with no evidence to support it.
The reason I keep bringing up the same executive order 9981 as the climate of the US at the time was one of racial inequality and hostility.
Cite:
Harry S Truman signed the executive order in 1948 in an effort to make sure that during those tumultous times, those who volunteered to serve (the draft from WWII being over) were going to be protected in the military. Any bigotry or problems that being black/having a different religion/or from a different country of origin would cause, would not be acceptable.
Executive order 9981 was no more a "social experiment" as Navy Pride is labeling as gays serving openly in the military would be.
Let's apply the rationale being used by those who support DADT and apply it to religion and the US Gov't protection on that. Why not DADT on religion? What if you're bunking with a muslim since there's so much hate and bigotry towards that religion? Shouldn't they keep that in their "bedrooms" so as not to "decrease morale"? If soldiers are allowed to talk about and practive their religion without impunity, why should sexuality be any different?
Did you bother to finish reading the entire thing? Check this out.Let's talk about military effectiveness under DADT. But first off, a link to the UCMJ. As for UCMJ being contradictory of the constitution:
So pretty much what it comes down to is even though it's guarenteed in the constitution, he was still convicted and punished hard.Answering the third Marcum question in the affirmative, we conclude that the appellant’s consensual sodomy in Virginia and California “fell outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence . . . .” Stirewalt, 60 M.J. at 304 (emphasis added). In other words, the factual context for the appellant’s sodomy implicated military-specific interests that warranted prosecution by court-martial.
Let's talk about the Arabic and Farsi translators, who, due to DADT were booted from the military. Does that give us a more effective military when we have these rare folks who can translate the language of the people we're invading?
I voted an absolute yes. Those who don't want to serve with gay people need not serve at all.
Oh, ok. So it's an opinion which isn't based on any facts, a priori evidence, or proof. Gotcha. Let me just wipe your claim off of the debate board as completely invalid and we can move back on to the topic.How is there no evidence? What exactly are you disagreeing with? Posting "evidence" like the Executive Order 9981 isnt exactly evidence. I dont see how it is helping you make any sort of point.
You have yet to prove said claim.It would decrease morale.
So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof.Religion relieves a lot of stress and provides comfort during hard times.
3rd strike and you're out.Therefore, it would decrease military effectiveness, which obviously would be bad for the military.
IncorrectThey knew the rules and broke them.
Here's an article that contradicts your claim. Feel free to prove yours with a more recent, credible, source.Arabic and Farsi translators are no longer scarce.
This is the exact kind of liberal one-lining that I was referring to in post 320.
So, a guy who is uncomfortable around a gay guy is going to be less capable of doing his job somehow?? And how do you know this? Your entire argument is based off of pure speculation. And, someone who is somehow less effective as a member of our military and less capable of doing his/her job because they have to work near a gay needs to GROW THE **** UP! Immaturity of this level should not be encouraged nor tolerated in the military.Let's think about this Caine. If people would feel uncomfortable around gays, not trust them or just be disgusted to be around them, it would decrease overall effectiveness.
I think you messed up your wording here, cause this doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Care to clarify?I can understand if you say, well, I dont agree with people feeling that way, ok fine. I can understand if you say, there is nothing wrong we gay people. Ok fine. I can understand if you say, I trust gay people, ok fine.
I, however, can not understand how you could say if people in the military feel that way, it would not increase military effectiveness.
And why do you think these "people" would be less capable of doing their job the same way they do it now because they would have to work around gays. And ask these "people" does it have something to do with...I am not saying anything about me. I am speaking in general. I never said I am bothered about gays, but I do know how many people feel about it.
Yes, is immaturity of others a good reason to deny someone the privilege to serve their country?Yes, unfortunately, I could see that happening in some cases. Do I think it's right? No, but it doesnt mean it couldnt happen.
BTW Caine, you skipped over a post entirely directed at you. I wouldnt mind if you want back and responded to it.
This is the exact kind of liberal one-lining that I was referring to in post 320.
So what exactly are you disagreeing with? That people in the military dont want to be around openly gay people? That some people in the military dont trust openly gay people? That some people in the military dont like gay people? What exactly are you refuting?Oh, ok. So it's an opinion which isn't based on any facts, a priori evidence, or proof. Gotcha. Let me just wipe your claim off of the debate board as completely invalid and we can move back on to the topic.
There is a poll on this post somewhere stating 26% (might be 24, it's around there) or something will not serve with openly gay people.You have yet to prove said claim.
Can you show me the proof that it is a problem that military personnel are complaining about, that as a whole will decrease overall effectiveness.So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof.
When I said they knew the rules, it was referring to the link that you provided in the post that I responded to. You cant call it incorrect by then adding another url because I didnt comment on this one.
Copas said he was never open about his sexuality in the military and suspects his accuser was someone he mistakenly befriended and apparently slighted.
Here's an article that contradicts your claim. Feel free to prove yours with a more recent, credible, source.
Lack of Arabic Translators Hurting U.S.
Your claims are spurious and without proof. So before launching partisan ad hominems, check your posts for details first.
Yes, allow me to clarify. What I am saying is that I can understand your opinion of thinking it is immature/stupid/whatever to not want to serve with openly-gay members because they dont like/trust/feel comfortable around/whatever.So, a guy who is uncomfortable around a gay guy is going to be less capable of doing his job somehow?? And how do you know this? Your entire argument is based off of pure speculation. And, someone who is somehow less effective as a member of our military and less capable of doing his/her job because they have to work near a gay needs to GROW THE **** UP! Immaturity of this level should not be encouraged nor tolerated in the military.
I think you messed up your wording here, cause this doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Care to clarify?
See aboveAnd why do you think these "people" would be less capable of doing their job the same way they do it now because they would have to work around gays. And ask these "people" does it have something to do with...
1. Taking a "comfortable" shower (if you are comfortable showering next to other butt naked guys, your probably gay).
2. Do they hate fags? (immature mentality that has no place in military life).
Yes, is immaturity of others a good reason to deny someone the privilege to serve their country?
Umm.. If it is what I am thinking of, Did I not say I was finished talking about that, since we were going in circles and we would never agree?
I don't prefer to continue :beatdeadhorse Thanks.
There is a poll on this post somewhere stating 26% (might be 24, it's around there) or something will not serve with openly gay people.
Electronics are replacing the need for arabic speakers. It will be awhile before we can completely replace them, but we are making progress.
Then ignore me, Spook. It's that simple. I didn't feel like writing a long post. I support gay people being able to serve in the military and being able to serve being openly gay.
I work for the federal government. If I work with a bunch of gay people and I don't like it, I can QUIT.
The other 74% didnt say they would support it. They said it wouldnt effect them in either direction. The 26% (which is a lot of people) said it would negatively effect them.The scared minority once again makes the rules for the majority.
It was obviously affecting people in someway. Otherwise he would still be around.How does firing a valuable translator, because he is gay, and not because he's imcompetent in his field, make sense to you?
It's like firing a Nascar driver simply because he'd rather be with a man then a woman. Even if he's valuable to you, you still fire him because of your personal homophobia...
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?