Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

[Navy Pride]

Hoo boy. I feel like I'm debating ptsdkid or Navy Pride. I'm outta here.

Don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out........:rofl

 

[Navy Pride]

Umm no. As long as it's MY tax dollars paying THEIR government salaries, the military has no right to discriminate against gays. We have a 14th amendment.

Its still a privilege to serve.........

Your tax dollars have nothing to do with it.........You elected politicians and a president who enaccted DADT........

 

[Navy Pride]

I have a suggestion for all you lefties that think gays should serve openly in the military......

Why don't you enlist and take your argument to the military direct........

Yeah, Right, I won't hold my breath........:rofl

 

[1069]

I have a suggestion for all you lefties that think gays should serve openly in the military......

Why don't you enlist and take your argument to the military direct........

Yeah, Right, I won't hold my breath........:rofl

I will as soon as you turn gay.
Until then, you can't possibly know what you're talking about.

:roll:

 

[SpooK]

I have a suggestion for all you lefties that think gays should serve openly in the military......

Why don't you enlist and take your argument to the military direct........

Yeah, Right, I won't hold my breath........:rofl

Haha. Why would they do that? It's much easier to sit on the computer and whine about how things should be different. They dont care what the consequences are.

 

[Inuyasha]

I have a suggestion for all you lefties that think gays should serve openly in the military......

Why don't you enlist and take your argument to the military direct........

Yeah, Right, I won't hold my breath........:rofl

You are under the impression that only right wing people serve in the military?

 

[ngdawg]

You are under the impression that only right wing people serve in the military?

He's under the impression that only heteros serve, too....:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

I will as soon as you turn gay.
Until then, you can't possibly know what you're talking about.

:roll:

Why am I not surprised you would respond that way..........:rofl

 

[Navy Pride]

You are under the impression that only right wing people serve in the military?

Huh???? I served for 21 years and there are a lot of Liberals in the military....Unlike you most put their hate for the president aside and do a great job for the good of their country...........

 

[Navy Pride]

You are under the impression that only right wing people serve in the military?

Damn it.come on man/woman I thought I was on your ignore list........I have never been more happier..........:roll:

 

[Alastor]

I really wouldn't sweat over NavyPride gang. Seriously, just ignore his posts. I've never seen him have an argument of substance that genuinely needed to be addressed.

All he does is sling dirt and quote Rush. Just block him. He's nothing but a disruption on the boards to be honest, and doesn't even rate as a worthy adversary. The only time I pay any attention to him is when I'm bored and need some entertainment; You know, like handing a monkey a gun.

 

[1069]

I really wouldn't sweat over NavyPride gang. Seriously, just ignore his posts. I've never seen him have an argument of substance that genuinely needed to be addressed.

All he does is sling dirt and quote Rush. Just block him. He's nothing but a disruption on the boards to be honest, and doesn't even rate as a worthy adversary. The only time I pay any attention to him is when I'm bored and need some entertainment; You know, like handing a monkey a gun.

I like his....... posting style...... though.
It sounds like everything.... he says.... is just sort of .............. trailing off..... wistfully......

I once told him if there was ever a national shortage of periods, he'd be in big trouble for using far more than his fair share.

:mrgreen:

 

[Topsez]

I either stipulate or disagree to such an apathetic extent on your post, Topsez, that I'm inclined to not even respond to most of it.

Part of it I will though:


Oh, I blame the church. Just because the blacks didn't make enough noise doesn't make it okay that we enslaved them. Just because the Jews "didn't rebel enough" does not make it okay to kill them. Just because one group fails to find a way to respond does not mean they are wrong, nor does that make their oppressors right.

You are really not clear here... are you blaming the church for George Washington owning slaves?

But I do agree that those that support diversity and equal protection issues could do more, should do more, and so far have not mounted campaigns of the type and potency to do so.

Once again my point appears to have missed you... Captain Courtesy in his recent posts on the topic gave links that clearly states that gays are equally dispersed across racial and classes of citizens. With that in mind along with the percentage of American gay in the population one could only conclude that each citizen is or has a gay member in their family or extended family... If we agree to this point then you must agree that each member of congress falls into the same catagory. Unlike other movements, womens, race or whatever the gays are best represented since they are family members of each and every American family and not a small under represented segment of the society.

It appears to me that if each gay citizen convinced their family members that they are not being treated fairly then each family would email their congressperson to let the congressperson know that they find gay treatment to be unfair... even if only the congresspersons families did this I think it would compel the congress to address the matter. It seems gays haven't challenged their own famlies or there wouldn't be a problem.

If a person cannot convince their own family of a wrong then how can they blame outside organizations for their unfair treatment? Take a look at this gay link on the Senate... these folks follow many actions that many strait people disagree with since gay members haven't explained in detail to their own families the problem.

UNITED STATES

SENATE



VOTES ON HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES

UNITED STATES SENATE

I was not in the US for most of the 60`s and all of the 70's but in seeing old TV programs and movies it would seem that in the 90's and the first decade of the 21st century we have returned to the morality of the late 19th century and the early 20th. I don't think that's all that much progress. Going backwards means a people are slipping IMO.

Scratching my head... what the hell are you talking about? The US is in moral decay according to almost everything I see. Some examples please...

 

[Inuyasha]

Damn it.come on man/woman I thought I was on your ignore list........I have never been more happier..........:roll:

You real good at talking trash. Keep up those kinds of insults and you'll find MY size teen boot up you a$$ this time. I take that back.. you'd probably like it too much.

 

[Alastor]

Topsez,

Let me clarify.

You wrote:

Do not blame the church, Boy Scouts or other groups... blame the families of the gays that don't support their desires or agenda... for that is the population of the US, the families and extended families of the gays.

To which I responded:

Oh, I blame the church. Just because the blacks didn't make enough noise doesn't make it okay that we enslaved them. Just because the Jews "didn't rebel enough" does not make it okay to kill them. Just because one group fails to find a way to respond does not mean they are wrong, nor does that make their oppressors right.

Now you've asked:

You are really not clear here... are you blaming the church for George Washington owning slaves?

No. I'm blaming oppressors, in whichever form they take, for oppressing. I grant that in many cases the victims can and should do more for their own sakes, but I by no means believe that gets those that would exploit or bully them off the hook for their actions.

That's all I'm saying.


Moving on...

Once again my point appears to have missed you...

It's possible, now that I reread this quote of yours:

blame the families of the gays that don't support their desires or agenda...

If you meant "blame them for the inequity and unfair treatment of gays in our society" then I did understand you right. If you're saying the opposite as in... "blame the families of the gays for giving in to the desires of gays to be treated equally" then there has indeed been some confusion.

So I guess I'll wait for you to clear up what you meant by that last post before we try to straighten out the rest of our conversation.

 

[Topsez]

Topsez,

Let me clarify.

You wrote:



To which I responded:



Now you've asked:



No. I'm blaming oppressors, in whichever form they take, for oppressing. I grant that in many cases the victims can and should do more for their own sakes, but I by no means believe that gets those that would exploit or bully them off the hook for their actions.

That's all I'm saying.

The oppressors, if gays are truely opressed are the families the gays are members of.

Moving on...




It's possible, now that I reread this quote of yours:



If you meant "blame them for the inequity and unfair treatment of gays in our society" then I did understand you right. If you're saying the opposite as in... "blame the families of the gays for giving in to the desires of gays to be treated equally" then there has indeed been some confusion.

So I guess I'll wait for you to clear up what you meant by that last post before we try to straighten out the rest of our conversation.

If even 150 million citizens contacted congress in support of gay issues ... there would be no gay issues... convince your families to support your desires and have them contact congress... the point is you cannot convince your family to support your agenda, or at least the majority of gay citizens can't sell their desired agenda to their families or the voice of the families would have drownded out the status quo.

 

[Alastor]

Topsez

Then there was indeed a misunderstanding. I took your post to mean the contrary of what you intended. Thanks for clarifying your position for me.

 

[AlbqOwl]

After reading through several pages of this thread, I think some observations are in order:

1) Those who would deny military service to gays because being gay is 'bad' or 'evil' are not constructive to the discussion. They believe what they believe but their belief gets in the way of any objectivity related to the actual issue.

2) Those who think any objecting to gays in the military or who support DADT are 'homophobic' or 'gay bashing' or 'anti-gay' are also not constructive to the discussion. They also believe what they believe but their belief gets in the way of any objectivity related to the actual issue.

3) Those interested in actually discussing the real and imagined plusses and minuses of gays serving in the military and exploring the rationale for why the policy is what it is or presenting an rationale for what the policy should be are in short supply here.

It is always unfortunate when our prejudices get in the way of actually finding solutions and/or developing the best policy for any issue.

 

[Caine]

After reading through several pages of this thread, I think some observations are in order:

1) Those who would deny military service to gays because being gay is 'bad' or 'evil' are not constructive to the discussion. They believe what they believe but their belief gets in the way of any objectivity related to the actual issue.

2) Those who think any objecting to gays in the military or who support DADT are 'homophobic' or 'gay bashing' or 'anti-gay' are also not constructive to the discussion. They also believe what they believe but their belief gets in the way of any objectivity related to the actual issue.

3) Those interested in actually discussing the real and imagined plusses and minuses of gays serving in the military and exploring the rationale for why the policy is what it is or presenting an rationale for what the policy should be are in short supply here.

It is always unfortunate when our prejudices get in the way of actually finding solutions and/or developing the best policy for any issue.

I guess you could be right....
But....

Ive still yet to see anyone who can name me any reasons to deny gays the privilege to serve that are not based directly upon, or connected in some way to one of the following:

1. Uncomfortable showers
2. "I hate gays" mentality.

 

[SpooK]

I guess you could be right....
But....

Ive still yet to see anyone who can name me any reasons to deny gays the privilege to serve that are not based directly upon, or connected in some way to one of the following:

1. Uncomfortable showers
2. "I hate gays" mentality.

How about because a premature change in policy could result in creating an overall negative impact of military effectiveness.

 

[Navy Pride]

I guess you could be right....
But....

Ive still yet to see anyone who can name me any reasons to deny gays the privilege to serve that are not based directly upon, or connected in some way to one of the following:

1. Uncomfortable showers
2. "I hate gays" mentality.

Can you point out where anyone said they hate gays or is that just another figment of your imagination? I am against gays serving openly in the military, especially in the Navy for the many reasons I have mentioned but I hate no one, not even you.......

 

[Navy Pride]

How about because a premature change in policy could result in creating an overall negative impact of military effectiveness.

Caine who claims he is a vet is for using the military as a social experiment.......He forgets or does not care that the mission of our military is to fight our wars and defend this country as do more liberals.....

 

[Caine]

How about because a premature change in policy could result in creating an overall negative impact of military effectiveness.

If you make the statement, you have to break it down....

How would it create this overall negative impact on military effectiveness.
How would the military be effected negatively by it?

 

[Caine]

Caine who claims he is a vet is for using the military as a social experiment.......He forgets or does not care that the mission of our military is to fight our wars and defend this country as do more liberals.....

No no no..... I will argue the issue "for" it.
But I could care less whether or not gays can openly serve.
As, I am no longer in the military, and I am not gay, and I do not hate gays.

Besides, I already had to shower butt naked in the same open shower area as a known gay person.
I did it in the military.
It did not decrease my effectiveness.

Also, Navy Pride, Can you prove that I do not care, or have forgotten that the mission of our military is to fight wars?

Thanks, I await more garbage.

 

[Caine]

Can you point out where anyone said they hate gays or is that just another figment of your imagination? I am against gays serving openly in the military, especially in the Navy for the many reasons I have mentioned but I hate no one, not even you.......

I didn't say that someone SAID they hated gays.

I stated that I have yet to see anyone give a reason that gays should not serve in the military that was not directled based off of, or related to..

1. Uncomfortable (or un"fair") showers
2. "I hate gays" mentality.........(i.e. Bigotry or dislike of someone just because they are different).

So.... Any takers?