- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,297
- Reaction score
- 1,002
- Location
- Saint Paul, MN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And there is equality more then any profession in this country..That is a fact................
Umm, what???
And there is equality more then any profession in this country..That is a fact................
Sounds like a personal issue. The problem is that society in general is much more accustom to relating with homosexuals than you are. Therefore discrimination cannot be granted on the basis that YOU are not comfortable working around them. This negates this reason for discrimination.I noticed both employees roll their eyes in disgust and I left and haven't returned for my wind chime because I got sick at my stomach and disgusted.
Well, in today's Army, Whites Rate Blacks, Blacks Rate Whites. Women Rate Men and Men Rate Women. So I would see no problem with a gay rating a straight. However, due to some level of bigotry that still exists, I could see a problem with a straight rating a gay. But like you said, It wasn't a "show stopper" for having Blacks in the military, therefore, it should not be for allowing gays to serve as well. Therefor discrimination cannot be granted on the basis that a bigot may not be able to fairly rate a gay person. Moving on....No I have no reference...
I think you hit the nail on the head... The constitution section 1 sub section 8, sub para 14 gives congress the responsibility to establish rules and not laws over the military and naval forces. Much of the rules for the military in regulation form slap in the face of constitutional protections shared by other citizens. When activated for federal service the jurisdiction is with the federal authority in a gold bordered flag of the US equal to the authority of the US in international trade/issues and the like that may contradict our constitution. There are millions of pages of regulations to dictate exactly where a soldier may or may not have freedoms... No passports are necessary for soldiers yet family members must have them to accompany the soldier to areas authorized by the federal government. The term GI was derived from Government Issue to indicate a soldier is the property of the government, the federal government and there is no constitution to protect this product but only those rules established and blessed by congress. It is in fact the judgment of the congress that DADT at the time of last debate on the issue was the best policy or regulation to support military effectiveness. When a soldier is active for duty he is controlled 24 hours a day buy federal regulations on or off duty...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.
They are really 2 different things.........It is a privilege to serve in the military..Evryone that trys to join is not accepted for various reasons..........
There are many valid reasons why gays can not serve openly in the military and I have listed them...........They are especially true aboard Navy ships where living conditions are very crowded and long periods of time are spent at sea.........I served on 6 ships during my naval career and saw many gays kicked out of the service because the made unwanted sexual advances to straight sailors...............I was personally involved in 3 or 4 court martials as a witness to these unwanted sexual advances.........I don't even blame the gay guys.........A gay guy aboard ship is like a kid in a candy store.............I equate it to a straight guy serving on a ship with a crew of women.......Living closely together, showering and undressing............It just does not work........
You say you served openly in the U.S. Military but I doubt very seriously if you department head or commanding officer new you were gay...............
"Feel Good Liberals" want to make the military a social experiment...Either they don't know or don't care the real reason for having a military and it is not for social experimentation..........
No... Its for Medical Experimentation......
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 12/22/2006 | Mandatory anthrax vaccinations raise concerns
Umm, what???
So should any man who makes unwanted sexual advances be kicked out? What about the gay men who do not make those sexual advances, can they stay in? To say that a man should be kicked out solely for being gay because other people make sexual advances is not a valid reason.
And you are wrong again, my commanding officer did know and so did the sergeant that was in charge of my section. They did not care.
Have you been in a gay relationship?Have you served?
In my 20 years I never saw a sailor discriminated because of his race or religion........Since it is against the law for gays to serve openly in the military that is not a factor.....
Have you been in a gay relationship?
(Relevency=Zero)
And as a sailor you're missing the boat as to the point of the thread and the exercise known as Executive Order 9981.
And if you've not had a gay relationship then you have no clue either.If you have not served then you have no clue what it is like to serve in the military
Until it's changed, yup.DADT is the law of the land.............
And if you've not had a gay relationship then you have no clue either.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.
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.
Everyone who is still claiming that they feel that people should be able to serve openly gay, please refer to post 272 found here, and we can go from there.
Interesting. This is from your link:
I dont see sexuality. :doh
You can say it over and over again until your blue in the face my friend but he will never get it in a million years.........
The Law is DADT and the EO is being adhered too.........
And if you've not had a gay relationship then you have no clue either.
Until it's changed, yup.
Don't hold your breath...........:roll:
You're right NP. I just keep saying it in hopes of it clicking maybe just once. Maybe I give people too much credit ....
I truly believe that most people that are gay and lesbian just want to live out their lives in peace and harmony
Navy Pride said:I accept gays as my equal and as friends
Navy Pride said:That said what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business...........
There is a militant sect and some radical left wingers that want to ram the gay lifestyle down our throats and have us accept it as and alternate viable lifestyle.....They use marriage and the military as a wedge to try and accomplish this.......
I truly believe that most people that are gay and lesbian just want to live out their lives in peace and harmony
I accept gays as my equal and as friends
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You are exactly what I am talking about Disney Dude.........Pot meet kettle..........