Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 235

Thread: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

  1. #151
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Well, you're close. I want to see the ban lifted and DADT to remain in place, so as to avoid discrimination. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest of gay soldiers for DADT to remain in place.
    That doesn't make any sense. If gays aren't kicked out of the military when people find out they are gay, then what is the consequence?

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I'm talking about the, "stand alone", camps. I was at Camp Greaves, out to the northwest of Seoul; where there were no dependent services available.
    O ok now I see what you mean. Well Camp Greaves has closed and I'm pretty sure most of those forward camps are closed or are closing. But most places in Korea allow dependants to travel with you now.

  3. #153
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    That doesn't make any sense. If gays aren't kicked out of the military when people find out they are gay, then what is the consequence?
    Obviously, nothing!...

    However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

    If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

    The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

    I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #154
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Then, I would say that you're sleep posting. No point in talking to you on the subject.

    Seriously. Have you read any of my posts? Obviously, not.

    I've already stated my stand on gays in the military, a bazillion-million times. You're one of those folks that sees what you wanna see, and nevermind reality.
    I read quite fine. You have been the one to constantly state argue that being a KKK member or in other such hate groups should be equated with being homosexual.

    You also believe that DADT should stay in place. That is still not right. But, also, what punishment would you suggest to those who violate DADT? And would it apply to heterosexuals? Would it mean that no personnel could be married in the military? Your idea still leaves homosexuals at the disadvantage for no fair reason.

    The military's treatment of homosexuals should be the same as it does heterosexuals. And I highly doubt that the military would want to bar married heterosexuals from joining, especially since it is almost encouraged to be married, considering the benefits that come with it. Also, there is no way to really keep everyone in the military from discussing their significant others.

    Oh, and as a side, for those who don't know, it is already against military regs for a servicemember to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality, whether real or perceived sexuality. The obvious exception is only DADT and the policies on gays serving openly. Which pretty much means that only a little bit of training will need to be changed. I read this a couple of days ago on our training site.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #155
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Obviously, nothing!...

    However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

    If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

    The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

    I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.
    Well it doesn't help that you say you want to leave "DADT" in place when the only part you are really interested in leaving in place is the "DA" part.

  6. #156
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    O ok now I see what you mean. Well Camp Greaves has closed and I'm pretty sure most of those forward camps are closed or are closing. But most places in Korea allow dependants to travel with you now.
    I see. Wasn't aware that Greaves closed.

    had some high-old-times at Greaves. That's where I learned what, "Spartan", really meant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #157
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Well it doesn't help that you say you want to leave "DADT" in place when the only part you are really interested in leaving in place is the "DA" part.
    The, "DT", is just an important as the, "DA". But, hey, you're a PFC, so there's no way to make you understand in the military. Hell, you don't even have the conception that I think that the ban on gays should be lifted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #158
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Obviously, nothing!...

    However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

    If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

    The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

    I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.
    You are obviously the one who doesn't have a clue on how the military works. A soldier can easily say that now or after the ban on gay soldiers is lifted. It would be considered on the same level as asking a person about someone they slept with or even if they have ever had sex in a certain way, which is an inappropriate question for a supervisor or officer or anyone, to ask someone.

    I had an XO who asked me if I slept with my husband before I married him. I could have absolutely answered him that it is really not any of his business (although it would be best to do so in a more respectful manner), and I would not get in trouble for doing it. In fact, if I would have reported him to the CO or the EO for asking such a question, he most likely have been counseled. Such questions are personal and an order to answer such a question (without having a very good reason to do so) is unlawful.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #159
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Obviously, nothing!...

    However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

    If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

    The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

    I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.
    If DADT was lifted, they could tell some one grilling them on their sex life: "it's none of your damn business". If it was an officer, they probably should throw a sir in there, but whether officer or not the answer is still legit.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #160
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't need a poll, nor any documentation, to demonstrate that the opposition to DADT isn't about constitutional rights, or what's good for our armed forces. It's about nothing, other than, "I'm gay and I'm in your ****ing face". Which makes the entire anti-DADT crowd a buncha hypocrites.
    I don't buy that argument at all. The reason is obvious. Just answer the following question:

    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •