- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,975
- Reaction score
- 60,521
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And, IMO, the sexual harassment rate will sky rocket.
And you have no evidence of this.
And, IMO, the sexual harassment rate will sky rocket.
WOOT Social Engineer the Armed Forces more! **** their mission, **** what's best! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ROCK!!
Really? 75% of the country wants that? When most every state that has gay marriage put to a ballot has elected to ban gay marriage?
Oh the things we do to appease 2% of the country.
I can't believe I am going to post this. But after examining the issue I can't say that I support DADT anymore. I do think it's wrong to force people to keep their sexuality secret and ban their partners from military functions. DADT should be removed.
Are there any valid reasons to keep DADT in place?
The typical list...
1. Letting gays serve openly could harm unit cohesion.
2. Letting gays serve openly could harm retention and recruitment.
3. We haven't heard from the soldiers about how they feel. (The Pentagon study is due to be released in December after the elections)
4. We will have to segregate gays from the rest of the population with special facilities.
5. It harms the integrity of the military.
6. The military might have to provide benefits to the spouses of enlisted gay men and women.
7. Most military commanders don't like the idea of having gays serving openly in the military.
There are abbreviations. None of which reduces the rank to a former rank. A Sergeant is a Sergeant. No matter how many stripes, soldiers are always simply "Sergeant."
And "Sergeant First Class" may be why soldiers reduce it to "Sergeant." It is far more practical to call some one Sergeant and then Staff Sergeant and then Gunnery Sergeant (or Gunz) and then Master Sergeant (or Top) and then Master Guns.
How dare this activist judge does what 75% of the country wants! How dare she stand up for free speech! This is an atrocity and will have severe repercussions! It will be massive sodomy throughout the ranks!
75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
none of those reasons seem completely valid or logical to me.
I doubt their is any evidence to suggest that Gay people negatively effect a unit's cohesion.
Recruits will have to work with gay people once they get out into civilian world so that makes no sense.
How the soldiers feel about it is largely irrelevant because this is a minority equal rights issuie.
I don't understand why gays would need special facillities, I mean aren't military showers basically in and out? (I imagine scheduling different shower times wouldn't be an icebreaker anyways)
To think allowing gay people to serve harms the integrity of our military is pretty pathetic.
Of course they would have to provide the same benefits as a straight couple would recieve, only fair.
I highly doubt most commanders would not like the idea of Gays serving openly, from what I have heard many actually would like to see it repealed.
75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
Funny how public opinion only matters when it's convenient for some people...
Yet, most vets on this board, along with the JCS, say they are valid reasons. We're all wrong?!?
It's not the type of decision historically made by the military, nor should it be.
75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
Yep.
It's crazy how having other people agree with you when you're wrong doesn't make you right, isn't it?
Funny how public opinion only matters when it's convenient for some people...
yeah funny how public opinion (like the voters of CA opinion on gay marriage) only matters when it's convenient for some people. :lol:
note, I don't give a rat's ass either way about gay marriage. I just find it ironic that some people who use "public opinion" as an arguement to end DADT are some of the same people that argue against the voter's of CA because they voted against gay marriage.
Well, this is what you get for living in a society of law -- sometimes, somebody you never met is going to tell you what to do, and they're going to have the authority to do so.
It very well should be. What shouldn't happen, is some PC nazi judge shouldn't be able to dictate military regulations. A court of appeals has zero jurisdiction over the US military, that is why the military has courts martials, the UCMJ and the articles of war.
It very well should be. What shouldn't happen, is some PC nazi judge shouldn't be able to dictate military regulations. A court of appeals has zero jurisdiction over the US military, that is why the military has courts martials, the UCMJ and the articles of war.
So, if 7 out 10 mechnics say the same thing is wrong with your car, you're going to assume they wrong? How much sense does that make?