- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 95,987
- Reaction score
- 33,329
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Good now DADT is gone, what will the libs to bitch about next?
Good now DADT is gone, what will the libs to bitch about next?
Good now DADT is gone, what will the libs to bitch about next?
SSM! We need you to marry a guy.
Gays wanting to share in the misery of marriage makes them morons.
Gays wanting to share in the misery of marriage makes them morons.
The benefits of legal marriage are balanced out by the pains of a private marriage, for most couples anyway. And gay couples can already be in a private marriage without legal same sex marriage.
It was kind of a joke. :roll:
Good now DADT is gone, what will the libs to bitch about next?
Well, your defense spending bill is still at astronomically stupid heights.
Gays wanting to share in the misery of marriage makes them morons.
Ordering them to live in a certain place is a lawful order. Ordering them to serve in the same platoon is also a lawful order.
As gays and straights have already been living together I see no reason why they cannot. Even if it wasn't openly, people still knew they served.
It is only considered "an inability to adapt to military life" if a person's behaviors actually affect the unit negatively (except with DADT or a ban on gays is in place). The military forces people together all the time who normally would not be friends or even like each other, for whatever reason. The things that leadership should be concerned with are intolerance and people who are actually breaking military rules that would truly cause problems in the unit, not discriminatory rules designed to alleviate problems based possible intolerance problems or possible violations of military rules.
IOW, if a gay servicemember is hitting on or sexually assaulting his fellow unit members, then he should be put out of the military. But if there are others who can't tolerate or who discriminate against anyone based on their sexuality, then they are the ones who should be put out of the military, not the one who is facing the intolerance or discrimination.
Good now DADT is gone, what will the libs to bitch about next?
Well, your defense spending bill is still at astronomically stupid heights.
Gay = Happy.
We don't do misery. We couldn't have made that anymore clear when we named ourselves gay.
Well, there are lot's of variables involved. Females soldiers can't be forced to billet with male soldiers. Such an order would be unlawful. A female soldier is within her rights to refuse such an order, the same way that a gay soldier would be within his/her rights to refuse to billet with straight soldiers and vice versa.
But, now they're serving openly and that is a definite game changer. I know you think I don't know jack **** about it, so you'll just have to wait and see.
Not the same. The genders will still be the same.
If its that big of a game changer then those that are offended by gays to let it affect thier professionalism don't deserve to be in the military. For the simple fact that if they can't stand something different then they are not going to be the greatest when it comes to relations with those that are different.
And please, don't attribute something to me until I have said it straight out. Just because I disagree with you it doesn't mean that I think you don't know jack about it.
But, their sexuality isn't. Therein lies the difference.
It's nothing to do with being, "offended". For the simple fact that the regulations clearly state that a soldier has the right to, "live and work in a safe comfortable environment".
What unit did you serve in and what was your MOS and rank?
Not that big a difference. We've had gays serving in the military for a long time now and I don't recall hearing about any of them leering at the guys in the shower. Surely there would have been at least one that did if gays were not able to control themselves as so many seem to imply/suggest.
Ok I would find such a regulation idiotic to have in such an organization as the military
....Since when is living on the front lines considered "a safe, comfortable environment"? I would dearly love to see it, could you provide it?
Did not serve. What's your point? Can I not disagree with someone in a specialized position? If I was a cop that made the judgment call to shoot someone because I thought for sure they were pulling a gun on me would your opinion of "you should have waited and made sure" be any less valid when it turned out that he/she never had a gun? Point is that even someone in specialized positions, with the advantage of being in that position can still be wrong while the guy/gal from the outside can be right.
They weren't serving openly. Why does it seem that people can't see how that makes things different? "Staring", is defined as sexual harassment. Now that gay soldiers are serving, "openly", there are going to be sexual harassment cases between gay and straight soldiers and it won't just be straight soldiers filing the complaints.
Not so idiotic, when you consider that we have coed units in our military and rules had to be put in place to protect female soldiers from sexual harassment.
A safe, comfortable environment from your fellow soldiers. It's understood that the enemy isn't going to provide a safe, comfortable environment.
It's nothing to do with being, "offended". For the simple fact that the regulations clearly state that a soldier has the right to, "live and work in a safe comfortable environment".
Because the difference is only in the minds of the paranoid. No offense is meant there but it is true. There are lots of people in the military that don't care if they serve with homosexuals. They already know that they do and have even known some friends within thier own platoon that they figured out was gay. If it doesn't bother them then that shows that it is just in a persons mind.
From the Pentagon study it is clear that implementing DADT repeal overall will be far from trivial, and for Marines, implementation is likely to involve particular difficulty. Members of all service branches focused on the same underlying issue (volume 1, p. 141, volume 1, p. 135 and volume 2, p. 64):
Privacy concerns were the most frequently commented upon issue, regardless of a respondent’s Service.
… respondents appeared to be most concerned about the possibility of showering or rooming with someone who was known to the respondent to be gay or lesbian.
“If my roommate turns out to be homosexual, I feel like I am part of his target audience. It is a violation of a social norm; for example you wouldn’t have me room with a female.”
DADT Study Data Argues Against One-Size-Fits-All Approach | Secure Nation
As far as "staring" being considered sexual harrassment? Please show me where this is? Does it determine how long you look at someone for it to be considered a stare? I know I've stared at someone without realizeing it also. (My mind was on other things besides what was in front of me) Does it take that into account?
b. Nonverbal. Examples of nonverbal sexual harassment may include staring at someone (i.e. “ undressing someone
with one’s eyes”), blowing kisses, winking, or licking one’s lips in a suggestive manner. Nonverbal sexual harassment
also includes printed material. Examples may include displaying sexually oriented pictures, cartoons or using sexually
oriented screen savers on one’s computer. Further examples include sending sexually oriented notes, letters, faxes, or email.
Chapter 7, Section 7-5, Paragraph b, page 52 of Army Regulation 600-20
http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files/r600_20_chapter7.pdf
Was this why "staring" is considered sexual harrasment? *shakes head* If so then you've got a few gals that are feminist idiots.
Wow...if you need an exclusively, specific safe, comfortable environment from the people that you are suppose to trust to guard your back then I would have to say that there are more problems going on in the military that I ever imagined.
And you really don't get how being forced to keep a secret about something so basic as a person's sexuality was not a "safe" and "comfortable environment"?