Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Barbkw said:
If your position is that one act by an individual in a group invalidates the entire group, then who will be left to serve?

No, I’m talking about the vindictive actions of the GayLesbianBiSexualTransexuals as a self centered, self serving group of individuals who will stop at nothing to advance their agenda in society.

Right now, their target is the U.S. military.
Click to expand...
and their agenda in the US Military is…???
 
Barbkw said:
If your position is that one act by an individual in a group invalidates the entire group, then who will be left to serve?

No, I’m talking about the vindictive actions of the GayLesbianBiSexualTransexuals as a self centered, self serving group of individuals who will stop at nothing to advance their agenda in society.

Right now, their target is the U.S. military.
Click to expand...
So an individual act only invalidates the whole group if its a group you don’t like? Is that the standard? If not, please let me know what the standard is. The last time I checked, self-serving acts by heterosexuals have done a heck of a lot of damage to lots of important institutions, including traitorous acts by heterosexual military members.
 
TMC said:
So an individual act only invalidates the whole group if its a group you don’t like? Is that the standard? If not, please let me know what the standard is. The last time I checked, self-serving acts by heterosexuals have done a heck of a lot of damage to lots of important institutions, including traitorous acts by heterosexual military members.
Click to expand...
I can see where he is coming from, he just took the wrong road. I’m not afraid of the military turning into a spoof like on the Simpson’s. There are Moral rules in military law. What’s hapening in Cambridge & Berkley can’t happen in the military.
 
some believe they’ll start dressing in female uniforms and making out with each other.:eek:
 
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m actually wondering what sort of new rules will be implemented?
 
joly said:
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m actually wondering what sort of new rules will be implemented?
Click to expand...
there already are rules, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which cover things that would be unconstitutional or seem silly in civilian life. Adultary, for example, is still punishable. Anyone who thinks gays will somehow start going crazy is sadly mistaken.
 
In response to the OP, here is the reality of the situation: the majority of people already have their mind made up on this issue. For those people, if the experience of our allies supports their position with regard to the issue at hand, then yes of course it matters. If their experience contradicts their position, then it does not matter to them. I expect very few people to objective review the experience of our allies on this issue.
 
Since there’s such resounding approval of homosexuality by some Irish posters, I thought I’d do a search and see how popular the homosexual agenda is in the rest of Irish society.

"Govt-funded Group Sponsors Irish Gay Adoption Push

An organisation which is heavily funded by British taxpayers is sponsoring a controversial conference promoting the legalisation of same-sex adoption in Ireland. The British Council, which is responsible for promoting British ideas and achievements throughout the world, is backing the Voices for Children conference next month.

The conference is being hosted by the campaign group Marriage Equality, an organisation which is attempting to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage in Ireland.

According to the campaign group’s website next month’s conference “will launch Marriage Equality’s groundbreaking research, documenting the experiences of children growing up in Ireland with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) parents.”

The British Council received more than £200 million, approximately a third of the organisation’s overall budget, in Government funding during 2008/9.

The contentious conference is also being sponsored by the European Union Progress Fund, the Dutch Government and the Equality Authority."

"Earlier this month it was revealed that a Scottish council is set to shower thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a controversial homosexual arts festival despite facing large budget cuts.

Glasgow City Council is facing cuts of nearly £200 million, and has begun a cost cutting exercise which is expected to see 2,800 workers leave their jobs over the next year.

But the Council is still planning to spend £25,000 on the highly contentious Glasgay! festival, a decision which was branded as “absurd” by critics.

** Glasgay! caused a storm of controversy last year after it featured a play, entitled Jesus, Queen of Heaven, which depicted Jesus Christ as a transsexual woman."**
 
Nice, right!

A public festival called “Glasgay”.

“Jesus, Queen of Heaven, which depicted Jesus Christ as a transsexual woman.”
 
Barbkw said:
Nice, right!

A public festival called “Glasgay”.

“Jesus, Queen of Heaven, which depicted Jesus Christ as a transsexual woman.”
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
“Since there’s such resounding approval of homosexuality by some Irish posters, I thought I’d do a search and see how popular the homosexual agenda is in the rest of Irish society.”

Ireland’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) lobby is alive and doing very well infiltrating all other aspects of society (gay marriage, gay adoption).
 
joly said:
Are you sure? All they want is to be able to say “I’m gay”.
Click to expand...
Well, it goes a bit further than that, doesn’t it? Would it not also include being able to bring one’s “friend” to social events and, thereat, act in the same way heterosexual couples might? Would it not, ultimately, apply to base housing? To spousal benefits? Would it not allow homosexuals in the military to wear their uniforms at gay parades? And does anybody really doubt that government affirmation of homosexuality as “normal”; just an “alternative relationship” will have no effect in other areas of society such as marriage? I can hear the arguments now “Well, if the military thinks gay couples are okay, why does anybody oppose gay marriage?” I am sure there are many potential permutations on that theme.

In reality, it will be the federal government’s first affirmation, for the nation, of homosexuality as simply another life choice like any other. For some, this is exactly what they think the government should be doing. But is it, when a substantial portion of the public does not agree with that affirmation? Is it so very different from the government affirming multiple marriages or bestiality? Is it really different from the government affirming public nudity as “natural”? After all, some would promote that. To me, promotion of homosexuality is not what the government should be doing.

One poster stated that some 10-15% of persons in the military would leave if DADT is reversed. No one has challenged that, so at this point, we have to accept it as true. Now, what about those who might otherwise join the military but would choose not to do it if homosexuality is openly flaunted as part of the official nature of the military. Would it be as little as 10-15%? Knowing traditional Catholics, evangelicals, mormons, fundamentalists, and a very substantial percentage of Hispanics as I think perhaps I do, and knowing how homosexuality is regarded among them, I’ll wager that the number of people who simply pass the military up in the future after repeal of DADT is a great deal more than 10-15% of the otherwise likely prospects.

Of course, this government is beholding to homosexual lobbies, so it will repeal DADT sooner or later; likely as soon as the final decision to get out of the Middle East is made. No sense adding yet another target to service members backs, at least not yet.

And we would be doing this for what tangible nationally important objective? So homosexuals, who can already serve in the military, can announce in every they choose to do it, what their sexual proclivities are? Somehow, the great importance of that to the nation does not seem obvious to me.
 
Apparently your opinions don’t count because you come from a gay country. Who knew?
 
Just a wee hint, our reserve unit was in Scotland for a couple of weeks, I know where Glasgow is. With a “g” by the way, not a “c” as you wrote.

That’s why I didn’t include mention of the Transexual Jesus Festival in my post that concerned comments about how Ireland’s being overrun by the GLTB agenda.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well, it goes a bit further than that, doesn’t it? Would it not also include being able to bring one’s “friend” to social events and, thereat, act in the same way heterosexual couples might? Would it not, ultimately, apply to base housing? To spousal benefits? Would it not allow homosexuals in the military to wear their uniforms at gay parades? And does anybody really doubt that government affirmation of homosexuality as “normal”; just an “alternative relationship” will have no effect in other areas of society such as marriage? I can hear the arguments now “Well, if the military thinks gay couples are okay, why does anybody oppose gay marriage?” I am sure there are many potential permutations on that theme.

In reality, it will be the federal government’s first affirmation, for the nation, of homosexuality as simply another life choice like any other. For some, this is exactly what they think the government should be doing. But is it, when a substantial portion of the public does not agree with that affirmation? Is it so very different from the government affirming multiple marriages or bestiality? Is it really different from the government affirming public nudity as “natural”? After all, some would promote that. To me, promotion of homosexuality is not what the government should be doing.

One poster stated that some 10-15% of persons in the military would leave if DADT is reversed. No one has challenged that, so at this point, we have to accept it as true. Now, what about those who might otherwise join the military but would choose not to do it if homosexuality is openly flaunted as part of the official nature of the military. Would it be as little as 10-15%? Knowing traditional Catholics, evangelicals, mormons, fundamentalists, and a very substantial percentage of Hispanics as I think perhaps I do, and knowing how homosexuality is regarded among them, I’ll wager that the number of people who simply pass the military up in the future after repeal of DADT is a great deal more than 10-15% of the otherwise likely prospects.

Of course, this government is beholding to homosexual lobbies, so it will repeal DADT sooner or later; likely as soon as the final decision to get out of the Middle East is made. No sense adding yet another target to service members backs, at least not yet.

And we would be doing this for what tangible nationally important objective? So homosexuals, who can already serve in the military, can announce in every they choose to do it, what their sexual proclivities are? Somehow, the great importance of that to the nation does not seem obvious to me.
Click to expand...
I think the point is that gay people would be held to the same rules and standards as straight people. Right now, that means benefits would not be affected as the federal government does not recognize gay marriages. If that changes, then I assume gay married people would qualify for housing on the same terms as straight married people.

I don’t see how repealing DADT is any kind of endorsement of homosexuality. The government allows those that are divorced and remarried to serve - is that an endorsement of that behavior? As to your example of public nudity - there is no bar to nudists serving, as long as they follow all the same rules as the non-nudists. The same will be true of gays in the military.
 
“I don’t see how repealing DADT is any kind of endorsement of homosexuality.”

No, you don’t see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top