R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Silly
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Yes. It was a line from a TV show a few years ago.Silly
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
And then probably went back to his girlfriend and let his wife divorce him then? There is great hypocrisy in the Services about things like that.The military has its own ways about scandalous behavior though, I’l grant, they’re not consistent. I know a man who was a Lt. Colonel. He got involved in an indiscretion with a woman who was not his wife. Nobody knew about it but his wife and the participants. His wife filed for divorce, alleging adultery and subpoenaed the “other woman” for a deposition. The man was up for full Colonel and was told very firmly that if the divorce went through with evidence of the allegations introduced into the record, he could kiss his promotion goodbye. Since he was at the “up or out” point, that would have been the end for him. He reconciled with his wife and she dismissed her suit. He received his promotion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Do you think they’re going to wear a rainbow shoulder flash that says “Gay” to advertise that they’re homosexual?? ** No. But I guess they could. If another soldier could wear a “KC Chiefs” sweatshirt on base, then I guess the homosexual could wear the shoulder flash.**
You call it “gross immorality.” You can call it any peorative you like. The Services, however, won’t. ** The service will do as it’s told, of course.**
Homosexuals are no more going to engage in sex with co-workers while they’re on duty than heterosexuals are going to. You have a very vivid imagination. ** Vivid? The point wasn’t that they would, but homosexuals are incredibly promiscuous, so I guess it will happen now and then.**
The Armed Forces are not going to “endorse” homosexuality any more than heterosexuality. That’s really what this is all about; getting the government to equate the two. And you know as well as I do that “Even the macho military says it’s okay” is going to be heard many, many times as the homosexualists and their supporters proceed to oblige this society to accept it as “just another normal”. This government will do it, but I don’t have to approve of it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Having never been in the military I would like to ask what the effect of recinding this policy would have given that 30% of those in the military oppose this?Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don’t Ask’
WASHINGTON – Following a survey of U.S. troops and their families, a Pentagon study group has concluded the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The newspaper quoted two people familiar with a draft of the study, which is to be completed for Defense Secretary Robert Gates by Dec. 1., but with an uncertain public release date.
More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in uniform would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, the sources told the newspaper.
The newspaper said the survey results have led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.
The long, detailed and nuanced report will almost certainly be used by opponents and supporters of repeal legislation to bolster their positions in what is likely to be a heated and partisan congressional debate. And it is expected to reveal challenges the services could face in overturning the long-held policy, including overcoming fierce opposition in some parts of the force – primarily in the Army and Marine Corps – even if they represent a minority…
Read rest of article:
foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/pentagon-study-little-risk-ending-dont-ask/?test=latestnews
As an outsider looking in it would appear to me that this decision should be made by the leadership and not by a poll or worse yet the courts.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
It’ll be done by the President under his power as C-in-C (unlikely) or by Congress (most likely).Having never been in the military I would like to ask what the effect of recinding this policy would have given that 30% of those in the military oppose this?
As an outsider looking in it would appear to me that this decision should be made by the leadership and not by a poll or worse yet the courts.
E
estesbob
Guest
If Congress is going to do it they’re going to have to do it before the new Congress takes office. Having a lame-duck Congress do this will be just as bad as having the courts do it. I am agnostic about this having never served in the military. My only concern is that we are led by what is best for the military and not by political correctness.It’ll be done by the President under his power as C-in-C (unlikely) or by Congress (most likely).
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
A big yawn! This President and congress will not do anything until the next election is over.Having never been in the military I would like to ask what the effect of recinding this policy would have given that 30% of those in the military oppose this?
As an outsider looking in it would appear to me that this decision should be made by the leadership and not by a poll or worse yet the courts.
Those 30% is going to have to get over it like all the other things they had to get over when they volunteered.
I understand what you saying but sometimes military leadership has it wrong and right now the JCS don’t agree with each other on this.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Fat chance. The Joint Chiefs are as much politicians as they are military officers.If Congress is going to do it they’re going to have to do it before the new Congress takes office. Having a lame-duck Congress do this will be just as bad as having the courts do it. I am agnostic about this having never served in the military. My only concern is that we are led by what is best for the military and not by political correctness.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No. Actually, he was promoted, served awhile, and then he retired about a year ago, and they have stayed together. Interestingly enough, it seems there was a complete turnaround in the marriage.And then probably went back to his girlfriend and let his wife divorce him then? There is great hypocrisy in the Services about things like that.
Which is not to say there is no hypocrisy in the armed forces.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You can see it as being “just as Truman abolished segregated military units”. Others will (rightly in my opinion) see it as being more akin to “…just as the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand.” There was nothing immoral about desegregation.You and all the others with objections may carry on with those objections. Congress will, soon enoough, abolish DADT just as Truman abolished segregated military units, and all this will have been a tempest in a teapot.
But either Obama will do some hat trick to do away with it when he is in the process of departing fully from the Middle East, or the lame duck congress will do it. But it will happen, because the Democrat party is heavily beholding to the homosexual lobby and contributors.
C
constantseeker
Guest
And there is nothing immoral about being homosexual or about openly serving in the military as a homosexual.You can see it as being “just as Truman abolished segregated military units”. Others will (rightly in my opinion) see it as being more akin to “…just as the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand.” There was nothing immoral about desegregation.
But either Obama will do some hat trick to do away with it when he is in the process of departing fully from the Middle East, or the lame duck congress will do it. But it will happen, because the Democrat party is heavily beholding to the homosexual lobby and contributors.
Homosexual sex acts are immoral. Nothing else about being homosexual is immoral.
There is absolutely nothing more immoral about letting openly gay men and women serve in the military than there is about letting openly unmarried people who aren’t chaste serve in the military.
Should we ban all unmarried unchaste military personnel?
The hypocrisy on this issue in insane.
T
TMC
Guest
Everyone agrees on that now - but lots of people felt differently before and during desegregation.There was nothing immoral about desegregation.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
There were more than a few ministers, especially in the South, who used the Bible to “prove” why the races could not be mixed, and why God intended each to live separately.Everyone agrees on that now - but lots of people felt differently before and during desegregation.
E
estesbob
Guest
Hopefully you are not suggesting that there is any moral equivalency between the the plight of a race of people who were brought to this country in chains and held in servitude while being overworked ,raped, beaten and sold at will and a group of people whose only distinguishing characteristic is with whom and the manner they engage in sex.Everyone agrees on that now - but lots of people felt differently before and during desegregation.
One of the main problems with this issue is the attempt, once more , homosexual apologists to hijack this issue to advance their political agenda. There is absolutely is no comparison between the manner one engages in sex and one’s race, creed, gender or country of national origin.
E
estesbob
Guest
Since we are not talking about race what relevance is that have to the topic at hand? Being black is not a behavior, for instance. I don’t think anybody believes that the military should not have the right to have rules about the behavior of enlisted personnel sexually or otherwise.There were more than a few ministers, especially in the South, who used the Bible to “prove” why the races could not be mixed, and why God intended each to live separately.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Objectively speaking, you are correct. But, the arguments advanced against military integration 60 years ago and military integration today and conclusions about what the dreadful results would be are pretty much the same.There is absolutely is no comparison between the manner one engages in sex and one’s race, creed, gender or country of national origin.
E
estesbob
Guest
Again there is a comparison only if one believes that engaging in sodomy and being black are morally equivalent.Objectively speaking, you are correct. But, the arguments advanced against military integration 60 years ago and military integration today and conclusions about what the dreadful results would be are pretty much the same.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
I agree with you they are not the same issue at all but as I pointed in one of my posts people are using the same arguments today that was used back then on way they can’t serve openly.Hopefully you are not suggesting that there is any moral equivalency between the the plight of a race of people who were brought to this country in chains and held in servitude while being overworked ,raped, beaten and sold at will and a group of people whose only distinguishing characteristic is with whom and the manner they engage in sex.
Different issue same arguments.
T
TMC
Guest
Of course you know that DADT has nothing to do with sodomy. Homosexuals can be discharged merely for being gay, even if they have never engaged in sodomy. Heterosexuals, on the other hand, are not discharged for engaging in sodomy. Sodomy is completely irrelevant to the policy.Again there is a comparison only if one believes that engaging in sodomy and being black are morally equivalent.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.