dadt

[ducknwork]

They can serve without mentioning that they are gay just as easily. If they don't want to flaunt it, then why do away with the policy of don't ask, don't tell? And it has nothing to do with being a homophobe either. As for me, it's a personal thing, don't agree with it, never will. I don't judge those that do, but it has no place in the military.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ducknwork]

That is, unless my homophobe theory is correct, you may be distracted!

You sure have said things along these lines pretty often. When I was in school, we had a saying when someone passed gas in class...It's kinda fitting here as well...

The guilty dog barks first!

[ducknwork]

For those of you/us that have been part of a military family, do you think that same sex partners are eligible/deserve the same benefits as conventional spouses...what about survivor benefits ? I think the court system is going to be challenged repeatedly in the military..

I'm sure it would come down to marriage issues...Which raises another question...Does this now mean that gay marriage will be legalized on all military bases?

[ducknwork]

I don't think the intent is to make it legal to flaunt their homosexuality. I think it is just to make it illegal to discriminate against them because they are. I'm sure you've met people that you could pretty much tell were gay even though that didn't say it or really flaunt it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but before the repeal of dadt, the military couldn't kick someone out based on the suspicion of being gay. Surely there would have to be more solid evidence than someone flicking their wrists and talking with a lisp, right? So basically, they could keep it to themselves, (like heteros do and thousands of other gays before them) and be fine. You don't see straight guys walking around announcing that they are straight and having straight pride parades, so why do gays have to be allowed to do those things and serve? Again, keep it to themselves!

Because they don't want to risk an otherwise honorable service record being expunged simply due to their sexual orientation? There have been thousands of gays (men and women) serve in peacetime and combat honorably, who risked being discharged if mere rumor escaped. That's not right.

I am sure there have also been thousands that have served honorably and had no problem abiding by the law and not flaunting the fact that they are gay. I always thought the military wasn't a place for individuality, so why do they have to have special legislation passed to allow them to stick out and be themselves?

[david gibson]

YOU are the one who suggested WE catch up with the rest of the world.

I beleive Mr. Gibson was pointing out the absurdity or YOUR statement.



RK

of course thats all i was doing, but as usual, he reads what he wants to attack me for in it even tho its not really there. journalistic paranoia at its finest (i just made that up)

[dnf777]

of course thats all i was doing, but as usual, he reads what he wants to attack me for in it even tho its not really there. journalistic paranoia at its finest (i just made that up)

Well Dave, that may be true, but I said we were catching up with the world in the context of non-discrimination and tolerance. To any intelligent person, that comparison would be to western europe, northern europe, England, France, Germany.....but you chose to deliberately pick your dreaded muslim nations, which I do NOT compare us to. And since they seem to be extermely radical in terms of their intolerance, it seems logical that you have something in common with them. So there's your word twisting.

I didn't "attack" anyone, merely asked if you were in support of muslim nations, since you share a profound intolerant attitude, just like they do.

Duck: I am sure there have also been thousands that have served honorably and had no problem abiding by the law and not flaunting the fact that they are gay. I always thought the military wasn't a place for individuality, so why do they have to have special legislation passed to allow them to stick out and be themselves?

Duck, that is almost verbatim what I said to Stump! I don't see the repeal as a tool to allow flaunting. I see it as a way for the very troops you and I refer to, to be able to proudly serve without fear of dismissal if "outed". Straight people can't flaunt sexuality, neither should gays. Straight soldiers can't get kicked out for their private lives, even if they come to light....neither should gays. What isn't fair about that?

And as far as the person passing gas speaking up first, if done PROPERLY, nothing need be said!

[road kill]

Well Dave, that may be true, but I said we were catching up with the world in the context of non-discrimination and tolerance. To any intelligent person, that comparison would be to western europe, northern europe, England, France, Germany.....but you chose to deliberately pick your dreaded muslim nations, which I do NOT compare us to. And since they seem to be extermely radical in terms of their intolerance, it seems logical that you have something in common with them. So there's your word twisting.

I didn't "attack" anyone, merely asked if you were in support of muslim nations, since you share a profound intolerant attitude, just like they do.

Duck: I am sure there have also been thousands that have served honorably and had no problem abiding by the law and not flaunting the fact that they are gay. I always thought the military wasn't a place for individuality, so why do they have to have special legislation passed to allow them to stick out and be themselves?

Duck, that is almost verbatim what I said to Stump! I don't see the repeal as a tool to allow flaunting. I see it as a way for the very troops you and I refer to, to be able to proudly serve without fear of dismissal if "outed". Straight people can't flaunt sexuality, neither should gays. Straight soldiers can't get kicked out for their private lives, even if they come to light....neither should gays. What isn't fair about that?

And as far as the person passing gas speaking up first, if done PROPERLY, nothing need be said!

WOW!!

World = western europe, northern europe, England, France, Germany

Excluding those dreaded Muslim nations is a biased insult.
No China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, et al??

But I guess that's OK since you are a middle of the road independent.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!


RK

[Clay Rogers]

There are vietnam veterans re-upping in the reserves. Age is no barrier in a stretched army. If you feel so strongly, then YOU should enlist or seek a commission, commensurate with your education/experience. It will make you proud to know you're serving your country, and giving some poor kid a break who's been there three or four times.

I don't know what "line personal" is. Power line crew? Offensive line for a football team? There's lots of "lines". Try the "Front Lines" and see how worried you are about the guy next to you being gay or not!
That is, unless my homophobe theory is correct, you may be distracted!


Happily married with 7 kids regards...

Not trying to call you out Dave, but have you served on the front lines? Actual front line, with bullets flying by and grenades being lobed at you, people bleeding and dying next to you, I don't know of many MD's that have. I did, however, and I would not have liked it one damn bit! And you can call me what you want, homophobe, simple-minded or whatever, don't care. Gay men and women have no place in the military, period. If they want to serve, let them serve in the peace corp!

My reason is simple, it's the same reason I wouldn't want a woman next to me either.

[dnf777]

WOW!!

World = western europe, northern europe, England, France, Germany

Excluding those dreaded Muslim nations is a biased insult.
No China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, et al??

But I guess that's OK since you are a middle of the road independent.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!


RK

Thanks for furthering my point, RK!

Yes, check the discrimination policies of those countrie's militaries.

I merely stated a fact, that in that area of freedom and liberty, we were behind many others. DG chose to highlight mulsim nations, not me.
Did you guys REALLY not know what I meant by that? Really?

If not, I'll post the following from Wiki, which may help some to catch up:

The military forces of the world have differing approaches to the enlistment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Most Western armed forces have now removed policies excluding non-heterosexual individuals (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia permit gay people to serve openly. The United States is currently in the process of integrating openly gay people into its military.

Nations that permit gay people to serve openly in the military include the Republic of China (Taiwan), Australia, Israel, Argentina, Canada, all member states of the European Union and every original NATO signatory except Turkey.[1]

Now do you two understand what I meant?

[road kill]

Thanks for furthering my point, RK!

Yes, check the discrimination policies of those countrie's militaries.

I merely stated a fact, that in that area of freedom and liberty, we were behind many others. DG chose to highlight mulsim nations, not me.
Did you guys REALLY not know what I meant by that? Really?

I know exactly what you were saying, I don't think you did.


RK