View Full Version : Democrats Pushing for 'Gays in the Military'
SouthernDZ
03-01-2007, 19:34
Democrats Pushing for 'Gays in the Military'
Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007 2:34 p.m. EST
A Massachusetts Democrat on Wednesday plans to re-introduce a bill repealing the congressional ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
Rep. Marty Meehan's Military Readiness Enhancement Act died last year in the Republican-controlled Congress. But with Democrats in charge, Meehan is more optimistic about passing the bill.
Meehan, who chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, plans to hold hearings as early as April, USA Today reported.
Meehan's bill would require the U.S. Armed Forces to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation - allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, something they cannot do now.
Three Republicans have signed on, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
Since the Clinton-era "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" enforcement policy took effect, almost 11,000 troops have been discharged from the military, USA Today reported.
("Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was Bill Clinton's way of getting around the 1993 federal law that says homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The Clinton policy allowed homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they kept quiet about their sexual orientation. Critics have long argued that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" enforcement policy is inconsistent with federal law.)
Meehan and his supporters argue that his bill will strengthen the military by retaining valuable servicemembers. But opposition to homosexuals serving in the military remains strong in conservative quarters.
"For the sake of civilian institutions as well as the military, homosexual activists should not be allowed to impose their agenda on the armed forces," says the Center for Military Readiness. Not everyone is eligible to serve in the military, the group insists.
Monsoon65
03-01-2007, 19:45
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, what are these people thinking?? They obviously keep thinking the military is a social experiment.
"Watch my back" will take on a whole new meaning.
SouthernDZ
03-01-2007, 19:49
"Watch my back" will take on a whole new meaning.
............."BOHICA....?
The Reaper
03-01-2007, 19:57
Most of the discharged troops were Basic enlistees who found it to be an easy non-punitive way toy get out of the military, and one that the cadre could not argue with them over or fight to keep them.
Specifically, Lackland and the Airman Basic prohgram there had huge numbers discharged under that program. The gay rights people adopted them as a cause, even though almost all of them later admitted that they were not gay.
I wonder if we will have to go to four restrooms now, so that we are not sexually harrassed in the latrines?
TR
spectre919
03-01-2007, 20:35
I wonder if we will have to go to four restrooms now, so that we are not sexually harrassed in the latrines?
TR
TR-
We all know the agenda is NOT for our well-being. We'll probably have to have homosexual sensitivity classes...on top of all the other BS feel good stuff.
Imagine going to the next military formal (you know, mess/service dress) and Charlie Hotpants and his boyfriend are sitting right across from you.......I need to quite....just threw-up in my mouth......need bourbon.....
bost1751
03-02-2007, 05:07
Retirement is not all that bad after hearing this. Next the military will have to recognize gay marriage and all them quarters.
I think what we are seeing, by the bill and others (AWB, surrender in Iraq, ending the tax cuts) are the Dems trying to placate and payback the extreme left-wing base of their party.
They have had several years in which to build up their "moderate" image. Its getting ready to blow up in their face. Just as the Carter adminstration, the Dem controlled Congress in early 90s (with Clinton) resulted in Republican victories in 1980, 94, etc......I really think that in 2008 we will see a shift back to the right (Granted I'm not that big of a fan of Republicans who have pissed away so many oppourtunties while in power).
I don't believe the sky is falling with the Dems in power, but there will be damage to the Republic with these knuckleheads in the majority. But as a citizen who is a politcal conservative I will do everything I can to ensure that the Dems return to the minority.
If the liberals are given enough rope..........they will hang themseleves everytime!
If the liberals are given enough rope..........they will hang themseleves everytime!
And the rest of us...if we let them.
Unfortunately Gypsy,..........you are correct.
The Reaper
03-03-2007, 09:22
Nothing like imposing an unpleasant policy on a group of people largely other than your own constituency.
The military is over 80% Repub and conservative to boot.
Not too many gays or Dims serving, or trying to get in to serve.
Kind of like gun control. Most legal firearms owners left the Democratic party a long time ago.
Pass the legislation, and it has little or no effect on your supporters, and disenfranchises your opponents. The fascists and the Nazis would be proud of them.
TR
The fascists and the Nazis would be proud of them.:lifter
Nothing more to be said
JPH
Radar Rider
03-03-2007, 17:55
I'm active duty and have been so now for 21 1/2 years. I don't care if a homo is in my unit. BUT, if a homo can shower with me, I want to shower with girl Soldiers. It's gotta be the same, right? If some buttplunger can freely check me out while naked, I should have the same opportunity with the gals. If that accomadation doesn't occur, well, then the present policy should remain in place.
incommin
03-03-2007, 18:14
If 93 to97 percent of the population is heterosexual, that is the norm.
That means that if you are anything else, you are abnormal.
Abnormal people should not should not be allowed to vote let alone serve in the military!
Jim
Monsoon65
03-03-2007, 18:19
... BUT, if a homo can shower with me, I want to shower with girl Soldiers.......
Oh, yes! The "Starship Troopers" rule. Co-ed showers!
SouthernDZ
03-03-2007, 19:26
If 93 to97 percent of the population is heterosexual, that is the norm.
That means that if you are anything else, you are abnormal.
Abnormal people should not should not be allowed to vote let alone serve in the military!
Jim
But when the Speaker of the House sees San Francisco as the norm and mainstream, this is what you get.
Homosexuality is an aberration of nature and no matter how many liberals try to say it is otherwise or try to make our children read "Johnny has two daddys" I stand on that belief. If that makes me a closed minded dinosaur - I can live with that title. Great nations have fallen because of this type of BS.
If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace - Thomas Paine.
The Reaper
03-03-2007, 20:20
Well, until recently, the good news was that they could not reproduce.
Now they can get married, adopt kids, and start their own "Johnnie Has Two Daddies" story. Hell, some states, like Mass, will probably issue them children to pervert in their own image.
Will their kids stand up and fight for this country when it is their turn? I don't think so.
Where the Hell is this country headed?:mad:
TR
The Reaper
03-04-2007, 08:29
I have no problem with homosexuals who are truly homosexual....
Hey, BS, how would you feel if every time you went to take a shower, a few other guys there were ogling your ass and contemplating making you a member of their "special" club.
We do not put men and women together in billeting, latrines, etc. because of problems just like that.
How about we put you out in a fighting position with one, and you have to spoon under a poncho liner to keep warm?
I have a problem with any man who thinks sex with another man is a good idea. He isn't a man, he is a pervert.
Anyone who thinks that marrying another person of the same gender is a real marriage is seriously deluding themselves. I rank that right up there with "marrying" a German Shepherd or a Shetland pony.
I do not think that ruining morale and discipline of an organization is worth the potential of getting a few more recruits from 2-3% of the population, and likely people with serious behavioral problems at that.
If we are that desperate, lets lower the GT scores a few more points or waiver a couple more minor criminals.
TR
...and would make many guys very nervous.....
That's the line my wife's lib friends try and put on me " you're just homophobic."
Gay people do not make me nervous. I do not approve of their lifestyle but they are all around us. The difference is we can choose where we go and "hang out", choose the people we associate with. In the military there is no choice.
So does a gay man have to go to the men's shower or the women's? Men's? Why? Do we need 4? Does a gay female go to the men's shower?
We don't need the hassle.
Don't ask, don't tell works fine for me.
Pete
...so if that's how a guy or girl is, that's how they are as I see it, I don't care, as long as they don't try pushing their way of life on me.
So I take it you don't watch TV or go see movies? You can't swing a dead cat in the entertainment biz without hitting a TV show or movie trying desperately to normalize homosexuality, and more recently, transgender lifestyles. When practially every TV network has at least one show with a homosexual main character, should we not consider this "pushing their way of life" on us?
I think one of the fundamental issues is one that Pete brought up. The issue of sexual malfeasance between servicemembers has been a problem since females were brought into the service. We work together in such close proximity with one another, that intimate tensions tend to develop. It's a natural chemical reaction. Isn't this one of the reason why we have seperate latrine and hygiene facilities for men and women? If an openly gay servicemember is placed into those physically "open" areas, doesn't that offer the same opportunity for misconduct as between servicemembers of the opposite sex?
I have to agree. Don't ask, don't tell is working just fine. I don't have an issue with a gay servicemember, but by the same token, I don't really want to know, either. Condoning homosexuality opens up a whole new laundry list of issues that will REQUIRE addressing.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
03-04-2007, 14:03
Condoning homosexuality opens up a whole new laundry list of issues that will REQUIRE addressing.
Well yes, it does. However some of the same problems occur with folks that have sexual promiscuity problems when it comes to things like HIV, Hepatitis, and the like. For units that have to deal with buddy breathing, cut-downs, dealing with body fluids, and other close and personal contact it just adds one more unnecessary variable to the list of those things with which we need not have to work into the day to day equation of accomplishing the mission. Sooooooooooooooo, take out the group coin and flip it to see who does the mouth to mouth while the other gets to suck out the venom in that snake bite.
Monsoon65
03-04-2007, 14:46
Well yes, it does. However some of the same problems occur with folks that have sexual promiscuity problems when it comes to things like HIV, Hepatitis, and the like. For units that have to deal with buddy breathing, cut-downs, dealing with body fluids, and other close and personal contact it just adds one more unnecessary variable to the list of those things with which we need not have to work into the day to day equation of accomplishing the mission. Sooooooooooooooo, take out the group coin and flip it to see who does the mouth to mouth while the other gets to suck out the venom in that snake bite.
When civilians complain to me about no gays in the military, I tell them that we are our own blood bank. You get hit, and you're A POS bloodtype, I'm the guy standing in line willing to give you blood. If I'm on that stretcher, I don't want to risk having someone that's been exposed to HIV giving me blood.
If I'm on that stretcher, I don't want to risk having someone that's been exposed to HIV giving me blood.
Gay or not, exposure to HIV is arbitrary. It's not as specific to the "alternative-lifestyle" crowd as it was in the 80's.
Still. Even though I think that's only one portion of the problem, it's a valid concern.
The Reaper
03-04-2007, 16:30
Gay or not, exposure to HIV is arbitrary. It's not as specific to the "alternative-lifestyle" crowd as it was in the 80's.
Still. Even though I think that's only one portion of the problem, it's a valid concern.
Yes, it is, though the media would have you believe that it affects all of us.
It is over 1,000 times more likely for a man to contract HIV from unprotected sex with another man than it is from sex with a woman. Not going into graphic detail here, but in fact, is is extremely difficult for a man to catch HIV from a female partner during normal sex.
It also makes me question the logic and intelligence of the gay men who continue to be the primary carriers of the disease who have caught it since we discovered what causes it. Almost all who are honest admit that it was because they failed to use protection, or to require their partner to.
Well, duh! What were they thinking?
These are not people I want to share a shower, a bunk, a foxhole, or my blood with.
Find someone else who wants to serve with them.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
spectre919
03-04-2007, 22:25
Society can overall decide what's best for it, if society grows to accept homosexuals in the long run, well that's just how it is.
In such a society, if society overall accepts homosexuals, well businesses naturally would respond to this without any government regulation. They say military recruiting is a business, well then theoretically the military would respond accordingly. If it was in the best interests of the military to keep homosexuals out, then that's how it should stay and remain their choice. If it is in their best interests to let them in, well that should be their choice too, IMO.
BS-
I think you missed the point with some of the comments being made.
Yes society has the inherent right to determine what is right and wrong, what moral values are upheld and those that are taboo. The disconnect is the small number of people that can control what information and images "society"
is privy to. Those same people have almost made it impossible to shelter children (the future of our society) from the messages of their agenda. If you think that it's as easy as simply not watching network TV you're greatly mistaken. When you think back on all of the public schools that promote homosexualality through diversity, sensitivity and awareness programs, I think one is left to conclude that society is getting an agenda shoved down its' throat.
Next...business does tend to fill the needs of folks who want particular goods and services. That is how a free-market economy works. There is a market for child-porn, but that doesn't mean it's right or should be accepted by society. Child porn is over-whelmingly frowned upon by society; just as homosexuality was in the not too distant past. But the military is NOT a business (that is evident by the way some things are done, those in the military know exactly what these are) and we do not need people in the military that will amplify the disciplinary and retention problems we are already feeling. It does the military no good to attract and recruit openly gay people. For every manhour (not in the homosexual context) that we would gain from these folks, we would lose twice that in dealing with all of the other problems associated with them. Unit cohesion is paramont to success in the battlespace. If a unit cannot perform because of disfunction within its' ranks...it's absolutly no good to us.
The bottomline:
The military IS NOT seeking openly homosexual recruits; rather this is the case of a politician with an AGENDA.
incommin
03-05-2007, 06:08
The bottomline:
The military IS NOT seeking openly homosexual recruits; rather this is the case of a politician with an AGENDA.
__________________
Another attempt to mainstream the gay lifestyle or pander to the far left!
Jim
The Reaper
03-05-2007, 08:15
Anyone else noticed the Ford Foundation's pandering to gays and the promotion of gay causes and Ford's current financial woes?
Hmm....:rolleyes:
TR
kachingchingpow
03-05-2007, 13:36
Moving to Atlanta, years ago was my first real exposure to gays. I was working for a software company for about 6 months, when I noticed a newspaper article pinned to my boss's wall about an AIDs march downtown. I thought hmmm.... that's odd. One of my co-workers was a former QP from 19th group, and had been working there for quite a bit longer than myself. I asked him what the deal was with my manager, and why he would have an AID's article in his cube. He responded "You DIDN'T KNOW?!!!" I said, "Hell no, I don't think I've ever met one!" My friend said he was the company "token gay guy," which freaked me out a little. To be honest the guy was sharp as a tack, and a damn good employee. I let my friend know that I was a little taken aback, and didn't know what I should do. He said "what makes you think you're so irresistable that he has to get a piece of you?" Well I guess he had a point. I've since worked with, and for several other gays, male and female. From that day forward, I've never had a issue with them... don't agree with their lifestyle, won't let them be alone with my kids, but no real issue. And as a matter of fact, the ones that bother me aren't the ones you know about, it's the ones that are still in the closet that disturb me.
Fast forward to a few years ago, a co-worker and I were having a discussion about gays in the military. He asserted that there were more gays in the military than I thought, and that in particular they would seek out "ultra-male" elite units. I thought it was hogwash... ney, impossible. He stated that it's a documented psychosis that before coming out of the closet that it's common for gay males to compensate to the extreme, to counteract what they feel inside.
So this weekend, I'm doing my taxes, my office is a mess and I'm filing some papers away. I run across a list of my chain of command at jump school. I remembered several of them as "soldiers-soldiers," and thought I would google a few and see where some of them ended up. Some were hero's, ROTC instructors, police officers, etc. When I googled my black-hat, I found his resume immediately. He listed "army airborne instructor" in his list of achievments. The next link down was from a gay community newspaper, in which he was being quoted. *That* kinda shook me up a little. He was definately squared away, probably one of the last I would've suspected as being gay. But reality is sometimes stranger than fiction. That makes like 3 soldiers that I know of that turned out to be gay, and they were all in airborne, or yes even SF. Needless to say I told the friend I had the conversation with about it, and he got a big kick out of it.
Anyone read about that drill sergeant at Ft. Eustis recently?
Well true, but...
Are you're just about finished repetitively explaining the concept of free speech to me? I'd certainly hate to interrupt you mid-ramble.
The Reaper
03-05-2007, 13:53
Are you're just about finished repetitively explaining the concept of free speech to me? I'd certainly hate to interrupt you mid-ramble.
Never attempt to interrupt a 22 year old in mid-ramble.
They have been everywhere, and seen everything. If you don't believe that they know it all, just ask them.
Now pipe down and hand the young man a fresh shovel so he can get back to digging.
TR
Hey, BS, how would you feel if every time you went to take a shower, a few other guys there were ogling your ass and contemplating making you a member of their "special" club.
We do not put men and women together in billeting, latrines, etc. because of problems just like that.
How about we put you out in a fighting position with one, and you have to spoon under a poncho liner to keep warm?
I have a problem with any man who thinks sex with another man is a good idea. He isn't a man, he is a pervert.
Anyone who thinks that marrying another person of the same gender is a real marriage is seriously deluding themselves. I rank that right up there with "marrying" a German Shepherd or a Shetland pony.
I do not think that ruining morale and discipline of an organization is worth the potential of getting a few more recruits from 2-3% of the population, and likely people with serious behavioral problems at that.
+1 to all of that. But the worst part is that the Military is having an agenda forced down their throats by people who know nothing about the Military. The don't ask don't tell policy has been in affect probably since the revolutionary war, with no problems. Putting in on paper and making it into a regulation was when it became a problem. It became a way to strike back at an institution that the liberal left has always had a problem with. How often do you hear about this being about gays or gay rights. They could care less about gay rights. It's always been about the Military so called problem with gays. It's about getting a shot at embarrassing the Military, not protecting anyones rights.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
03-05-2007, 14:40
That makes like 3 soldiers that I know of that turned out to be gay, and they were all in airborne, or yes even SF.
Okay, so I assume that this is just information or is their a point here I am missing like a conclusion that folks light in the loafers like to jump out of airplanes? I had two soldiers in a unit that I commanded that were HIV positive and both died. Now for those of us that found out about this after the fact, because no one knew while they served with us, it pissed us off because it was a matter of trust. These two individuals put each and everyone of us at risk by the very nature of their association with us and the training and mission related activities in which they participated. It was just the luck of the draw that none of us needed blood from them, got infected from IV training which I required all to be able to do, or were unduly exposed to cuts that were a matter of course in our activities. There is nothing redeeming in personal cowardice by hiding the fact that you are gay because you know that you will be thrown out of unit. These two individuals put themselves before everyone else in an organization were trust and dependance among all were paramount to mission accomplishment. While they served with us, they did their jobs and in fact were selected because of their ability to perform in those particular military occupational specialties. However, dispite the fact that both did well, they were true liabilities and had I known about their "alternative lifestyles" I would have made sure they were chaptered out of the Army after a good stint in a Federal Prison for falsifying records.
x SF med
03-05-2007, 18:14
So how am I digging? I'm not meaning to come off as a know-it-all. Razor posed a question about gays on TV, so I posted my response to it. I just had to explain my view is all. Razor said he considers homosexuality on television as shoving it on people, well I agree, but I can't see any way to stop that if it isn't harming people or infringing on their freedoms (which I said I could be wrong about, but couldn't see how at the moment I was typing).
I am NOT promoting gays in the military if that is what you two mean.
BS
Shhhhhh, you spent all of about 2 months in the Army - the guys you are trying to correct have more time under canopy than you've been alive. If you'd STFU, and process what they're saying, you might understand the objections from the other side of the fence, gays in the military, undermine the trust that teams need because the current policies requuire them to lie and hide salient information from the men they have to serve with - they are security, health and morale risks. People can be gay outside of the military, we don't want our brothers put in the situation that they will be compromised by the sexual preferences of a minority of individuals who are trying to prove their manliness in special Operations because they are ashamed of their sexuality.
COL M, LTC R - is this a fair synopsis of the situation as it currently stands?
x SF med
03-05-2007, 18:31
I was being polite before - you would have failed the Q even if you had been healthy, because you argue too much. Short answer = you were asked politely to STFU, kept beating a point to death and arguing - reread your posts boyo - now bluntly, you have raised your points, they have been noted - NOW STFU, you are doing nothing but repeating yourself incessantly. Now, do you understand?
Have a very SF day.
spectre919
03-05-2007, 20:00
BS-
When you get the friendly hints to STFU...follow directions. I have made some bad/stupid posts here myself, but at the end-of-the-day we are guests here...STFU.
You need to learn the lesson about fire.....keep playin' with it and your ass will catch on fire.
I will go out on a limb here and predict the future. Here is your response:
SSSHHHH.....
Yes, I know......SSSSSHHHH
Probably not....SSSHHHH
You apparently didn't learn from the last few hints.....SSSHHHHHHH!
kachingchingpow
03-05-2007, 21:23
Okay, so I assume that this is just information or is their a point here I am missing like a conclusion that folks light in the loafers like to jump out of airplanes? I had two soldiers in a unit that I commanded that were HIV positive and both died. Now for those of us that found out about this after the fact, because no one knew while they served with us, it pissed us off because it was a matter of trust. .
Sir, my apologies for not wrapping my dialog up clearly. It seems to me that we agree that the ones you *don't* know about are the real issue, which you spoke to directly.
I cannot for the life of me understand how some gays find their way into units, SF, airborne, or whatever and seem to maintain a strict facade. Frankly it appals me, but it's worthy of note.. particularly when I've got a picture in my bar of one giving me blood wings (reaper, just go ahead and take your swing :) ).
Yes, I did imply (not say) that I felt the widespread display of homosexual and other alternative lifestyles on TV and in movies was an attempt to force people to view such minority lifestyles as "normal". Perhaps you've heard of a man named Goebbels and his ability to sway the majority's opinion through mass media manipulation? I agree with your point that the current trend is hard to stop if the majority doesn't speak up against this effort, however your post was more a stream-of-conciousness-what-the-heck-is-my-opinion piece that was hard to read, and many of the oft-mentioned points weren't needed (I'm betting I was learning about the Bill of Rights before you took your first breath).
I do enjoy spirited debate; just please don't package it like you just put down the crack pipe again, ok?
SouthernDZ
03-06-2007, 16:56
NewsMax.com
Monday, March 5, 2007 3:07 p.m. EST
Hillary Opposes 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Gay Policy
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president.
Clinton also said she opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency.
"I am proud to stand by your side," Clinton said in a keynote speech Friday to the Human Rights Campaign. Neither Clinton's campaign nor her Senate office made any announcement that she would be making the Friday address.
In the speech, Clinton joked that she shares the same initials as the group, and pledged to maintain the same close working relationship that last year helped defeat the federal amendment which would have banned same-sex marriage.
"I want you to know that this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am president," Clinton told the group. "I want you to know that just as you always have an open door to my senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House and together we can continue this journey."
Clinton's husband Bill Clinton was president when the Pentagon instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. In 1999, as she prepared to run for the Senate from New York, Clinton publicly opposed that policy.
Previous to Bill Clinton's administration, gays were flatly forbidden from serving in the military.
Sen. Clinton said it would be safer for the nation if openly gay soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen could wear the uniform.
"This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it," Clinton said.
God help us.
spectre919
03-06-2007, 17:28
NewsMax.com
Monday, March 5, 2007 3:07 p.m. EST
Hillary Opposes 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Gay Policy
Sen. Clinton said it would be safer for the nation if openly gay soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen could wear the uniform.
"This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it," Clinton said.
:mad: How can one person be SO FAR left, they're not even on the same planet any more? WTF!!! :mad:
The current policy might hurt those closet-type bastards in the military....but it's not hurting me in the least. If this bitch gets elected I guess we will end up with "the Pink Berets, out of Dix." Sorry to offend any of the honorable at Ft Dix.
How can one person be SO FAR left
Just depends on the audience she is BSing at the time. I think her years of just saying what the audience wants to hear are going to catch up to her when the Dem race is in full swing. Her opponents have to be smiling every time she caters to an audience like this. I believe she and the ass kissers she surrounds herself with. Truly believe the voters are to dumb to see thru her lies.
IMO she won't get the nomination. I just wonder who she will blame for loosing. It will never be because the voters just didn't want her. It will be because the common people were stupid, Right wing Attackers, Bill, or her opponent lied. I just keep picturing/wishing for some type of Howard Dean on stage melt down. But much worse.:munchin
Where the Hell is this country headed?:mad:
TR
I believe that we don't know because our culture no longer navigates by the moral compass that was once common in our land.
kachingchingpow
03-07-2007, 07:16
This is really starting to chap my ass... the whole idea that people, gay, handicapped, whatever should be "entitled" to join the military. I view it as an honor... like a championship football team that cannot afford to lose, and will not sacrifice it's standing by accepting any less than those standards. Sure the standards are rife with manipulation to meet quota's, but manipulating the standards just to appease a minority group is flat B.S., particularly with what's at stake.
Would people get the message if the govt. started manipulating college football standards, the NFL or for that matter any other sport where the membership is very exclusive? What if every team was required to have 3 females, and a guy pushing geriatric age on the field at all times?
spectre919
03-07-2007, 17:13
What if every team was required to have 3 females, and a guy pushing geriatric age on the field at all times?
Exactly! Nothing like intentionally putting the "weak" in harms way.
I don't know though, I might still have a shot at the NFL if this panned out. :cool:
Monsoon65
03-07-2007, 19:19
"This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it," Clinton said.[/I]
And just how is not having gays in the military hurting me????
And just how is not having gays in the military hurting me????
Well don't ya know, it's hurting her...she needs the votes! :rolleyes: I really don't get the "this to me is a matter of national security" comment. Stupid.
spectre919
03-08-2007, 19:51
I really don't get the "this to me is a matter of national security" comment. Stupid.
TRANSLATION: This is one more thing I need to mess-up to ensure national security fails and to have our Chi-Com friends "give us a hand."
At this point, would it be wrong to drop the "C_ _ _" word, instead of calling it Hillary?
Ret10Echo
03-13-2007, 05:43
The Dims are getting their pitchforks and torches together...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff said he backs the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" limits on gays serving in the military because he believes homosexual acts are immoral, the Chicago Tribune reported in Tuesday's edition.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace told the newspaper he felt the immorality of homosexual acts was comparable to a member of the armed forces having an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in an interview with the newspaper. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."
:mad: How can one person be SO FAR left, they're not even on the same planet any more? WTF!!! :mad:
If this bitch gets elected I guess we will end up with "the Pink Berets, out of Dix." Sorry to offend any of the honorable at Ft Dix.
They could start a Brokeback Battalion full of pansy platoons and queer squads.
Thank GOD!
I applaud him, and I am glad he is Chairman. Finally someone has taken a stand. Tolerance is a lack of conviction. Diversity is devisive.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in an interview with the newspaper. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."
+1 Hope the chain of command backs him up. Problem is our society is constantly being told that homosexual acts are completely moral and except able. Having or voicing opinions against them labels you immoral and raciest.
The people pushing this issue could care less about the United States being served in a responsible way. They care even less about homosexuals, their agenda is motivated bye their hatred of the Military. The security of this country is just in the way of this agenda.
The Reaper
03-13-2007, 19:15
I would wager that by allowing gays to serve openly, the services would lose more soldiers than gays would want to join.
It occurs to me that we have entirely enough sexual problems in the service with two genders and one orientation without adding two more genders and a couple more orientations.
GEN Pace is going to be tarred and feathered by the libs for stating that he agreed with the current policy, and adding his opinion of homosexuality. The PC police are running wild on this.
TR
bandycpa
03-13-2007, 20:58
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2007-03-13T183856Z_01_N13399932_RTRUKOC_0_US-MILITARY-USA-GAYS.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3
General Pace said
"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct," he said. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
"SLAP IN THE FACE"
The Human Rights Campaign, a leading U.S. gay rights organization, had condemned Pace's earlier remarks as bigoted.
"General Pace's comments were irresponsible, offensive and a slap in the face to the gay men and women who are currently serving their country with honor and bravery," said Joe Solmonese, the group's president.
The second you start backing up, you are lost. It's a shame that Gen Pace is being villified by...who are they again?...oh yeah, The Human Rights Campaign. This is the first I've heard of them, and that says something to me. It goes back to the "brushfires of the mind created by the minority" that Samuel Adams spoke of. And guess who gets the press. Exactly.
Pace was explaining why he supported the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays serving in the military, signed into law in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton.
If you don't want the man's opinion, don't ask him. But, if you do, be prepared for the results of your inquiry. Of course, the MSM has no problem asking the gay community what their opinion is, and expecting us all to tolerantly understand and accept their opinion as gospel. Ah, but express your own opinion, and let it differ from the minority, and suddenly you're intolerant.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2005 that 9,488 service members had been discharged under the 'don't ask, don't tell" policy.
That would be 9,488 people that told now, wouldn't it?
My beliefs are that homosexuality is wrong. It's Biblical, and that's the code by which I strive to live my life. By today's standards, that makes me homophobic. No questions asked. Ok, that's fine. The bottom line is, there is a rule that allows gays in the military if they choose to follow it (don't ask, don't tell). If they choose not to follow it, then you pay the price (just like anybody else breaking a fundamental military rule). So, if you're gay, and you want to serve your country, follow the rules like everybody else, and you'll accomplish your goal.
That's my .02.
Bandy
The Reaper
03-13-2007, 21:33
That would be 9,488 people that told now, wouldn't it?
Bandy
Yes it would, knowing full well what the penalty was.:rolleyes:
I would wager that at least 8,000 of those discharged for being gay, quit being gay, right after they got their DD 214.
The "Homo" discharge is widely known to be an easy and non-punitive way out of military service.
TR
spectre919
03-13-2007, 21:47
They could start a Brokeback Battalion full of pansy platoons and queer squads.
I guess all of the "Former Action Guys" (F.A.G.) are gonna have to find a new handle.
Like maybe "Stay the F*ck Away from Me I'm a Straight-guy" (SFAMIS) or the ever popular "Dont Even Look This-way Asshole" Guys (D.E.L.T.A.).
I dunno. If they do get in, can we use them as 300m moving targets? :rolleyes:
At least the rest of us could get some benfit from this bullshit.
My beliefs are that homosexuality is wrong. It's Biblical, and that's the code by which I strive to live my life.
Bandy
Code?
We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. – Col. Nathan Jessup
That’s why “they” say you are guilty of discrimination. Fewer people in our country today have a Biblical basis for there worldview. Without this base to operate from and make moral judgments decisions like this are reduced to a matter of opinion only – which the good General is being told to keep to himself.
Admittedly it has been awhile but when I was in the Army leaders were supposed to exhibit good morals and influence their subordinates as well. (Don’t lie, cheat, steal etc.)
I don’t see how these and pillars such as Honor and Character can survive without a common foundation from which to base your rationale. Otherwise it’s your opinion vs. mine.
The Reaper
03-14-2007, 06:56
Homophobe, sexual harassment, discrimination, improper conduct, spousal privileges, etc., etc. would become daily problems (at least we avoid the non-deployables due to pregnancies).
Any gay person who is not promoted ahead of their counterparts, selected for schools, given command opportunities, receive outstanding efficiency reports, etc. will be encouraged to file discrimination complaints againat the chain of command. After all, that must be the only reason they were not selected.
If you knew how the board process at DA is already bent to avoid discrimination complaints, you would see the potential for problems here, all to cater to a very small percentage of the population, few who actually wish to serve in the military.
I am sure that our enemies are quaking in their boots at the prospect of having to face the 103rd Drag Queen Brigade. .:rolleyes:
TR
...... will be encouraged to file discrimination complaints againat the chain of command. ..... TR
We had a black guy assigned to the company in the late 70s prior to him going through the course. He had a number of "life issues", wasn't doing well in the company and bombed out of the Q Course.
He filed an EO complaint and discrimination charges against the chain of command. At the first hearing it was all thrown out. The Company SGM spoke English almost as a second language (had a mexican wife), the Company CO was Japanese and the battalion CSM was CSM Pitts, blacker than flat black paint.:D
Pete
x SF med
03-14-2007, 07:38
ther was a Gay NYC Council speaker on the news this morning (FOX Local) - whining about the St Pats Day Parade Not having gays allowed - and that rant went off into - these fine gay Americans who want to serve their country, in specialties like translators and support roles..... why are they being denied the chance to serve and contribute to the defense of this great nation, why do we have a don't ask don't tell policy, we should be free to be gay and do whatever we want.
My response, since I live alone, to just the TV: Lady, how would you feel if you were in a foxhole with somebody and they decided they were going to hit on you? What about the security issues? What about the health issues? What about the fact these people have lied for years? What about the moral issues of all of the above? They can be gay, just not in the same unit as me.
enterfirst
03-14-2007, 08:10
I find it very interesting that the same people bashing the United States of America will turn around and complain that they are not allowed to "serve our great nation.":mad: Make up your frickin' mind. What makes our country great is that we (well some of us) stand on our principles. Let's look at how "tolerance" has treated Europe. :rolleyes:
Be careful with accepting the lable "Homophobe"... It's an incidious little way of making those opposed to homosexuality the people with the problem.
I had a professor in college for my Ethics and Morality class in California that prepared a pretty good argument against Homosexuality. This was about 7 years ago. Anyhow, he went on to say that societies have always had taboos. In otherwords, bedrock beliefs that were agreed upon and recoginzed as taboos. He said that homosexuality is wrong because it undermines the family unit, which is a fragile thing. Societies that are successful are so because of strong families, there are so many other temptations for family members (other mates) that adding another form of sexual behavior i.e., temptation, as an accepted way of life is another assault against a traditional family. Traditional families are the best environment for children, good children become good citizens, which makes for a good society, which is essential for a prosperous civilization. Diversity is devisive.
Then there is the argument about being naturally predisposed to homosexuality, by ones genetic makeup. They point out that creatures in nature are sometimes homosexual as well. Well if you put a rat in a cage and give it as much cocain as it wants it will eventually kill itself too... Naturally. Anyhow, man has many impulses that he may be predisposed to. But as members of society we are not free to indulge each and every impulse we have. I might be predisposed to destroy people who (I Percieve) threaten my family, should I freely engage my indulgences or predispositions, I would be incarcerated.
This attempt to get homo's accepted by the military is this: Another attempt to gain legitimacy to gain standing in a court of law as accepted way of life.
In places where there are large homosexual populations -neighborhoods- the numbers of families (mother father and children) decline. The city of San Franfreako, is scratching its head wondering why there are fewer and fewer families each year. The reason is that there are only so many dollars a municipality has for social programs. The pie is only so big. If you share the pie with Homosexual groups and their needs, the slice of the pie for children and the family gets smaller too... Another assault against the family. Then a cry goes out that the pie isn't large enough and a two parent family with children, is taxed - as well as everyone else- but the two parent family is already in a high priced realestate area, working two jobs, not getting assistance for day care, etc. is just making ends meet. So they move away from San Fran to places where the pie ain't so split up and taxes aren't so high.
Military families, already at risk (deployments, long hours, etc.) don't need the pie cut up into anymore slices.
It is getting to where a party could be formed along the lines of the Pro American Worker, Anti Homo, anti-illegal, pro-gun platform. I wish I had a bank roll, I would start one. Borders, Language, Culture... Amen.