Moonlight Graham Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 welcome to the 21st century America! DADT is incredibly stupid. It's ok for women to serve, even side-by-side men, but not gay people? Moronic. But i still feel a bit sorry for those openly gay people, especially men, who have to deal with working in what is one of the most homophobic institutions in western society. But it's their choice to serve i suppose, but that still doesn't make it right. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
sharkman Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Exactly. So tell me why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve? What? They should be allowed to serve. And they are allowed. Quote
punked Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 What? They should be allowed to serve. And they are allowed. Unless someone one seems them be affectionate outside of the military with someone they chose to love. Then they have "told" and they kicked out right? What this amounts to is if you chose to serve then you are for all intents and purposes "not gay" until you get out because you can't actually live your life in fear of someone seeing you. Sorry you are being a bigot. Quote
maple_leafs182 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 I think Bill Hicks had it right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 welcome to the 21st century America! DADT is incredibly stupid. It's ok for women to serve, even side-by-side men, but not gay people? Moronic. No...DADT was a political compromise born from the realities of the time Congress/UCMJ for President Clinton in the early 90's. Hell, Canada banned homosexuals in the military up to that time as well (1992 IIRC). The issue was conduct, not sexual orientation. Congress determined that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
nicky10013 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 The issue was conduct, not sexual orientation. Congress determined that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service See, that's where you're wrong. DoD POLICY- Congress has determined homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service - Homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct - Homosexual conduct is the focus of the DoD policy - Bi-sexual conduct is treated the same way as homosexual conduct No where does it say heterosexual conduct is the same as homosexual conduct. So it is very much about being gay. Anything else is complete and utter denial. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) See, that's where you're wrong. Why am I wrong about a law passed by the US Congress? No where does it say heterosexual conduct is the same as homosexual conduct. So it is very much about being gay. Anything else is complete and utter denial. You are quite mistaken....and are obviously unfamiliar with provisions of the UCMJ. Heterosexuals were removed from service because of illegal conduct, sexual or otherwise. DADT was a political policy that attempted to meet two objectives....compliance with the law (Congress) and gays serving in the military, just as they have always served. It is no coincidence that it took action by Congress to change the law...your protests are irrelevant. Edited December 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
g_bambino Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Ah. I read earlier today in the newspaper that it was everyone who wasn't to ask and wasn't to tell. I see now that the policy applies only to expressions of homosexual preference, admission of homosexual conduct, and the like. Affects more than just those who identify as gay, it would seem. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Ah. I read earlier today in the newspaper that it was everyone who wasn't to ask and wasn't to tell. I see now that the policy applies only to expressions of homosexual preference, admission of homosexual conduct, and the like. Affects more than just those who identify as gay, it would seem. Absolutely....lots of "heterosexuals" were found to be unfit for service as well....strictly for conduct associated with their "sexual orientation" and preferences. Service in the US Armed Forces is not a right. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 No...DADT was a political compromise born from the realities of the time Congress/UCMJ for President Clinton in the early 90's. Hell, Canada banned homosexuals in the military up to that time as well (1992 IIRC). The issue was conduct, not sexual orientation. Congress determined that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service Then ban homosexual conduct, along with heterosexual conduct. Both can be distracting. I would say females in the military would be a significant distraction for men also, possibly on par or even greater than gays. So what are they afraid of? 2 guys falling in love and disrupting conduct in the field? Homophobe hetero guys getting distracted by homos? Homos getting distracted by staring at some other dude's package? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Then ban homosexual conduct, along with heterosexual conduct. Both can be distracting. I would say females in the military would be a significant distraction for men also, possibly on par or even greater than gays. Such conduct is "banned" by the UCMJ, including sodomy. There are other circumstances that are expressly prohibited and punishable by the UCMJ by non-judicial means, court martial, administrative discharge, etc. So what are they afraid of? 2 guys falling in love and disrupting conduct in the field? Homophobe hetero guys getting distracted by homos? Homos getting distracted by staring at some other dude's package? Have you ever served or commanded at the company or field level? There are numerous behaviours and conduct that not only detract from mission readiness, but are plain illegal (i.e sexual assault, sexual harrassment, fraternization, etc.), regardless of sexual orientation. Edited December 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
nicky10013 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Absolutely....lots of "heterosexuals" were found to be unfit for service as well....strictly for conduct associated with their "sexual orientation" and preferences. Service in the US Armed Forces is not a right. So where does it say that it's not allowed for heterosexuals to be married? It says that for homosexuals. Furthermore, acting as if there's no difference in standards between straights and gays is hilarious, and again, a confession of being in denial. Certainly there are restrictions on some forms of sexual conduct and rightly so. Tell me where the UCMJ banned all forms of heterosexuality and then I'll agree that it's not about being gay. Quote
nicky10013 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Have you ever served or commanded at the company or field level? There are numerous behaviours and conduct that not only detract from mission readiness, but are plain illegal (i.e sexual assault, sexual harrassment, fraternization, etc.), regardless of sexual orientation. Yup, but like I said above, regular forms of sexual conduct are allowed....if you're straight. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) So where does it say that it's not allowed for heterosexuals to be married? It says that for homosexuals. Several places....for instance, marriage overseas requires the permission of a commanding officer. Furthermore, acting as if there's no difference in standards between straights and gays is hilarious, and again, a confession of being in denial. Certainly there are restrictions on some forms of sexual conduct and rightly so. Tell me where the UCMJ banned all forms of heterosexuality and then I'll agree that it's not about being gay. The UCMJ bans sodomy...you do know what that means, right? UCMJ 925. ART. 125. SODOMY (-) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (-) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Edited December 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
g_bambino Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Tell me where the UCMJ banned all forms of heterosexuality and then I'll agree that it's not about being gay. Homosexuality isn't limited to those who identify as gay. Quote
Bonam Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Several places....for instance, marriage overseas requires the permission of a commanding officer. The UCMJ bans sodomy...you do know what that means, right? UCMJ 925. ART. 125. SODOMY (-) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (-) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Could you elaborate on this law? I'm not sure I understand the legal definition of "sodomy" in this context. "Unnatural carnal copulation" doesn't really clarify this for me. Quote
eyeball Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Several places....for instance, marriage overseas requires the permission of a commanding officer. The UCMJ bans sodomy...you do know what that means, right? UCMJ 925. ART. 125. SODOMY (-) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (-) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. So what about a blowjob? They'll still court martial a married straight military couple over a blowjob even if they have permission to be married? Are they allowed to at least act like animals? Sorry, but now that the government has shone such a light on this issue I guess I just can't help but look and...ask. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Could you elaborate on this law? I'm not sure I understand the legal definition of "sodomy" in this context. "Unnatural carnal copulation" doesn't really clarify this for me. If you insist.... http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
nicky10013 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Several places....for instance, marriage overseas requires the permission of a commanding officer. The UCMJ bans sodomy...you do know what that means, right? UCMJ 925. ART. 125. SODOMY (-) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (-) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Of course I know what sodomy means. However, let's not pretend that laws against sodomy aren't laws to criminalize homosexuality. I wonder how many straight couples have been discharged for the crime of sodomy. Edited December 21, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
Oleg Bach Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Bush Cheney once said to me and to para - phrase "sex is not bianary" - I suppose he meant that there are all sorts of twists and turns when it comes to human pleasure and re-production...still - It seemed that BC...is okay with people doning what ever they want - and that is HIS private business. Now to jump to my prime point...IF----------IF - the military was staffed only by hetro sexual males - and all other so-called enemy forces were comprised of young beautiful woman..a problem might result - when it comes to woman being killed by males - I surmise that our force in that suggested state - would become ineffective....NOW to the next point - If the all male hetro army did condition itself to kill what was once called the fairer sex...then we would have an army of death loving - non-breeding monsters. Point being...supposedly homosexuals look upon attractive males the same way as hetrosexuals look upon attractive females - If the gayified army accustoms itself to killing what it is attracted to then we will have a pretty scary mutant bunch of professional killers. This forcast of mine is long range...gayification of military might have some strange and troublesome outcomes in time. Quote
guyser Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 ...gayification of military might have some strange and troublesome outcomes in time. Nothing wrong with Rainbow BDU's. Quote
Shady Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 If Muslims didn't like troops in their countries, just wait until they find out about this! Quote
eyeball Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 If you insist.... http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm Explanation.It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal. Wow, so blowjobs between married couples really are illegal. I thought I was just being facetious. Can anyone explain how Republicans were even able to discuss this subject without fainting? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Wow, so blowjobs between married couples really are illegal. I thought I was just being facetious. Sodomy laws were once common in many states, an still are in many nations. Can anyone explain how Republicans were even able to discuss this subject without fainting? Has nothing to do with Republicans...such laws were passed with bi-partisan support and societal norms at the time, just like Canada's old "buggery" laws. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted December 21, 2010 Report Posted December 21, 2010 Sodomy laws were once common in many states, an still are in many nations. Yeah but only the really anal ones. Has nothing to do with Republicans...such laws were passed with bi-partisan support and societal norms at the time, just like Canada's old "buggery" laws. There you go again, always looking to Canada to calibrate America's measurement of societal norms. You're kinda funny that way aren't you? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.