Jump to content

US government repeals DADT


obfuscator

Recommended Posts

I don't see how asking someone not to talk about their sexual orientation whilst on the job affects any of these points? Also if they majority of front line troops would rather keep DADT, then the goverment does not have the consent of the goverened, Jefferson would surely protest that point?

 

Can you please link me to the survey that said half predicted problems? I wonder if there was a question if they had problems with it... I'd be willing to guess that 95% of all troops don't care the sexual orientation of their peers, and that the half that predicted there would be problems know one of those 5% of homophobes...

 

DADT inherently discriminated against gays, just like "separate but equal" inherently discriminated against minorities. If DADT was a private business's policy, I'd have more problem with a law against that than I do with Congress repealing the federal government's stance.

 

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/12/david_kolb_do_ask_ill_tell_who.html

But 70 percent wasnt unanimous. Some 30 percent predicted negative effects. Among combat troops, 40 percent were opposed to the idea. And that figure climbed to 46 percent among U.S. Marines who answered the survey.

 

Note that this is including non-front line staff, this article not mentioning how big the gap really was as it comes from a fairly liberal source, which I chose specifically to show that the dissent isn't able to be covered up even by those who would want to make everything bunny and rainbows.

 

 

In answer to your frequently repeated argument "it's mean!!", I'll direct you to this article;

 

http://techblogs.mit.edu/opinion/2010/12/dadt-repeal-will-weaken-our-military/

Im a fairly big supporter of gay rights in no way am I praising or supporting the personal opinions of those 1-in-4 servicemen who say they will cut their duty short in response to repeal. But our military is not meant to be a vehicle for social change. Our military is tasked with one purpose to defend our nation. To subordinate it to any other aim, to politicize it in the service of some sort of social goal, shows reckless disregard for our security.

Leylen.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even though they are in the army, how do they know it will cause negative effects? It doesnt in foreign armies that allowed gay members to join. You have to understand soldiers are also average joes, lets say that it is evenly split, 50% of soldiers are liberal and 50% are conservative, plenty of conservative people were born and raised with angrily avoiding any feminine men and calling them "gay" or other jeers. Just because they are soldiers doesnt mean that their values 100% change.

 

I have lots of friends in the army/navy/airforce and they are the same people as when they left, besides being a little skinnier, or buffer, and experienced with the job they perform.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/ns/politics/

A poll conducted late last year by the Military Times found that 57 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republican, while 13 percent identified with the Democrats. Among the officer corps the numbers were different. Nearly 66 percent of officers considered themselves Republican compared with 9 percent Democratic. Nearly 30 percent of those surveyed by the Military Times declined to answer the questions or said they were independent.

 

Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois and New Jersey have all gained republican senators with the recent hilarious/embarassing/train wreck of American top leadership over the last year or so.

 

Also for every few dozen Administrive staff re-enlisting that got caught with their pants down on office time, hundreds of thousands of front line staff may be considering their re-enlistment options.

Leylen.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.

 

Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.

 

 

 

Hi. So I'm pretty much the resident homosexual of tip.it.

 

And I'd have to say I find that premise is unfounded. And. Wait for it: I don't say that because I'm gay.

 

I say that because I have many loved ones who risk their lives protecting this company (I live in a conservative family) with many people in the military. Some people like my brother, who is simply an Airforce electrician stationed in DC (but is moving to Germany) is as you stated "sitting on his ass." I will admit to that point. But I also have a great many loved ones in the military who are perfectly fine with it. Especially the ones saving our asses over in the middle east. There logic? If a man (or woman) wants to fight, loves to fight, and well, is good at it: LET THEM FIGHT.

 

Now, as a gay man I do foresee one issue with it, which as I mentioned in the last page is making me slightly hesitant. If this falls through into disaster, as Leylen predicts it will, I fear it will set back the LGBT equality movement a bit.

 

But besides that, I see nothing wrong with having more hunky gay dudes risking their lives and making America a great place to be.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

end the American Empire.

Is it me or do all liberals hate America?

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

end the American Empire.

Is it me or do all liberals hate America?

 

 

 

:lol: It's not you.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.

 

Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.

 

 

 

Hi. So I'm pretty much the resident homosexual of tip.it.

 

And I'd have to say I find that premise is unfounded. And. Wait for it: I don't say that because I'm gay.

 

I say that because I have many loved ones who risk their lives protecting this company (I live in a conservative family) with many people in the military. Some people like my brother, who is simply an Airforce electrician stationed in DC (but is moving to Germany) is as you stated "sitting on his ass." I will admit to that point. But I also have a great many loved ones in the military who are perfectly fine with it. Especially the ones saving our asses over in the middle east. There logic? If a man (or woman) wants to fight, loves to fight, and well, is good at it: LET THEM FIGHT.

 

Now, as a gay man I do foresee one issue with it, which as I mentioned in the last page is making me slightly hesitant. If this falls through into disaster, as Leylen predicts it will, I fear it will set back the LGBT equality movement a bit.

 

But besides that, I see nothing wrong with having more hunky gay dudes risking their lives and making America a great place to be.

 

You're saying what the survey already told us, they don't give a damn what their co-workers are doing in their spare time, they just don't want to hear about it. Most of the gay soldiers won't even be coming out to their co-workers;

 

The report says that many gay troops would be likely to keep their sexual orientation quiet even after the ban was lifted. That discretion would probably be more common in the military than in the civilian world, the report's authors said.

 

Of those respondents who said they were gay, only 15 percent said they would want that known to everyone in their unit.

 

Despite the lack of interest from either sexuality on this issue they kept forcing and forcing it through so that they could win a few points with their mostly unwilling extra special rainbow soldiers.

Leylen.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

end the American Empire.

Is it me or do all liberals hate America?

 

I hate any country that imposes its will on other nations by force, and builds military bases all over the world while its children cannot afford college or health care. Call it "tough love," something conservatives love to play with the unemployed; why do you hate 9/11 first responders? Although I hate most governments, so why are you discriminating against all of the other ones you're leaving out?

 

Notice I said "empire," not "America." This means an end to our foreign military bases, and an end to our wars in the Arab World, the Middle East and South East Asia.

 

And to the topic at hand, conservatives don't want to end DADT because they know what I know: the repeal of don't ask don't tell makes their opposition to gay marriage harder and harder to sustain. And of course their contempt for the civil rights of minorities in general. Just ask Barry Goldwater, their candidate in 1964, whose candidacy focused on the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

end the American Empire.

Is it me or do all liberals hate America?

 

I hate any country that imposes its will on other nations by force, and builds military bases all over the world while its children cannot afford college or health care. Call it "tough love," something conservatives love to play with the unemployed; why do you hate 9/11 first responders? Although I hate most governments, so why are you discriminating against all of the other ones you're leaving out?

 

Notice I said "empire," not "America." This means an end to our foreign military bases, and an end to our wars in the Arab World, the Middle East and South East Asia.

 

And to the topic at hand, conservatives don't want to end DADT because they know what I know: the repeal of don't ask don't tell makes their opposition to gay marriage harder and harder to sustain. And of course their contempt for the civil rights of minorities in general. Just ask Barry Goldwater, their candidate in 1964, whose candidacy focused on the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So because you hate the American Government so much, you want it to be bigger with more and more government programs? That makes sense.

Also, I do not want the government giving ANYONE handouts - that's where charities and churches come in. That's probably too abstract an idea for you God-less heathens... that people give voluntarily to those in need.

[hide=I love your gal Nancy Pelosi too,]

Now, let me say about unemployment insurance, we talk about it as a safety net and the rest. This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator. And for that reason, for those two reasons, at least, it should be passed, and I am optimistic that it will.

She said this near the end of June, beginning of July... the extension was passed July 21st.

Unemployment went from 9.5% in July to.... 9.6% in August to .... 9.6% in September to.... 9.6% in October to.... 9.8% in November... So much for creating jobs.

[/hide]

 

And don't talk to me about some conservative candidate from 1964, when LBJ is quoted as saying "Son, when I appoint a n-word to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n-word." Point being that political parties change their views and their positions over time.

 

 

EDIT:

I absolutely love America, but I love it enough to know it's faults. One of which is that it messes around in other people's business way too often.

That's different than wanting to end "America's empire," right? I guess I can't make the blanket statement "All liberals hate America" anymore <_<

:mrgreen: trololol

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because you hate the American Government so much, you want it to be bigger with more and more government programs? That makes sense.

 

Always a dichotomy with you, isn't it? No room for nuance; no ability to even see that I was being completely facetious until my sentence starting with "Notice."

 

Did it ever occur to you that as bad as government is, that corporations after profit are absurdly worse? I take my lesser of two evils, thanks, as anarchy -- my preference -- is unworkable and might be worse than corrupt government hubris.

 

Also, I do not want the government giving ANYONE handouts - that's where charities and churches come in.

 

So you support ending the Military Industrial Complex, which includes our Empire, too? Glad to hear it. And if churches and charities were so good at what they do, there wouldn't have been a need for government programs in the first place. History is your enemy, my friend.

 

Take lessons from Germany's billionaires and millionaires:

 

I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

 

 

That's probably too abstract an idea for you God-less heathens... that people give voluntarily to those in need.

 

It's not really voluntary so much as it's about ulterior motive (saving souls).

 

She said this near the end of June, beginning of July... the extension was passed July 21st.

Unemployment went from 9.5% in July to.... 9.6% in August to .... 9.6% in September to.... 9.6% in October to.... 9.8% in November... So much for creating jobs.

 

Go get a degree in economics before you start spouting off [cabbage]. It's a fact that food stamps and unemployment benefits create the best stimulus during recessions, and economists from all parts of the spectrum -- from New-Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, to Hayek -- will all tell you that. Businesses require demand before they will start hiring again. Why hire when they can match demand with a lower workforce? Oh, right...just give them more tax cuts to pocket, and THEN they'll start hiring amirite?

 

And don't talk to me about some conservative candidate from 1964, when LBJ is quoted as saying "Son, when I appoint a n-word to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n-word." Point being that political parties change their views and their positions over time.

 

No need. There's a Senator-elect from Kentucky who takes the same position as Goldwater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBDWU7qES8

 

Your crowd is the same as they always have been, except the fringe elements are now the mainstream Republicans.

 

And this will be my last response on this topic that trends off-topic. Take anything else to PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more people we prohibit from warring, the better.

 

 

wat.

 

 

 

Guys lets keep this topic gay, please.

 

 

^^

 

 

And no, Leylen I didn't confirm what the "report" said at all. I didn't say, nor mean to imply they wanted gays to keep themselves being gay to themselves.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently in the military and honestly don't care. If that gay guy/girl can finish the training like anyone else and protect my back just as well as a straight person then I'll gladly have their back. If they are a capable person why shouldn't they be allowed, its their country too. I'm not gay, its not the lifestyle I would want to live....but I'm not going to oppress anyone else for living it. Like I said, if they are capable, then I'm capable of dealing with it and going about my job.

 

The only problems I could see coming from it is in situations like in the barracks. Rooming together or showering together (yes it happens still in the military). I know not every gay person is out to try and turn you gay or something or try and make a move on you sexually, but the environment would yield a lot more false rape accusations or sexual harassment accusations. Just wouldn't be the best work or living environment with that going on. Not everyone has an open mind.

Kriegsig1copy2b.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

end the American Empire.

Is it me or do all liberals hate America?

That's a pretty big umbrella statement coming from someone who wants to downsize the government.

 

Nobody trusts a big government. You're just taking a contrary stand because you know he's a radical.

 

Take lessons from Germany's billionaires and millionaires:

 

I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

 

It really makes no difference when the billionaires control the government.

 

The more people we prohibit from warring, the better.

 

Guys lets keep this topic gay, please.

 

His statement seemed pretty gay to me.

 

OT: The real issue here was that DADT was allowing military officials to fire those who were openly gay. It's going to be difficult for some to live with a gay guy, but nobody's any gayer than before, we're just protecting the rights of those who wish to be open about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For [bleep]'s sake, can we have ONE political thread that doesn't devolve into liberal v. conservative finger pointing? This isn't debate, this is the kind of "I'm right and you're stupid" [cabbage] that makes it impossible for people to take you seriously.

Your first mistake was trying to take any of them seriously ;)

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For [bleep]'s sake, can we have ONE political thread that doesn't devolve into liberal v. conservative finger pointing? This isn't debate, this is the kind of "I'm right and you're stupid" [cabbage] that makes it impossible for people to take you seriously.

Your first mistake was trying to take any of them seriously ;)

Seriously... you should know by now.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather not know that my fellow gay soldier is looking at my peepee while we are taking group showers....

I am very concerned that someone in the United States military would refer to his penis as his "peepee."

 

Please put the gun down and go defend another country.

 

Personally I think it is a huge mistake. Now I believe in the short term there will be no problems, but in the long term we are going to see some major issues. We will see segregated bathrooms, showers, and barracks for example (there will be a ton of meatheads who wouldn't want to sleep or shower near a gay man). then over time, gays will be constantly made fun of, mistreated, etc. etc. Basically in my opinion the Gays got what the want, but as time passes they will regret it.

Gay people? Being made fun of? This is a radical idea, and I don't think it will ever happen. :rolleyes:

 

- - -

 

Repealing DADT was long-overdue.

 

:thumbup:

glut.gif
2tchvHp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people in this topic seem to be under the delusion that this repeal means that gay people will suddenly flock to the army. Newsflash, there are already gay and lesbian soldiers in the army, DADT simply meant that they had to hide their sexual preference.

 

Removing DADT is less about letting gay people serve in the army and more about improving what little rights they do have.

asrhasrh.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, the way the policy was designed it allowed gay people to serve in the army...a convenient loophole.

 

Loophole:

an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation

 

DADT:

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants.

 

Of couse now it's been repealed, you americans can force everyone out of the closet and throw it in their friends faces till they resent them, yay. :rolleyes:

Leylen.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.