chemdude1232
Active Member
And yet there are plenty of reports (more than not, from what I've read) that state that the far majority of people in the armed services don't (or wouldn't) have a problem serving with a homosexual.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Exactly...his act supports the "weak minded" theory.
chemdude1232
Active Member
You can't be seriously using that as an example of a weak-minded example.
I'd call it supporting the "pissed off" theory instead.
But I'll play your game for a second and give you some examples of people who are (were) gay. Let me know if any of them were weak-minded:
https://www.lambda.org/famous.htm
Before you hide behind the "military is different than civvie life" thing, look closely and you'll find a few soldiers on that list.
I'd call it supporting the "pissed off" theory instead.
But I'll play your game for a second and give you some examples of people who are (were) gay. Let me know if any of them were weak-minded:
https://www.lambda.org/famous.htm
Before you hide behind the "military is different than civvie life" thing, look closely and you'll find a few soldiers on that list.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The combat units don't support the overturning. Marines are the most resistant at 58%.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It is weak minded to let emotion rule your actions.
chemdude1232
Active Member
In that case, every human who has ever existed is weak-minded. Including heterosexual infantrymen.
No one can simply delineate emotion from actions. Not even you.
No one can simply delineate emotion from actions. Not even you.
chemdude1232
Active Member
From an article on the subject:
---However the very next sentence---
---However the very next sentence---
So do you think DADT caused a soldier to get torqued and made him retaliate by leaking some stuff that's hurtful to our military ops?
We couldn't trust poltitcal partisans of any kind in the military on that kind of reasoning.
I'd say this case proves why we need all our citizens to be protected in their basic human rights, and even while in military service. We need to know what's being done on our dime, and in our name, by our military forces. And if we kept our military focused on the constitutional job of defending our liberty, and the freedoms of mankind in general while engaged in defending our nation's direct independence and security, as opposed to playing world policeman for the cartel interests of international corporates. . . . . we wouldn't need to be murdering ordinary folks all over the world and excusing it as "collateral damage".
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Kind of funny that the impeached president who lied when asked was the one who instituted the policy.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It appears that way. He claims he was in an "awkward place."
That's another thing. All these anti-war people are clamoring for homosexuals to be openly gay in the military that they hate. Is it just another way to undermine our military.
Those who claim to be promoting the fundamental human rights of GLBT folks are often more focused on imposing a formulaic restriction on human rights in general. "Progressives" who want to force an ideal for "change" on others. And political footsoldiers for causes they believe must be pushed on others will frequently lie to promote their cause.
If that's their purpose, they may just be stupid or something. Just treating everyone with the same desire to preserve our nation or Constitution or human liberties alike will strengthen our military.
I agree it seems ironic that this issue is being pushed just like Marx said it should be to bring about the proletarian revolution. But Marx was just a puppeteer's hack, paid to write his supposedly pro-littleguy revolutionary drivel by wealthy elitists who just wanted to co-opt the American revolution in a way they could control.
So of course, the current elitists interested in manipulating the world's people are pursuing their cause in a way that will in fact undermine fundamental human rights.
The principles of the American revolution are the principles that will lead us to more freedom, more human respect, more human rights.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I can't really check on an article you failed to link but doesn't the second quote support the notion that the DADT policy is working?...that merely suspecting someone is homosexual doesn't do any damage, but if the homosexual was open about it then it would cause harm?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I don't see what right is being violated with the DADT policy to begin with. Unless flaunting your sexuality is somehow a basic human right?
KatieMCR
Well-Known Member
Heterosexual people constantly flaunt their sexuality. Why should gay people have to hide who they are? With DADT, a gay person was not able to talk about their partner they left back home. If they did, they risked being outed and kicked out.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Is every human weak minded enough to betray their country?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
homosexuals are a "population"
If anyone is flaunting their sexuality in a military situation, that raises concern for the effectiveness of any operation, it could be administratively disciplined along general rules. In a personal conversation about "life/folks back home" I don't see that as compromising effectiveness, and should be protected free speech.
I can see how some folks will object to "flaunting" their sexual orientation inappropriately and causing disruption or distraction. The way some activists do this is a real concern when the basic job at hand, in a military situation, is thereby impaired. That's why I think some activists are hurting the cause of general "rights" for all being sustained on practical terms. On the other hand, sex is not particularly the government's , or the military's business. Personal matters are one thing, but it does take some practical common sense to carry on any purposeful activity, and maybe you could see where some rules might be constructed in such a way it isn't just slamming a particular sort of person.
DADT was one way of trying to take the subject out of action and prevent it from being a distraction. If that was all it was, perhaps it is less offensive than "It's my right to make you focus your attention on my personal issues instead of doing our job here", which is what a lot of folks think the forced acceptance of GLBT viewpoints can be in military situations.
I just think we could do better with minding our own business and doing our jobs without being so "my issues in your face" contentious, whatever your issues are. I thought it was just stupid to formally have a DADT rule about personal issues. If you can't deal with people respectfully even when they are "different" for the sake of our national security, just when will you ever be able to put the most important issues at the top of your list?
smart people hopefully will see the sense of just not bringing things up at a bad time when it will cause some others to react and be distracted from what is important at the moment.
It was essentially an effort to just not make it an issue in the military. It might have been better to just administratively ignore it when someone "told", and in effect tell those who might be offended/repulsed/intimidated to man up and ignore it too. The brass saying personal business that detracts from the military effort is out of place would be an even-handed way to handle it. If you're a minority, say a gay, in a situation where the straight majority is indulging in small talk about their girls, you wouldn 't be the first smart person to just let something pass and understand that that is just the way it is.
making a rule called DADT specifically applied to gays is one way of dividing people and starting an argument, and applying the power of government unequally. The campaign to eliminate it seems to further divide people, and call for even more government power being called into play to make everybody "do the right thing".
The real "right thing" is for the government to insist it's none of their business, and could soldiers please focus on the soldiering?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The policy was a compromise. They just wanted to ban homosexuals altogether instead the policy became homosexuals could stay as long as they didn't make a deal about it.
I think the military should be able to make their own policies without the "public servants" in Washington butting in. General Washington himself had strict moral rules for his army.