Gays in the military debate.....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2009 11:30 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 2:51 AM GMT

    'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat,' Says General
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 3:41 AM GMT
    I love the Onion
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Mar 16, 2009 5:49 AM GMT
    I don't know if people realize this but according to the policy regarding homosexuality in the armed forces, people are not suppose to engage in any homosexual activity regardless if they are on or off base, in their own private life or not. This is required of a person for the entirety of their career in any of the armed forces. Doesn't that sound a bit crazy? It also states that a person is not to be married to or attempt to marry someone of the same biological sex. Also admitting that you are gay and willingly to act on it is also grounds for discharge besides the other ones listed.

    Armed forces include the military, coast guard, and national guard if I remember right.

    You can read the code here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 16, 2009 11:25 AM GMT
    The coast guard is a military functon of the Department of Homeland Security wth wartime elements operating under the Department of the Navy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 1:39 PM GMT
    Don't Ask Don't Tell is a failure which deprives our military of the service of dedicated gays and lesbians. The policy is also inhumane to the extent that it has disrupted the lives of people whose military careers were ended, or who have avoided a military career they would want and for generally treating gay and lesbian people like second class citizens.

    There is not one iota of evidence from the dozens of countries that allow gays and lesbians to serve that their presence in anyway compromises the effectiveness of the units in which they serve.

    There are two constituencies in the US that have so far held sway over this: out and out homophobic bigots, and a group of wingnut evangelical Christians, who seem to believe that gays in the military will make God angry and so lead to the destruction of the country. Neither group deserves the time of day.
  • Little_Spoon

    Posts: 1562

    Mar 16, 2009 1:42 PM GMT
    Meh.

    I hope I don't have any problem whilst I'm there.

    D:
  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Mar 16, 2009 1:58 PM GMT
    I thought the policy is there because gay men might do sexual provocation to straight guys . I was in the army (not American) and have experience the communal shower room, bunker style bed and probably might cause problem. Some sort like why you dont mix men and lady in the same quarters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 2:11 PM GMT
    that woman's an idiot. she used three basic tactical approaches to the whole argument: that this is all a 'radical social experiment,' that this is not a numbers game of polls, and that it IS a numbers game in legislature- which ultimately depends upon public opinion. well, defense number one is just unfounded, sounds ignorantly paranoid, and i'm not even sure what it means. you'd think it'd be easy to shoot that argument down in a debate as being unfounded and stupid. opinion number two is true enough- civil rights should NEVER be a majority vote issue- so she shoots herself in the foot by saying that. opinion number three contradicts the second one by saying that obama needs the support of the people to do this, which she doesn't think he'll get, citing the california prop 8 as a precedent, which is stupid since that's a totally different issue. so essentially, she's spouting irrationally paranoid opinions instead of facts and is stumbling all over herself throughout.

    the other thing i noticed is that these conservative groups seem to (in their own minds) revolve around this idea of the 'preservation of family.' which is the most pompous and asinine thing i've heard, because it presumes that they're the only ones who know how to create and maintain a healthy family (this is just not the case), that their family values are more valid or 'right' than those of others, and it implies overtly that gays undermine the whole thing, which it doesn't. they're rallying behind a push for separation, division, and the meticulous nit-picking of human differences. we rally behind the ultimate power of love. which sounds healthier for a family?
    why aren't we naming our groups the same thing they are, in parody? the 'LGBT preservation of family unity organization' or something? then we're fighting for the same thing they are, but from a superior vantage- makes them look even worse.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Mar 16, 2009 3:16 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidThe coast guard is a military functon of the Department of Homeland Security wth wartime elements operating under the Department of the Navy.


    "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy."

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode14/usc_sec_14_00000001----000-.html


    Since it is part of the armed forces the government's policy regarding homosexuality in the armed forces applies as far as I know.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Mar 16, 2009 3:22 PM GMT
    czarodziej,

    Yeah what's stupid is how she thinks the policy is necessary even when it doesn't involve soldiers having to share quarters or showering conditions, even though that is happening anyway.. Her argument is a disguise for her angst against homosexuality itself.

    The policy applies to a gay person for the entirety of their life in the military, regardless if they are on or off base, private or not. I mean you aren't even suppose to get married or attempt to be married or admit that you are gay - anywhere, ever! Does that even sound reasonable?