View Full Version : Abolishment of Don't Ask, Don't Tell-social experiment or an End Run on State Rights?
I was in the Post Exchange this morning when I noticed the new Army Times lead story. They were featuring a story on DADT. We have been focusing on serving in the trenches with gays. They raised some questions about housing and other benefits that gays would get. It never occurred to me that with the abolishment of the DADT policy that Gays may receive the same resources and benefits as hetero married couples. Sounds like they are using the military as a way to Nationalize Gay marriage. What do you all think? The military has some of the most conservative regulations in our society (some may say Draconian). Liberals can easily say that changes that are successful in the military will work in our society at large.
marriage and sexuality is none of the government's business.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Usually it is the marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government soapbox I get on and leave the sexuality. .. . for other folks to sort out. Yes, there should not be any government say in marriage or sexuality.
Any sources for all these benefits they will receive? My subscription to Army Times seems to have lapsed.
Any sources for all these benefits they will receive? My subscription to Army Times seems to have lapsed.
I looked at the online issue and didn't see anything on the article. They want you to buy a paper copy so know online freebies. My thought process was simple. If you are allowed to openly express your sexual orientation, then you should be allowed to pursue meaningful relationships which would ultimately culminate with some type of legal union or marriage per se. Well all married soldiers are authorized to receive a tax free stipend for housing that is based on rank and location (Basic Allowance for Housing - BAH). This stipend is usually enough to pay the mortgage on a decent home depending on where you leave. The soldier never feels the hit in the wallet because the pay is extra (not to mention tax free). Married soldiers also receive an allowance for meals or Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS). For most soldiers that is another 240 a month that is tax free. When a soldier is separated from their family for more than 30 days and 300 miles they get Family Separation pay which I think is around 150 now. Entitlements aside, how would you like to explain to little Bobby or Suzy why the family living next door consist of two men and no women? I foresee problems on the horizon.
From the other thread, the same question was asked and it seems only a couple STATES recognize it, has nothing to with federal ANYTHING. I do not see how people are making this out to be removing DADT-turns into gay marriage is the new law and they now run the country.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Usually it is the marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government soapbox I get on and leave the sexuality. .. . for other folks to sort out. Yes, there should not be any government say in marriage or sexuality.
Nonsense.
The nuclear family, formed by heterosexuals, is the most natural form of social organization.
Any other ersatz "family" has been shown repeatedly to be less than advantageous.
It is in the best interest of a functional "society" to make the marriage contract subject to civil enforcement.
It is in the best interest of a functional "society" to make the marriage contract subject to civil enforcement.
Nah, divorces cause way more problems, screw more people out of stuff they worked for, and major emotional problems for kids.
From the other thread, the same question was asked and it seems only a couple STATES recognize it, has nothing to with federal ANYTHING. I do not see how people are making this out to be removing DADT-turns into gay marriage is the new law and they now run the country.
My take on the issue is this. The military is one of the last bastions of All American values that have been part of our history for centuries. When ever there is a fundamental change in Military culture it usually leads to a shift in civilian culture. The liberals would have plenty of firepower to use to push for National Gay unions/marriages if they can turn to the military as an example of how homosexual behavior won't effect the moral fiber of the country as a whole. That is why I say that this move could be a social experiment. In retrospect the last major culture change the military had was probably desegregation. I wonder how many soldier experienced trepidation about that policy change?
In retrospect the last major culture change the military had was probably desegregation.
Uhm wasnt women in the military after desegregation? I really dont feel like looking it up, but it seems blacks were there before women.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/500grains/fairy.jpg
Army Chief
09-29-10, 22:29
The GLBT lobby would like us to believe that sexual orientation is no different from race or gender, so we should abandon our moralist rhetoric and just allow the social movement to happen; as usual, it will begin in our Army.
We've already laid the groundwork with Consideration Of Others training and other psychobabble intended to portray those with objections to such behavior as "the ones with the problem."
I disrespectfully disgree.
This is an ill-timed distraction from more urgent matters which is rapidly eroding my faith in our senior uniformed leadership.
AC
Belmont31R
09-29-10, 22:42
marriage and sexuality is none of the government's business.
It is when people's lives are on the line such as the military.
Belmont31R
09-29-10, 22:43
I couldn't have said it better myself. Usually it is the marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government soapbox I get on and leave the sexuality. .. . for other folks to sort out. Yes, there should not be any government say in marriage or sexuality.
The military is a gov entity not society at large.
Belmont31R
09-29-10, 22:44
Nonsense.
The nuclear family, formed by heterosexuals, is the most natural form of social organization.
Any other ersatz "family" has been shown repeatedly to be less than advantageous.
It is in the best interest of a functional "society" to make the marriage contract subject to civil enforcement.
Says who?
Belmont31R
09-29-10, 22:58
My take on the issue is this. The military is one of the last bastions of All American values that have been part of our history for centuries. When ever there is a fundamental change in Military culture it usually leads to a shift in civilian culture. The liberals would have plenty of firepower to use to push for National Gay unions/marriages if they can turn to the military as an example of how homosexual behavior won't effect the moral fiber of the country as a whole. That is why I say that this move could be a social experiment. In retrospect the last major culture change the military had was probably desegregation. I wonder how many soldier experienced trepidation about that policy change?
There are 3 primary purposes of why combat arms is male only.
1. So you don't get Johny doing stupid shit because his crush Jane is pinned down, and bleeding. Males will do stupid shit when they see a female in distress especially if its a female the male has a crush on (or other relationship).
2. Females cannot keep themselves clean in the field for extended periods of time, and they have the possibility of suffering mental changes during menstruation periods. They also do not have the same physical traits as males, and are less suited to combat arms requirements. This is generally speaking. We all know of a butch female who can hack it like the males but that is not representative of the entire female gender.
3. Combat arms are often forced to cohabitate in small areas, share tents, showers, latrines, bunks, ect.
Gays do not apply to number 2 but they apply to 1 and 3.
The same issues will arise with males and females if you have 2 gay boys under contact, and Johny see's his butt buddy getting shot at while bleeding out.
You cannot also force a straight male soldier to shower with or bunk with a gay soldier. Just like female and male facilities are separated. Its not right to force a straight soldier to shower with a gay soldier just like no person of authority would ever force a female to shower with the males. They would probably face UCMJ charges.
Im sure the liberals would love to "conquer" the military by forcing gays within its ranks but that is a purely ideological goal not one based on any type of reality. These are the same idiots who accuse our troops of being baby killers, murderers, ect.
BTW I am pro-gay marriage on the citizen side, and think they should be able to raise kids. I do not think its beneficial to the military. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with race like segregation during WW2. The military is about accomplishing their mission not appeasing every minority group out there. Whats next? Blind and deaf soldiers so we're not hurting anyone's feelings? If a segment of the population is more of a burden than a help they have no business being in a uniform.
And no forcing a straight male solider to shower in the nude with a gay soldier is not "cool" or the "future". I would not force your daughter to bathe with my son in the nude which has the same intrinsic errors of judgment as straights showering with gays.
RogerinTPA
09-29-10, 23:13
It's an end run they are trying to pull.
I say keep DADT as is. You wanna serve? Then STFU and serve in silence. If not, then separate arrangements and facilities for everyone. An "Opt-Out" should be available for those that do not want to share rooms or shower facilities and "their" rank should be PINK, so heteros will know the difference.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman to form a family. Since it requires a man and a woman to make a marriage, gays cannot marry.
However, if they want to come up with a "Domestic Partner" or some other type of thing to fit their culture to gain certain rights, that's different
Belmont31R
09-29-10, 23:30
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman to form a family. Since it requires a man and a woman to make a marriage, gays cannot marry.
However, if they want to come up with a "Domestic Partner" or some other type of thing to fit their culture to gain certain rights, that's different
The concept of gay marriage is a couple thousand years old.
You should do some research on where the term lesbian originated from.
variablebinary
09-30-10, 00:37
If you don't want the government in your bedroom, then keep your bedroom buggery out of Military public service.
Shut your mouth, pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Last I checked, clarification on what you choose to lick or suck is not a perquisite for this function.
Who cares about some one's preference on where they stick their dick, as long as you're not being ass raped you it's all good. And is any one that scared of getting raped by a gay, I mean they're gay, you're a heterosexual male, if it comes down to it whip some ass (stop thinking like a gay).
People should just leave their sexual preference where it belongs, in their bedrooms, swinger clubs, or chicken coops... Goes for straight people as well, I'm all for the gorgeous girls in the world, but I could care less to hear about your conquering of some hot blond bimbo, call me old fashioned, but I have zero interest in living vicariously through your sex life.
And on marriage, marriage should be between anyone who want's to marry another person, how many heterosexual couples can't even make it past 6 months? The whole idea that marriage is a sacred commitment between a man & woman is BS. It's going down to the court and getting a paper signed, and maybe just maybe paying for an asian Elvis impersonator.
One more thing, married couples should get no more or no less federal assistance than a single person. Why the **** does being married all of the sudden entitle you to extra benefits from the government? Same goes with children, can't afford'em with out tax breaks, than don't have em. It's called responsibility, it's not the governments job to make your hardships easier by subsidizing your childcare expenses.
Says who?
History
Societal development
Many studies
We've been down this road before. You refuse to acknowledge differences. Let's not start again.
Army Chief
09-30-10, 07:05
If you don't want the government in your bedroom, then keep your bedroom buggery out of Military public service.
Precisely, and it is the "in your face" component to all of this that raises my most strenuous objections. Sexuality is a private issue, and forcing one of the more controversial aspects of it occupy such a front-and-center position is counterproductive, to say the least. We've already got more than enough trouble dealing with the traditional male/female dynamic in the ranks, though I'm sure it is stepping across some kind of line to say so.
It gets worse: the GLBT agenda isn't compatible with the keep-your-mouth-shut-and-serve approach, and we can look forward to years of activism in the ranks once this goes through. Think this stops at the incorporation of openly homosexual troops? Think again. You're also going to get the bisexual and transsexual fringe element in the mix, as well as overt gay activism, because the road to progress in their view requires confrontation to the point of open acceptance.
And is any one that scared of getting raped by a gay, I mean they're gay, you're a heterosexual male, if it comes down to it whip some ass (stop thinking like a gay).
Disagreed with much of the associated post, but this statement, in particular, strikes me as rather naive. A traditional barracks scuffle involving a homosexual soldier would technically be a hate crime under current law. Think about that for a minute. Don't think that infusing a group of people with such special protections willl have any effect upon unit cohesion, discipline and morale? You're kidding yourself.
I'm through here, as I've said too much already.
AC
Didn't they make some of the same arguments against integration of Minorities into combat units? Unit Cohesion, Morale, etc?
Not trying to stir things up. Seriously asking.
Disagreed with much of the associated post, but this statement, in particular, strikes me as rather naive. A traditional barracks scuffle involving a homosexual soldier would technically be a hate crime under current law. Think about that for a minute. Don't think that infusing a group of people with such special protections willl have any effect upon unit cohesion, discipline and morale? You're kidding yourself.
AC
It was a joke for one, I really don't think gays go around looking for straight guys. And on the whole morale allowing gays in the military, already a shit load of em in the military. People should just keep their private lives private and nobody would have a problem.
The concept of gay marriage is a couple thousand years old.
You should do some research on where the term lesbian originated from.and the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman goes back even further than that. If they want to form a legal union within their culture, fine. Let them find their own word to define it. If they want to find a way within the system to protect the rights they share with their domestic cohabitants, fine. I do not propose hate or discrimination.
But if they want respect for their culture, they need to respect the culture of others. It is disrespectful to expect another culture to change the definition of something they have lived by since time began, in this case it's the definition of marriage. Regardless of the fact that human beings are flawed and often screw up their marriages and other relationships. If we were to allow disrespect for something based on this analogy, we would not be required to respect anything, including the liberties listed in the amendments to the constitution and we would be subject to absolute tyranny.
As far as the source of the word lesbian, it has nothing to do with this discussion
The concept of gay marriage is a couple thousand years old.
no its not. No civilization in the past has had any extensive gay marriage. A few emperors or kings having male partners is not gay marriage.
You should do some research on where the term lesbian originated from.
No one is denying that gay behavior is new. The origin of lesbian is irrelevant.
and the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman goes back even further than that.
+1
Usually the best system of doing anything is the one that endures during the worst of times when survival dictates the structure of society. The traditional heterosexual family element is most common in cultures where everyone pulls their weight. Whether it be early settlers of North America, the early Roman Republic, or the tribal society of the Machiguenga and thousands of other modern day tribal peoples.
When it comes to civilizations, homosexual activity in society seems to gradually be more accepted during times of peace and prosperity. During these eras, society in general tends to drift from their religious and traditional beliefs in favor of earthly pleasures and relaxation. Birth rates dramatically decrease, government corruption increases, and society itself becomes more divided and weaker. For many societies, this is where they usually collapse under their own immorality, or a tyrant takes over to keep his subjects in check.
"Idle hands are the devil's workshop." -Earliest know reference is Chaucer's Tale of Melibee in 1386
For you Libertarians: The moral/immoral influences of socieity will mold and build the minds and souls of our future leaders. How long will a nation last when the corrupted minds of our leaders find ways to exploit the system? Washington is currently being run by the anti-religious generation of the 1960s who defined themselves by their definance of tradition. How long before the immoral offspring of our society invade the TeaParty movement and find ways to get what they want?
...back on topic. Military units compromised only of men have been the main staple of effective military armies throughout history. Why?....because it is the best way to build an army. The elements of such armies are strong mental and physical individuals, and with as much uniformity as possible. Unformity in sex, appearance, modivations, and beliefs. Race really isn't a big deal, its cultural, religious, and societal differences that screw things up and dissolves trust in the ranks.
no its not. No civilization in the past has had any extensive gay marriage. A few emperors or kings having male partners is not gay marriage.
Um, not really. Pretty much every ancient culture had open gay relationships including what would be defined as marriage, the biggest being the Greeks. You have to remember back around that time they didn't have God's who killed gays so they didn't have a huge problem with it. It wasn't until the Abrahamic religions spread through the regions that gay men became openly prosecuted for their sexual choices.
Look at Lot, instead of letting the gays come near the angels, he offered his daughters, of course he committed incest with them later, but that's cool, he was still a righteous holy man. :rolleyes:
Um, not really. Pretty much every ancient culture had open gay relationships including what would be defined as marriage, the biggest being the Greeks. You have to remember back around that time they didn't have God's who killed gays so they didn't have a huge problem with it. It wasn't until the Abrahamic religions spread through the regions that gay men became openly prosecuted for their sexual choices.
Uh, NO. The greeks did have a lot of homosexuality but nothing that was considered marriage. They also had marriage between men and women and they knew the difference between marriage and homosexual relationships which were often between men and boys and were not a form of marriage.
Again, gay marriage has never been practiced in a widespread fashion as marriage in any culture of note or civilization that I am aware of and the Greeks are not the answer. Their practice was much different.
Look at Lot, instead of letting the gays come near the angels, he offered his daughters, of course he committed incest with them later, but that's cool, he was still a righteous holy man. :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
09-30-10, 18:44
History
Societal development
Many studies
We've been down this road before. You refuse to acknowledge differences. Let's not start again.
Yes Sir! :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
09-30-10, 18:46
no its not. No civilization in the past has had any extensive gay marriage. A few emperors or kings having male partners is not gay marriage.
No one is denying that gay behavior is new. The origin of lesbian is irrelevant.
I never said it was extensive. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.
And its amusing you think because what people did 3k years ago we should do that today. Should we also go back to the feudal system of land ownership and governance?
Exactly what makes something 3k years ago relevant today?
Yes Sir! :rolleyes:
Truth hurts. Studies show that children grow up best in a mother/father family.
I never said it was extensive. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.
A few kings or emperors doing something you want to equate with marriage is irrelevant. The society did not adopt and practice it. There is a reason for this. It does not further the society's interests.
And its amusing you think because what people did 3k years ago we should do that today. Should we also go back to the feudal system of land ownership and governance?
Exactly what makes something 3k years ago relevant today?
How exactly is your question relevant? There is a rhetorical term for your trying to distract with irrelevant questions but I am too dumb to remember what it is.
(And FYI, I did not bring up the Greeks -- what I assume you are referring to for 3K years ago).
The evolution of society and what it develops as institutions to further its own interests and preserve itself is of great interest as it shows how things developed and why and why other things did not develop and are not positive influences in a society.
Belmont31R
09-30-10, 19:00
Truth hurts. Studies show that children grow up best in a mother/father family.
No its about you attempting to tell me what I can and cannot post. We already have mods and site staff running around telling people not to post their opinions because they don't fit a certain mold. I don't need you doing it, too.
I never said anything about raising kids. Where do you come up with this stuff? You're good at putting words in people's mouths, and basing your argument off something someone never said anything about. I never said gay marriage was wide spread or that gay marriage has anything to do with raising kids.
When you have something that has been handed down from civilization to civilization, society to society, for thousands of years, as a bedrock of civilization, you should be very very careful about messing with it. A tweak here or there but not a fundamental redefinition. You get lots of unintended consequences and really screw things up.
Belmont31R
09-30-10, 19:05
A few kings or emperors doing something you want to equate with marriage is irrelevant. The society did not adopt and practice it. There is a reason for this. It does not further the society's interests.
How exactly is your question relevant? There is a rhetorical term for your trying to distract with irrelevant questions but I am too dumb to remember what it is.
(And FYI, I did not bring up the Greeks -- what I assume you are referring to for 3K years ago).
The evolution of society and what it develops as institutions to further its own interests and preserve itself is of great interest as it shows how things developed and why and why other things did not develop and are not positive influences in a society.
The question Im asking is why is it that you pick and choose one specific "quality" about ancient society, and say this is why we should do this today yet completely ignore the multitude of failures these same cultures practiced.
No its about you attempting to tell me what I can and cannot post. We already have mods and site staff running around telling people not to post their opinions because they don't fit a certain mold. I don't need you doing it, too.
sorry to get you butt hurt. I was trying to keep this thread from devolving into what the last gay marriage thread was.
I never said anything about raising kids. Where do you come up with this stuff? You're good at putting words in people's mouths, and basing your argument off something someone never said anything about. I never said gay marriage was wide spread or that gay marriage has anything to do with raising kids.
Nonsense.
The nuclear family, formed by heterosexuals, is the most natural form of social organization.
Any other ersatz "family" has been shown repeatedly to be less than advantageous.
It is in the best interest of a functional "society" to make the marriage contract subject to civil enforcement.
then you said
Says who?
so I responded as I did about kids. "Nuclear families" in a generic sense usually include kids. Not all marriages do, but many of them, probably a majority, do, and is the reason society came up with marriage as it did -- to protect the family and raising of children
The question Im asking is why is it that you pick and choose one specific "quality" about ancient society, and say this is why we should do this today yet completely ignore the multitude of failures these same cultures practiced.
I am not picking one quality of society. I (actually not me, much smarter people than me) am (are) showing that what you call a quality of society comes down throughout time as a bedrock of practically all societies and civilizations and that we inherited that societal wisdom of the past on what works and protects society.
If society wants to start a new quality of society, call it "gay unions" and wants to try that out, giving gay partners legal claim on each other, that is fine. Let's not kill marriage off in the name of experimentation.
The gay rights movement is not happy with that. As has been mentioned, their modus operandi is to be in your face to try and force people to accept their way of thinking and in fact to be preferred / special class. They want to flaunt it in public.
What they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. Even walking down the street or whatever holding hands -- ok, that is their business. But when they radicalize it and try to force people to accept it as normal -- and most people, while ambivalent, are probably personally not accepting of it as normal, even if they are accepting of it as OK -- that is not OK.
Belmont31R
09-30-10, 19:21
I am not picking one quality of society. I (actually not me, much smarter people than me) am (are) showing that what you call a quality of society comes down throughout time as a bedrock of practically all societies and civilizations and that we inherited that societal wisdom of the past on what works and protects society.
So you're picking one quality, and completely ignoring the rest of the qualities that most likely would shock most people that those types of things could have ever existed. Yet somehow marriage comes out of all those horrific things of the past, and is what we should do today in the same exact way they did it just with a few tweaks at most.
Belmont31R
09-30-10, 19:26
If society wants to start a new quality of society, call it "gay unions" and wants to try that out, giving gay partners legal claim on each other, that is fine. Let's not kill marriage off in the name of experimentation.
The gay rights movement is not happy with that. As has been mentioned, their modus operandi is to be in your face to try and force people to accept their way of thinking and in fact to be preferred / special class. They want to flaunt it in public.
What they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. Even walking down the street or whatever holding hands -- ok, that is their business. But when they radicalize it and try to force people to accept it as normal -- and most people, while ambivalent, are probably personally not accepting of it as normal, even if they are accepting of it as OK -- that is not OK.
Ive never met a gay person who was any more more flaunting of their sexual preference than the worst heterosexual person Ive met. In fact while I was in the Army my room mate would invite a MARRIED woman into our room at night, and they'd have sex while I was watching a movie with headphones. Theres nothing a gay person could do to flaunt themselves any worse than Ive seen straight people do.
Gay pride parades in SF are not representative of gay people in general, and neither are strip clubs representative of straight society.
We have an older lesbian couple that lives a couple houses down from us, and you'd never know what they were unless you asked. They nicest people you'll meet, and have the best looking yard in our area.
variablebinary
09-30-10, 19:31
I have a Soldier in my unit now that I think is a homosexual.
Doesn't matter. He is a good soldier, professional, and keeps his private life private. Yes he has showered with us, and stayed with us out in the field during FTX. He's still a damn good soldier. No one is asking for him to be thrown out. He is not harassed or disrespected.
Homosexuals should be allowed to serve. That is my personal feeling on it, but DADT should remain in place, because the military is not a place for gays to have their lifestyle validated, and politicized.
The instant gays are openly allowed to serve, we will get hundreds of hours wasted on sensitivity training, tolerance training, PC training. Commanders will be inundated with complaints from gay soldiers that feel "harassed". Who wants to deal with that shit?
Serve and STFU. You get to serve, and the rest of us can serve without having to worry about being accommodating all the time. If I wanted to walk on eggshells all day I would have being gone into Human Resources
Cagemonkey
09-30-10, 19:56
I have a Soldier in my unit now that I think is a homosexual.
Doesn't matter. He is a good soldier, professional, and keeps his private life private. Yes he has showered with us, and stayed with us out in the field during FTX. He's still a damn good soldier. No one is asking for him to be thrown out. He is not harassed or disrespected.
Homosexuals should be allowed to serve. That is my personal feeling on it, but DADT should remain in place, because the military is not a place for gays to have their lifestyle validated, and politicized.
The instant gays are openly allowed to serve, we will get hundreds of hours wasted on sensitivity training, tolerance training, PC training. Commanders will be inundated with complaints from gay soldiers that feel "harassed". Who wants to deal with that shit?
Serve and STFU. You get to serve, and the rest of us can serve without having to worry about being accommodating all the time. If I wanted to walk on eggshells all day I would have being gone into Human ResourcesI agree totally. I think this was the intentions of the DADT policy.
I never said it was extensive. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.
And its amusing you think because what people did 3k years ago we should do that today. Should we also go back to the feudal system of land ownership and governance?
Exactly what makes something 3k years ago relevant today?
What civilization fell because the sanctity of marriage was protected?
DADT wasn't abolished by our lawmaker's, however the courts are whittling away at the policy. Here is the latest court case involving an Air Force nurse who was dismissed due to the DADT policy.
http://www.theolympian.com/2010/09/25/1381251/nurse-wins-fight-for-job.html
variablebinary
10-01-10, 06:33
DADT wasn't abolished by our lawmaker's, however the courts are whittling away at the policy. Here is the latest court case involving an Air Force nurse who was dismissed due to the DADT policy.
http://www.theolympian.com/2010/09/25/1381251/nurse-wins-fight-for-job.html
Civilian judges should have zero authority in military affairs. Congress and the President should be the only bodies with the authority to overturn DADT or to even overturn a decision by the military related to DADT.
I don't want activist judges ruling on military affairs and dictating how we run our business. Otherwise, how long till the military is sued by an American cousin of goat lovers because we bombed their village when they were hiding Taliban shitheads.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.