-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
DADT repealed
- Thread starter GreenLantern330
- Start date
- Status
I quoted the wrong person. post removed because I suck 
seafort, ^ you are correct. I quoted the wrong post. I've still not mastered this thing you kids call the the interweb.
Tebow would be so ashamed.
Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle does not translate to intolerance. For example, I disagree with the gay lifestyle. However, refusing them rights afforded to others does. I can't comment on whether or not you are a bigot, not having observed your interactions with gays. But institutional bigotry is no better than personal bigotry, and that is the purpose of DOMA. DADT, on the other hand, played a legitimate role in protecting gays, although one would assume (hope?) that the time has come that gays don't need to be protected from their fellow service members, given it's repeal.
If you feel that I was implying anyone was a backwards hillbilly, I apologize. But that whole sentence is putting a lot of words in my mouth which I never uttered or attempted to imply. Modern society can and does get things wrong on a regular basis, and we're all humans who are inherently fallible. I think there is injustice here that needs to be remedied, and you think that there are good reasons to continue preventing gays from having certain rights, and at some point, somebody is going to win, at least for a little while. I don't think there's any reason to resort to insults at any level. My point in response to Lazers is that intolerance always has repercussions, just as tolerance does.
I state my opinions as just that, not as facts. I don't intend to insult the significant experience (certainly compared to myself) of any of the members of this board, however I call things like I see them. The repeal of DADT is the legislative equivalent of an unstoppable force, and I don't think any of us is the equivalent of an immovable object. People will adapt, and in a few years this will look like a speed bump instead of the mountain it's being made out to be.
Furthermore, if the British, the Canadians, and the Germans can have openly homosexual members serving alongside our forces in combat, what is different about American homosexuals (or the American military) that this supposedly isn't possible? I also have yet to see a single argument, on this forum or elsewhere, which articulated a measurable negative effect that granting homosexuals the right to form a civil union would have on the rest of us Americans. We built these walls as a nation, and now we're going to have to tear them down, so yes there is effort involved. But this isn't exactly rocket science, it's just telling our fellow citizens and saying "I may not agree with you, but I think you're entitled to the same legal benefits I am."
Quite correct.
Mark your calendar.
This is probably the FIRST -- and LAST -- time that you an' I will agree on ANYTHING ....
Or ... is there a God???
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
No rights are being denied in this thread; as previous posters have mentioned, DOMA does not deny gays any rights unequally. As a heterosexual, I am just as prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex as gays/lesbians are. Neither straights or gays can start polygamist groups or marry their adult relatives either (both consenting adults). There is no right to serve in the military; the hundreds of posters about rejection on the OCS/BDCP/ROTC/USNA forums are evidence of this. You can tolerate homosexuals - act civil toward them - while not allowing them to force their beliefs on your society. Tolerance is a 2 way street, too often we use intolerance as code for those who we disagree with.
Sooooooooooooo ... now w/ the 'new freedom' ... are YOU a homosexual ... ???
Be proud ... stand tall ... tell the truth ... ???
Admirable ... semi-reactionary, perhaps, but still, a stand-up statement and your considered defense of the repeal of DADT and the 'rights' of everyone has been duly noted.
I'm impressed, as I've NEVER seen anyone defend a position, unsolicited, to the extent that YOU have ... unless they were somehow 'involved' in the final outcome ... so now that you have Congressional support:
Be true to your school ... be 'straight'
... stand tall ... are YOU a homosexual ???
Seafort
Made His Bed, Is Now Lying In It
Just to clarify, these are two different things. Not the same thing.
The argument you put forward focuses on an insignificant portion. The issue isn't about marrying someone of a certain sex. The issue is about marrying someone you love. You have government endorsed "certification" of your supposed love. Gays and lesbians do not. Therefore, you have something recognised that they do not. As far as I am concerned, as I said earlier, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognising unions of love anyhow. It's socio religious, based on your morality, and is not something to be legislated.
Polygamy IS legal. It's just that the benefits of a combined union are not recognised. There is absolutely nothing illegal about polyamorous relationships. If there was, anyone who ever engaged in menage a trois would be arrested. Now, to your point about incest and the recognition of that relationship, it definitely is illegal, depending on state and how close the relatives are. While it certainly squicks me out, I'm not sure I feel the government has the legal right to dictate what consenting adults do in the bedroom. If both parties are in possession of their faculties and freely choose this... Not sure I am willing to use the force of law to stop them.
Addressed previously. There is no right to serve. Service decisions must be made on merit. Sexual orientation is outside of the scope of merit. It's just like diversity initiatives, which I also oppose. Everybody get back to work. Don't care if you're white, black, male, female, transsexual, gay, bi, blue, believe in purple people eaters as your personal deities... Do your job, do it well, we'll get along fine.
Don't do your job, or worse, then complain it's because you're X, and cry discrimination, and we're going to have a problem...
+1
I disagree with you, but I will die (and kill) for your right to have your opinion, if it is so necessary for me to do so.
The argument you put forward focuses on an insignificant portion. The issue isn't about marrying someone of a certain sex. The issue is about marrying someone you love. You have government endorsed "certification" of your supposed love. Gays and lesbians do not. Therefore, you have something recognised that they do not. As far as I am concerned, as I said earlier, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognising unions of love anyhow. It's socio religious, based on your morality, and is not something to be legislated.
Polygamy IS legal. It's just that the benefits of a combined union are not recognised. There is absolutely nothing illegal about polyamorous relationships. If there was, anyone who ever engaged in menage a trois would be arrested. Now, to your point about incest and the recognition of that relationship, it definitely is illegal, depending on state and how close the relatives are. While it certainly squicks me out, I'm not sure I feel the government has the legal right to dictate what consenting adults do in the bedroom. If both parties are in possession of their faculties and freely choose this... Not sure I am willing to use the force of law to stop them.
Addressed previously. There is no right to serve. Service decisions must be made on merit. Sexual orientation is outside of the scope of merit. It's just like diversity initiatives, which I also oppose. Everybody get back to work. Don't care if you're white, black, male, female, transsexual, gay, bi, blue, believe in purple people eaters as your personal deities... Do your job, do it well, we'll get along fine.
Don't do your job, or worse, then complain it's because you're X, and cry discrimination, and we're going to have a problem...
+1
I disagree with you, but I will die (and kill) for your right to have your opinion, if it is so necessary for me to do so.
Seafort
Made His Bed, Is Now Lying In It
It's a forum, so I don't feel it was unsolicited. I DO have a stake in the outcome. How many of you know people who are gay in your unit? A4sForever, I am sure you did too. I did, and I do. My beliefs on what constitutes common decency means that I believe these individuals should be able to say goodbye to their partners on the pier, and introduce me to their partners at functions. And for those partners to have the same support we give the husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, of straight members to deal with their loved ones on deployment.
I am not a homosexual, not that it's really any business of a forum, but I certainly brought it up. As they say, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
I am not a homosexual, not that it's really any business of a forum, but I certainly brought it up. As they say, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
It's a forum, so I don't feel it was unsolicited. I DO have a stake in the outcome. How many of you know people who are gay in your unit? A4sForever, I am sure you did too. I did, and I do. My beliefs on what constitutes common decency means that I believe these individuals should be able to say goodbye to their partners on the pier, and introduce me to their partners at functions. And for those partners to have the same support we give the husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, of straight members to deal with their loved ones on deployment.
I am not a homosexual, not that it's really any business of a forum, but I certainly brought it up. As they say, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Yeah, you DID kinda' bring it up, tacitly if not actually.
BUT: actually ... at least for the CUBI Pt./Vietnam-era guys ... it's "what's THAT got to do w/ the 'price of RICE in the Philippines" ... but I guess you wouldn't know that ... ???
I've experienced this 'stuff' in high school and college. No big deal. One of my stateroom-mates was (years later) ID'd as a homosexual ... but he & I would have given our lives for each other (and I still would) ... we were BROTHERS in any/every sense of the word and we shared a LOT of blood, sweat, & tears. At least he kept his 'sexuality' to himself -- would that EVERYONE should ... !!!
I've worked w/ many 'flamboyant' personnel in the airlines ... more than most of YOU ever will in a lifetime ... and I've been 'approached' on a couple of occasions -- just 'cause I wore a ' 'rainbow' ID lanyard around my neck ... and I didn't fucking appreciate it, in case you were wondering ...
BUT: after 9/11 ... I briefed my crews on what would go down if we were 'compromised' ... and the straights & the homosexuals were in ONE accord: we would FIGHT and DEFEND the aircraft. Period. Bottom line. NO EXCEPTIONS ...
I guess the only problem I have /w the new proposed 'law' is ... "OPENLY SERVE" ...
WTF does "OPENLY" mean ... ???
If you get in my face w/ YOUR social agenda ... then we have a problem.
Seafort
Made His Bed, Is Now Lying In It
As far as I know, all it means is basically the above. Bring your partner to the Navy Ball. Hug your partner goodbye at the pier. Your partner can get the support they need from the wives and husbands back on the homefront. THAT'S IT.
+1
I agree with you, absolutely. There are several social agendas, liberal, moderate, and conservative, I don't want to hear about. Your sexual politics is absolutely not something I want to hear about in the wardroom or the ready room. We totally agree on this. Sexual politics, economic politics, religion, none of that stuff should be "flamboyant" and I don't want to hear about it on the job.
If SN Timmy comes in and starts a gay pride parade in berthing, I would hope the CPO would tell him to knock that shit off.
Also, good blog post on USNI that basically sums up my Don't Know, Don't Care, If Known, Still Don't Care (I came up with my view "independently" however) view: http://blog.usni.org/2010/12/18/from-dadt-to-dkdc/
I will be curious to know how they deal with the incidents that do arise (no pun intended), and when there are disruptions as a result. (And there will be some.) I suspect that the upper leadership will not be open about them, because of pressure from the political side. And that will result in more frustration in those who were not in favor of the repeal.
- Status