| Author | Message | ||
     Moxnix |
Under the guise of an anti-bullying activity, some CA folk are pushing to include gay history, etc., into public school classrooms and text books. Re the political cartoon, no one stops gays from serving in the military. What is the point of posting it? | ||
| Blake |
Dishonest emotional appeal. It works on some. | ||
| Seanp |
It's not about stopping gays from serving in the military, it's about stopping them from being able to live their lives publicly. If I were a compulsive gambler, or I collected Nazi memorabilia, or I was a swinger, or I enjoyed going to strip bars every night, then I can still do those things and be public about it. Sure, many people would think I'm a bad person because I do those things, but because they're legal, as long as those activities don't affect your job performance, the military doesn't care. I could talk all day about this awesome Nazi helmet I got, or the great time I had last night at the swinger party, or the major loss I took gambling. But a Soldier can't talk all day about his or her gay lover. Even though it's legal, it's verboten. Now, the military has things in place to make sure that if your personal activities affect your job performance, you might pay a price. For example, if you have a bad gambling habit, you might have a hard time getting a security clearance. If you go to strip clubs or swinger parties, you might get hit with a sexual harassment charge if you talk about it at work. But those things are not illegal, and not forbidden. Do you see the difference? It's not about keeping gay people out of the military. There are already quite a few in there, so that bridge has already been crossed. But they're all hiding (to different degrees) and it's about not making them hide. Perhaps you'd prefer all gays just wear some sort of patch or something that denotes them as gay? That way it would be a lot easier to see who they are, and keep them out of the military (and probably the police force, fire department, NFL, etc.) How about a pink triangle or something... | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Re the political cartoon, no one stops gays from serving in the military Toles' cartoons often seem stupid to me b/c they often have a very liberal slant that just doesn't make sense. This one though, actually does make sense. In no way is it saying that gays can not serve their country in the military. It is saying that you can die for your country in the military...... as long as you hide who you really are. | ||
| Moxnix |
My discomfort is spared. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I'm so very glad I was able to relieve your discomfort.... I was up all last night worrying about you.  | ||
| Blake |
>>> If I were a compulsive gambler, ... or I was a swinger, ... then I can still do those things and be public about it. Not likely you'd be accepted to serve in the military. Poor logic on your part. >>> Even though it's legal Sodomy (anal intercourse) is in fact illegal in many states and in the military. Male homosexuality is a deviant behavior prone to outrageous promiscuity, drug & alcohol abuse, and mental problems; sodomy is an unhealthy, risky, disease prone behavior. It is a horrible affront to many in the military where 60% of front line combat troops say that openly serving homosexuals would compromise unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. In the anonymous polling conducted by the military, only 15% of service members identifying themselves as homosexuals indicated that would want to reveal their homosexuality to their unit. The other 85% indicated they'd prefer to keep their homosexuality to themselves. So apparently 85% of them agree with the majority of front line combat troops and the chiefs of the Marines, Air Force, and Army. Then why are we even debating this? To appease 15% of 3% = 0.45% of the homosexuals in service? Huh? | ||
| Jsracer |
>>> I despise idiots Translation: I'm intolerant of any opinions other than my own. | ||
| Seanp |
>>> Not likely you'd be accepted to serve in the military. Poor logic on your part. Blake, is this your military experience on which you're basing this opinion? I know people that are all of the things I mentioned. So perhaps my logic/experience is different from your logic/experience. We had a friend who had a massive gambling problem, there was a couple in one unit who were swingers, my first section sergeant when I was enlisted spent a whole lot of time in strip bars, and I know a guy who is a huge Nazi memorabilia collector. But that's just a small sample of people I've met in the past 17 years. >>> Sodomy (anal intercourse) is in fact illegal in many states and in the military. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you have anal intercourse. There are plenty of gay virgins out there. And we already went over the definitions of sodomy in the military. >>> In the anonymous polling conducted by the military, only 15% of service members identifying themselves as homosexuals indicated that would want to reveal their homosexuality to their unit. What percentage of military couples who are swingers, or Nazi memorabilia collectors, or any of those other deviant types would want to reveal it to their unit? And again, if openly-serving homosexuals compromise unit cohesion, then it is up to the command team of that unit to fix it. There are plenty of things that compromise unit cohesion. My first assignment as an officer was like walking into a massive s**tstorm because I had one soldier with HIV, one who had just been raped, one who was worried because he slept with the HIV case and locked himself in his barracks room, one who just got a DUI, one who had just given birth and found out that she and her baby had an STD from the father, (and oh, by the way, while mom was in the hospital the father took the car and emptied the bank account), and one who had tried to commit suicide a month or two before I got there. But you know what? I had an awesome NCO, and he and I took care of the problems, and when we deployed a couple of years later with some of the same Soldiers, they were as tightly-knit a team as I've ever seen in the Army, and I couldn't have been prouder of what they did. So yes, there may be some issues in the beginning, but it will be ironed out through concerted efforts and a good command climate. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Sean, you gotta love people who don't even/have never served trying to say how things are in the military, right? | ||
| Blake |
>>> Translation: I'm intolerant of any opinions other than my own. That's a queer way of interpreting a disdain for idiocy. Not only very odd, but dishonest and blatantly false. That type of dishonesty is standard operating procedure for the leftists pushing lies to further their agenda. >>> Blake, is this your military experience on which you're basing this opinion? I know people that are all of the things I mentioned. Did they inform their recruiter of their behavior? Not likely. DADT in action is seems. Collecting memorabilia is a problem? Not sure why you keep bringing that up. Advocating naziism would be a problem. Collecting historical objects, not so much. I know really smart, really good men who were denied the chance to serve because they had what the military characterized as "thin skin"; they had acne and were told that it would limit their ability to carry a pack, so they were unable to serve. How was that fair? It's not fair. It is the United States Military which has certain rigorous standards for those seeking to serve. >>> Just because you're gay doesn't mean you have anal intercourse. There are plenty of gay virgins out there. Source for that information please. >>> And we already went over the definitions of sodomy in the military. So what. I'm referring to that which is commonly accepted definition, anal sodomy and specifically as it pertains to male homosexuals and their well-documented, disease rife, outrageously promiscuous lifestyle. >>> What percentage of military couples who are swingers, or Nazi memorabilia collectors, or any of those other deviant types would want to reveal it to their unit? Again, the memorabilia is an odd thing to bring up. I don't see any issue there. I know WW-II vets who have it and don't hide the fact. I don't see "swingers" seeking official legitimacy or recognition in the military. They seem happy with DADT in their case. So once again, your logic is contradictory to your aim. >>> And again, if openly-serving homosexuals compromise unit cohesion, then it is up to the command team of that unit to fix it. You conveniently left out "combat effectiveness." How many should die for your aim to include openly homosexual men in combat units? Would you be eager to risk exposing yourself to the blood of a homosexual man knowing that it is 5000% more likely to carry HIV? That's not an issue? Yes, the military tests for HIV, but not every day. An infection can happen up a day after a test and manifest with no symptoms for some time. >>> deployed with some of the same soldiers Be honest. Which ones? Certainly not any that were HIV positive. >>> And again, if openly-serving homosexuals compromise unit cohesion, then it is up to the command team of that unit to fix it. There are some issues that cannot be overcome by even the best leaders. Pretending that command teams are somehow able to do so is not being honest. The issue is just too polarizing for some. Core deeply held views on morality, personal principles and values are in play. | ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Blake |
"For service in the Active and Reserve components, the minimum age for enlistment is 17 years and the maximum age is 35 years Why should someone who is 36 or more years old be prohibited from joining and serving? How is that fair to them? They would have to lie about and keep secret their age in order to join and serve. Are we not prohibiting the service of a large number of patriotic Americans who just want to serve their country? We should be more tolerant and accepting. There are thousands of willing patriotic Americans 36 years and older who just want to serve. Just echoing the argument employed by pro-homosexual activists. | ||
| Blake |
By the way. I'm one of them. I looked into joining the service a few years back, I was a very fit 43 and was told it was impossible. | ||
| Blake |
Indebtedness is not a crime, but it will disqualify one from service. If one is too indebted, one would have to lie about it to gain entrance into the service.
| ||
| Blake |
Being addicted to alcohol is not illegal, but it excludes one from prospective military service. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Sean, you gotta love people who don't even/have never served (sic) trying to say how things are in the military, right? Rules are rules, see above. Being able to read and apply sound logic seems to be the most pertinent qualification for discussion of the issue. I'd not presume to write about how "things are in the military" out of thin air; in discussion of the issue at hand it is perfectly reasonable to call attention to factual information, including the documented opinions of those actually serving and the existing rules and standards of the military. I respect those who serve on my behalf and appreciate it. I'm honored and very happy to help fund their paychecks and benefits. I don't appreciate the notion that only those who serve/served are fit to comment on issues related to the military. (Message edited by Blake on December 18, 2010) | ||
| Cataract2 |
I don't know, considering I'm in and have to read up on regs much less sit through the briefings on them, I might have a leg up on some about what's in them. Anyways, since I'm tired of seeing people talk out their rears on here on things they really don't know much about, I thought I would start with an easy one. Here's the HIV policy description, and if you see it's not good enough being it came from a website, read the AR. Human Immunodeficiency Virus The Army's policy, procedures, and guidance for soldiers infected with HIV are contained in AR 600-110, Identification, Surveillance, and Administration of Personnel Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). All soldiers are required to be tested for the presence of HIV antibodies at least biennially. The biennial testing is keyed to birth month screening and is monitored by the personnel service battalion/military personnel division. Soldiers who receive OCONUS assignment instructions, or are scheduled for an OCONUS TDY that will exceed 179 days, must have tested negative within six months of the departure date. Soldiers who are HIV-positive will not be deployed (PCS or TDY) OCONUS. Soldiers serving OCONUS who are confirmed as HIV positive will be expeditiously reassigned to CONUS. Soldiers confirmed as HIV-positive in CONUS will be indefinitely stabilized at their current duty station. They will be awarded an AEA code of "B" without a termination date. These soldiers remain eligible for other CONUS assignments in accordance with the needs of the Army and PCS policies. The fact that HIV-positive soldiers are nondeployable does not preclude their assignment to a TOE or MTOE deployable unit in CONUS, except for the closed units listed below. Commanders may not impose additional assignment restrictions on HIV-positive soldiers without first obtaining DCSPER approval. Soldiers may be assigned to units for a normal tour (a normal tour for these purposes is three years from reporting date to the unit). The U.S. Army Special Operations Command and Ranger organizations are totally closed to HIV-positive soldiers. Soldiers who are HIV-positive will not be assigned to the following organizations, if the soldier's medical condition requires frequent medical follow-up and the duty location would be geographically isolated from an Army medical treatment facility capable of providing that follow-up: o TOE or MTOE units if previously diagnosed as HIV positive. o U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command o U.S. Army Cadet Command o U.S. Army Recruiting Command These soldiers remain eligible for NCOES attendance. However, they will not attend any formal schooling that will cause the soldier to be assigned to a closed unit. Additionally, they are not eligible to attend any military-sponsored educational programs which would result in an additional service obligation. These restrictions do not include those MOS producing courses required for career progression (e.g., 91A requires formal school training in 91B/91C to be eligible for promotion to SSG). Those HIV-positive soldiers still meeting the medical retention standards of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) remain eligible for reenlistment. However, they may only reenlist for Option F-1 (Regular Army) or Option F-2 (Current Station Stabilization) IAW AR 601-280, Total Army Retention Program. | ||
| Jsracer |
>> That's a queer way of interpreting a disdain for idiocy. Not only very odd, but dishonest and blatantly false. That type of dishonesty is standard operating procedure for the leftists pushing lies to further their agenda. Idiocy is in the eye of the beholder. Your views appear idiotic to others, should they label you an idiot and have disdain for you also? A little tolerance goes a long way. I don't know you, but I highly doubt you're as uptight, pompous, arrogant, and narrow-minded as you come across. I don't see how anybody could be. I'm guessing it's an online persona that you've cultivated. Happy fishing. | ||
| Seanp |
Blake, you seem extremely homophobic. Every time you mention something about gay men, you bring up such things as "male homosexuals and their well-documented, disease rife, outrageously promiscuous lifestyle." Source for that please? And really? You want me to source my statement that there are plenty of gay virgins? Ok, so if you don't believe me, logically you believe that all gay men are just out there having butt sex all over the place. Of course they are, because they're immoral and "outrageously promiscuous". Source for that please? As far as collecting Nazi memorabilia, I'm talking an extreme case of someone who wanted to be a Wehrmacht or SS officer, not just a WWII vet who had an old Nazi flag that he pulled off a dead German. If you don't know that it's wrong to idolize the Nazis, then perhaps my statement about making gays wear pink triangle badges was a little too close to true. A soldier with HIV won't be deployed. We get tested before every deployment. So even if a gay man deploys with his unit, he won't suddenly contract HIV while deployed unless he has sex with a local national, which any soldier could have happen, gay or not. So your question about wanting to deploy with a gay man with HIV is moot. >>> There are thousands of willing patriotic Americans 36 years and older who just want to serve. Source for that? And you know what, there are plenty of things an older person can do to help the war effort that don't involve carrying a rifle and busting in doors. Age restrictions are generally based on physical ability. Yeah, you might be some sort of awesome stud who can run a 21-year-old into the ground on the 2-miler, do 100 push-ups and 200-sit-ups, etc. That's great. But homosexuality does not affect a person's physical ability, whereas age does. >>> Be honest. Which ones? Certainly not any that were HIV positive. No, the Soldier who had HIV was chaptered out before we deployed, but she didn't want to be in the Army anyway. Oh yeah, there's something I forgot to mention - it was a heterosexual female, for pete's sake, not some gay male. Though I'm sure you assumed otherwise... >>> There are some issues that cannot be overcome by even the best leaders. Pretending that command teams are somehow able to do so is not being honest. The issue is just too polarizing for some. Core deeply held views on morality, personal principles and values are in play. From a relatively recent article in Military Review, by LTC James White: "To understand fully . . . many Army personnel may have to change previously held ideas and notions. .The great majority of . . . soldiers are trying." (Source) Ok, so this was from an article printed in 1970, dealing with racial integration in the Army. So, do you think there were "Core deeply held views on morality, personal principles and values" in play during the Korean War and the Vietnam War? And do you think it worked out pretty well? Not only that, but we also had a strong counter-culture movement back home during the latter war, and a draft during the second half of that same war. So the Army won the Korean War in the midst of this racial turmoil, and (if you believe some historians) we would have won Vietnam, even while going through this horrible process of racial integration. Somehow, soldiers were able to overcome or change their "deeply held views" and the Army, as the song goes, kept rolling along. Let's discuss some of your counterpoints to my "deviant" behaviors. First of all, all of the things I mentioned are things that can afflict a person after they join the military. For example, I had an NCO who declared bankruptcy. It didn't mean he got kicked out, just that he had issues with his clearance. The swingers were quite proud of their lifestyle, though most of the rest of us thought they were freaky. And alcoholism is something that can overcome a person any time in their life. So all of those factors are things that could happen after a person gets into the Army. Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? If so, then what if a Soldier suddenly "turned gay" after he had been in a few years? Should he or she be kicked out of the Army? | ||
| Blake |
>>> Blake, you seem extremely homophobic. You seem extremely fond of homosexuality. >>> Every time you mention something about gay men, you bring up such things as "male homosexuals and their well-documented, disease rife, outrageously promiscuous lifestyle." Source for that please? Try the CDC. I've provided a slew of sourced information already in this thread. Besides the CDC, I think one is from a homosexual activist group who is finally characterizing HIV/AIDS as a "gay disease." >>> But homosexuality does not affect a person's physical ability, whereas age does. Homosexuality among males does indeed affect fitness. Read up on the effects of repeated anal sodomy, it isn't pretty. Men in their 40's are playing in the NFL. Why not allow them to serve if they so choose? If they can pass the entrance physical and the annual physical, why not let them serve? Are they going to suddenly turn to mush? Why support age discrimination? Where is the tolerance? >>> it was a heterosexual female, for pete's sake, not some gay male. Though I'm sure you assumed otherwise... You'd be wrong again. Try being less sure of that which you do not know. Less guessing, more factual information contributes more to the discussion. Less emotion, more objective thoughtful ideas and less personal commentary improves discussion. My question remains mostly unanswered, again which of those problem-plagued members of your unit who you mentioned ended up deploying. I can guess the other question's answer, obviously with a female, yours was not a front line combat unit. Correct? >>> If you don't know that it's wrong to idolize the Nazis, then perhaps my statement about making gays wear pink triangle badges was a little too close to true. More with the "you", "you", "you" and personal insult. When in a debate one side turns to commentary about the other rather than the issue, they are finished; their point is lost, the debate has ended. I'm not interested in that kind of nonsense. Please try to avoid it. The truth is that is the first mention you've made of "idolize" or "nazis." Prior you were talking about collectors of "nazi memorabilia". I cannot read minds. Nazis by definition are racists who do not support our constitution, thus they would be excluded from military service. Try again. >>> Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? I do not believe that anyone is born homosexual. Just as I don't believe that people are born drug addicts, or compulsive gamblers, or pedophiles, or zoosexuals. I know for a fact that some are seduced into the homosexual lifestyle, just as some are seduced into drug and alcohol abuse. >>> If so, then what if a Soldier suddenly "turned gay" after he had been in a few years? Should he or she be kicked out of the Army? As long as he adheres to DADT, then no, it's none of anyone's business just the same as it is for all the other homosexuals serving in the military. (Message edited by blake on December 18, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
JC, >>> Idiocy is in the eye of the beholder. Objectively speaking that is false, but maybe I should have used the word "stupidity"; it would better reflect my intended meaning. The congressman's statement was idiotic and stupid because it is demonstrably false as I've already demonstrated. I really would rather not talk about me or you or anything in this thread other than the topical issue. Why is it that you people always have to turn to personal commentary. It is the most bizarre and perplexing behavior in mature thoughtful debate. But maybe I've spoken too soon on that.  >>> Your views appear idiotic to others, should they label you an idiot and have disdain for you also? That is their choice and their freedom. I would expect at a minimum that substantive and objective evidence be given to support such accusations. >>> A little tolerance goes a long way. If one stands for nothing, one may fall for anything. I tolerate homosexuality and homosexuals perfectly well just as I tolerate old and seriously indebted people. I just agree with the font line combat troops and don't think it is a good idea to have them serving openly in the military. That's all. >>> I don't know you, but I highly doubt you're as uptight, pompous, arrogant, and narrow-minded as you come across. I don't see how anybody could be. I'm guessing it's an online persona that you've cultivated. <sigh> You've conceded the debate and exposed a weakness of character. How unfortunate. You can do better. | ||
| Blake |
More data on male homosexual promiscuity... "A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said." Much more at http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statist ics | ||
| Ourdee |
I have not looked at the statistics for life expectancy of straight -vs- gay men lately. I last saw it about 10 years ago. It was a crazy (ie. insane) disparity. The figures I saw were so different that it appeared tantamount to suicide to choose to be gay.(my opinion) Being a God fearing man, it fostered in me the thought that something must be an abomination here. | ||
| Blake |
I noticed that report too. It was from the International Journal of Epidemiology.
| ||
| Blake |
Calling someone "homophobic" is a ploy used to end discussion and attack those who are critical of homosexual behavior. It is deeply intellectually dishonest, the equivalent of blurting "you have cooties" to a playground rival. Discussing information and issues related to homosexual behavior no more indicates an irrational fear of homosexuality than discussions of alcoholism, communism, drug abuse, vulgarity, profanity, vandalism, pollution, or any other type of behavior indicate an irrational fear of any of those issues/behaviors. You have to wonder why someone would so quickly wage the "homophobe" attack in lieu of thoughtful discussion. What are they afraid of? Truth? Knowledge? Objecting to a behavior is not phobic. Lots of folks object to prostitution. They are not cypriphobes, afraid of prostitutes. Rather rejecting a thoughtful discussion of information in favor of personal attack aimed at stifling thoughtful discussion and stopping rational presentation of information concerning homosexual behavior may very likely be indicative of homophilia. Indeeed, homophiles abound in the popular culture these days. We have television shows glorifying homosexuality. The simple truth is that indeed "there is something wrong with that." All one need do is look at the facts. | ||
| Blake |
Isn't the important thing to avoid waging hatred against people? No one should hate homosexuals. Shouldn't we all agree to always do our best to treat others as we would wish to be treated? Does that mean that we should accept, condone and tolerate any behavior from everyone? Doesn't it really mean that sometimes tough love and presentation of truth is absolutely a necessary and welcome means of looking out for others as we would have them look out for us? Is not holding ourselves accountable for our behavior important? If you are homosexual, the truth is that you were not born that way; it is not encoded in your DNA. If you want to cease your homosexual behavior, you indeed can do so. It may not be easy; it likely won't be, and as with any severe, well-ingrained behavior/ or dependency, you may well battle temptation for the rest of your life, but the truth is that you can choose to change; if and when you do will be the most liberating experience of your life. You'll no longer be a slave to perversion, to that which you know in your heart to be wrong. That is the truth. You won't hear it in the popular media. Agendas opposed to truth are at work there. I have my own demons to face down every day of my life. We all do. May we all overcome them to live better, happier, more fulfilling lives. | ||
| Seanp |
>>> You seem extremely fond of homosexuality. The only thing I'm fond of is having the best possible Soldiers I can have. If they're gay, or straight, swingers or gamblers, whatever they do on their spare time is fine with me. As long as they kick ass when they're doing their jobs, I couldn't care less what they do at home as long as it's legal. >>> My question remains mostly unanswered, again which of those problem-plagued members of your unit who you mentioned ended up deploying. I can guess the other question's answer, obviously with a female, yours was not a front line combat unit. Correct? Well Blake, your guess is way off. It was an aviation squadron which is a front line combat unit. And, if you'd ever been deployed, you'd know that there was not much "rear area" in Baghdad in 2003/2004. We got mortared, hit with IEDs, and it was not a pretty place. >>> More with the "you", "you", "you" and personal insult. When in a debate one side turns to commentary about the other rather than the issue, they are finished; their point is lost, the debate has ended. I'm not interested in that kind of nonsense. Please try to avoid it. Someone's previous two points in that same quoted post mentioned "you" in a derogatory manner - "You seem extremely fond of homosexuality." and "I can guess the other question's answer, obviously with a female, yours was not a front line combat unit." So, someone perhaps should listen to someone's own advice. To attack a military person's service IN ANY WAY, when one has never even spent a year or more away from home, getting shot at and blown up, missing their family and losing some of their best friends to a faceless enemy, is cowardly and uncalled for. I'm not pointing any fingers, but someone knows who someone is. And unless someone was actually kicking in doors and shooting insurgents, then someone has no right to talk about "front line combat units". Disgusting. | ||
| Hooaah |
Sean I'm with you, man. I was working on a long post but realized it simply wasn't worth the time. We're not going to change any opinions here; we'll just need to be ready to implement the decision when it hits the street. Having very little original thought, I'm a big fan of euphemisms. One that seems particularly appropriate here is the advice that "There's little to be gained with wrestling a pig in the mud. You'll both get filthy, but the difference is the pig enjoys it" Hooaah |
6]