Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[StephenH]

Wow. Just wow. Homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle? I don't see homosexuals going from bar to bar every night for a different lay.

Its all about sex and lust? One of the dumbest statements I've seen on these threads. You obviously know nothing about homosexuality.

Craigslist... Ask a homosexual/bisexual. They will freely tell you what it is about. It isn't love and a lifetime commitment in most cases.

[StephenH]

Let's have some more fun with statistics...(your sources)

New HIV cases in 2007....16K for male to male sexual contact and 1500 or so for gay sex and drugs...

So...let's round up and say 18K Americans got HIV due to gay sex in 2007.

There are roughly 300 million people in America....as you say, 4% of them are gay.

That makes 12 million gays in America....of which 18K were infected that year....and annual infection rate of 0.15% (18K / 12 M X 100)

The US military is 1.5M personnel strong....if we can assume the same 4% gay rate (which would probably actually be less)....that would mean we'd have 60,000 gays in the military. Shall we assume that half of them are female gays...which don't have a risk for HIV...that leaves 30,000 male gays.

If they had the same rate of infection as the general population (also would probably be less)....we're talking about 45 cases of HIV.

To put that in perspective....120 servicemembers died on motorcycles in 2008.

AND of course the BIG QUESTION: as we all know...gays are already serving...the issue is allowing them to be open with their homosexuality...does allowing them to serve openly make them any more likely to get HIV somehow?

We are looking for a military benefit here..Does allowing gays to serve openly help the military or hurt it? I pointed out a potential issue.

Personally I think homosexuality is wrong. However, I do not have a problem with them as long as they are good people. I do not think gays or women should be allowed to serve at all. It isn't that they can't do the job in some cases. The issue is that they are a distraction from the mission and a giant waste of money in the name of PC.

As a professional, I will do what I am told and treat everyone respectfully.

[Texpat]

Commandant of the Marine Corps said don't repeal DADT.

First unambiguous crack in the silence. AF and Army chiefs still waffling.

It's just a bad idea.

[INGUARD]

Tell it to the Marines!! lol
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_conway_dadt_022510w/

And then you hear the responses "well other countries (mostly European anyway) have their gays serve openly"

Well alot of those same countries have free health care and free higher education. So why dont we do it?

[MCGYVER]

Tell it to the Marines!! lol
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_conway_dadt_022510w/

And then you hear the responses "well other countries (mostly European anyway) have their gays serve openly"

Well alot of those same countries have free health care and free higher education. So why dont we do it?

Excellent point! How (exactly) would repealing DADT enhance combat readiness. The most simple of people can clearly see that the majority of effects would be negative, not positive. All to make that small group of people happy. Is the expense of mission readiness, morale and combat effectiveness really worth it?

[CyberStormAlpha]

Excellent point! How (exactly) would repealing DADT enhance combat readiness. The most simple of people can clearly see that the majority of effects would be negative, not positive. All to make that small group of people happy. Is the expense of mission readiness, morale and combat effectiveness really worth it?

Well, I must not be in that 'most simple of people' you cite, because I just can't see how allowing homosexual soldiers would have mostly negative impacts. I know several gays whom would make damned fine marines / soldiers / sailors / airmen, but have chosen not to compromise their morals (integrity, honesty, et al.) because it might make someone else uncomfortable. Hell, I put up with plenty of things that make the work environs 'uncomfortable', to include things that could be construed as an abridgment of my rights as an American citizen. It's one of those things that comes with wearing the uniform.

Here's a pair of questions for you (generic 'you'): why are we catering to the small minority of people who say they would leave the service when DADT is lifted? What sets keeping these people more comfortable above the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - arguably one of our fundamental cultural values?

"Equal rights for everyone! Oh, unless you're in this one group here. You're harmless, and more than willing to do your share, but you're different. And this other group doesn't like you. They're worse than you, but we've known about them longer, so they're old hat. And they demonize you. Sorry..."

[INGUARD]

Wow. Just wow. Homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle? I don't see homosexuals going from bar to bar every night for a different lay.

Its all about sex and lust? One of the dumbest statements I've seen on these threads. You obviously know nothing about homosexuality.

Which gay bar are you talking about and when was the last time you were there?:D

Are you homosexual? If you are not or never licked the cat; then your comment applies to you as well.

I dont and will never will. These fine gems are not touching a man (yuck!). Just made for the female persuasion lol

[MCGYVER]

Well, I must not be in that 'most simple of people' you cite, because I just can't see how allowing homosexual soldiers would have mostly negative impacts. I know several gays whom would make damned fine marines / soldiers / sailors / airmen, but have chosen not to compromise their morals (integrity, honesty, et al.) because it might make someone else uncomfortable. Hell, I put up with plenty of things that make the work environs 'uncomfortable', to include things that could be construed as an abridgment of my rights as an American citizen. It's one of those things that comes with wearing the uniform.

Here's a pair of questions for you (generic 'you'): why are we catering to the small minority of people who say they would leave the service when DADT is lifted? What sets keeping these people more comfortable above the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - arguably one of our fundamental cultural values?

"Equal rights for everyone! Oh, unless you're in this one group here. You're harmless, and more than willing to do your share, but you're different. And this other group doesn't like you. They're worse than you, but we've known about them longer, so they're old hat. And they demonize you. Sorry..."

We aren't catering to ANY group of people. That's the POINT! We don't care about what a group or segment of the population (workers) want, if it's bad business, it's bad business and we don't do it (usually/ideally).

You stated yourself that you are subjected to things that may be an abridgment of your constitutional rights and that this is simply something that comes with the territory. Exactly! We know that we don't get ALL the same rights afforded to ALL U.S. citizens, it's part of being the select few who are charged with protecting the country.

Comparing us to a small group of countries, most of whom have never even been to war, is the most clear cut case of comparing apples to oranges ever attempted.

[MCGYVER]

I just finished reading the incredibly biased, liberal drivel from the PALM Center on gays in other militaries and had to go to the latrine to hurl. I have never read a more one sided, worthless pile of shit with so many gay and lesbian doctors names attached to it. The University of California Santa Barbara? Wow! Can you get any more left wing liberal than that?

Okay, my problems with this "study" (used very loosely):

a. it uses a small sampling of countries; 25 out of 195 (12%)

b. many of those countries have never been involved in a war (of note)

c. many of those "countries" are far smaller than Texas (size and population)

d. most if not all of the contributors to the "study" are gay/lesbian and therefore biased

e. actual reference sources for their "information" is sorely lacking or missing alltogether

Yeah, um, NEXT!

[CyberStormAlpha]

We aren't catering to ANY group of people. That's the POINT! We don't care about what a group or segment of the population (workers) want, if it's bad business, it's bad business and we don't do it (usually/ideally).

Oh, but we are catering to a group of people: those uncompromisingly fearful/hateful of homosexuals and homosexuality. It may be wearing the trappings of tradition or standards, but catering is still catering. A rose by any other name, as Shakespeare once penned...


You stated yourself that you are subjected to things that may be an abridgment of your constitutional rights and that this is simply something that comes with the territory. Exactly! We know that we don't get ALL the same rights afforded to ALL U.S. citizens, it's part of being the select few who are charged with protecting the country.

This is true; we do lose the rights we must to accomplish the mission. However, those rights which do not abridge that goal are in full effect. I have the freedom of speech, for example, until I misrepresent the military or negatively impact the mission (be it good order/discipline, sedition, or what have you). However, these restrictions apply EQUALLY to everyone in the service. Evangelical Christians can cause a breach of good order and discipline, also, but you don't see them drummed out for their lifestyle choice. What makes that group so much more worthy of protection?


Comparing us to a small group of countries, most of whom have never even been to war, is the most clear cut case of comparing apples to oranges ever attempted.

True, but we can compare our military performance to those of our allies in the GWoT who do have open service. If you mean to suggest that Germany, Britain, and so forth, aren't involved, or that Israel hasn't been in state of intermittent war since it was founded...

[Measure Man]

I just finished reading the incredibly biased, liberal drivel from the PALM Center on gays in other militaries and had to go to the latrine to hurl. I have never read a more one sided, worthless pile of shit with so many gay and lesbian doctors names attached to it. The University of California Santa Barbara? Wow! Can you get any more left wing liberal than that?

Okay, my problems with this "study" (used very loosely):

a. it uses a small sampling of countries; 25 out of 195 (12%)

b. many of those countries have never been involved in a war (of note)

c. many of those "countries" are far smaller than Texas (size and population)

d. most if not all of the contributors to the "study" are gay/lesbian and therefore biased

e. actual reference sources for their "information" is sorely lacking or missing alltogether

Yeah, um, NEXT!

a. Those are the 25 countries that allow open gays in the military....DUH! I shtere another country with open gays serving that you would like to see studied? Name it!
b. Israel? Britian?
c. Canada?
d. So, naturally you have another heterosexual study to show how the Canadian, British and Israeli forces have been catastrophically destroyed since the lifting of their bans? That their officer clubs are having gay nights and they have gay parades on base...that there has been massive gay-bashing and sexual harassment through the roof...that combat effectiveness, unit cohesion and morale have plummeted? Or heck...even any report showing they are not effective in combat today?...
e. You missed the bibliography, I guess.

Jesus himself could come down and say lifting DADT is the right thing to do and you still wouldn't think he was sourced properly....

Bottom line is....as you have stated...you have an opinion that is not based on any factual data....the factual data that does exist is in complete opposition to your opinion.....as you have admitted, you can not post any facts whatsoever

IN other words...you have what is the text book definition of an irrational opinion....and my Grandma always taught me to never argue with drunks or crazy people....good day.

[Seasons]

Craigslist... Ask a homosexual/bisexual. They will freely tell you what it is about. It isn't love and a lifetime commitment in most cases.
Again, so would a great many of the heterosexuals I've met.

Lets put it into a form you can understand: 4% (wild guess) of the population is homosexual. Now, lets say half of them are promiscuous. That's 2% of the population. Now, heterosexuals, lets say only 1/4th of them are the same. That's still 24.5% of the population.

The smaller your sample size, the greater the chance for a few individuals to make the whole look bad. For your information, I have asked many homosexuals and bisexuals. I see this promiscuous behavior more from the bisexuals (who often or not end up admitting they call themselves that because it gets them more sex). That, in my opinion, is a problem with the individual looking for excuses, not actual sexual orientation. However, that's very case by case.


Which gay bar are you talking about and when was the last time you were there?:D

Are you homosexual? If you are not or never licked the cat; then your comment applies to you as well.

I dont and will never will. These fine gems are not touching a man (yuck!). Just made for the female persuasion lol
*yawn*
I've yet to see compelling statements from you, so I'm not surprised by this response. First, you resort to calling me a homosexual. Then, you question whether I am or not, forgetting that, as I am ADAF, you would be in violation of DADT for asking at all.

Then you try to disprove my knowledge by saying that only a homosexual would know what I'm talking about. A fallacy that is admittedly easy for one to think. As stated previously, I knew a great many homosexuals, and even a male-to-female transexual (pre-surgery) through my theatre friends. Unlike many, I did not shove them away or chose to ignore them. I didn't give a shit who they liked, so long as they were good people in the end.

The other thing I wonder about is how you have to constantly reassert your heterosexuality. Are you questioning it or something? Cause seriously, half your posts on the subject of DADT have had you saying something to the effect of "don't question me, I'm straight!!!" And that makes people question more.

See? I can make veiled personal attacks too. Whoopdie do.:rolleyes:

[INGUARD]

you still didnt answer my question but it appears that the only reason you are for pro lifting the DADT ban is because you surround yourself with homos and pre-ops and an expert on how they will perform in the military.

yawn back in your face lol

I dont need to constantly debate over a tiresome subject. You know my opinions and what side I lean. Enough said. I am not getting no points in life for this.

[Shrike]

Bottom line is....as you have stated...you have an opinion that is not based on any factual data....the factual data that does exist is in complete opposition to your opinion.....as you have admitted, you can not post any facts whatsoever

IN other words...you have what is the text book definition of an irrational opinion....and my Grandma always taught me to never argue with drunks or crazy people....good day.

With the exception of the "What about the f#&king showers?" people, you've just summed up about every anti-gay poster here. But unfortunately, society has moved to a point where many people think that all opinions are equally valid, no matter how ill-informed they may be.

[ringjamesa]

Commandant of the Marine Corps said don't repeal DADT.

First unambiguous crack in the silence. AF and Army chiefs still waffling.

It's just a bad idea.

So then you and he both agree that homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to serve...that is nice to finally hear.

[DarkHeart]

a. Those are the 25 countries that allow open gays in the military....DUH! I shtere another country with open gays serving that you would like to see studied? Name it!
b. Israel? Britian?
c. Canada?
d. So, naturally you have another heterosexual study to show how the Canadian, British and Israeli forces have been catastrophically destroyed since the lifting of their bans? That their officer clubs are having gay nights and they have gay parades on base...that there has been massive gay-bashing and sexual harassment through the roof...that combat effectiveness, unit cohesion and morale have plummeted? Or heck...even any report showing they are not effective in combat today?...
e. You missed the bibliography, I guess.

Jesus himself could come down and say lifting DADT is the right thing to do and you still wouldn't think he was sourced properly....

Bottom line is....as you have stated...you have an opinion that is not based on any factual data....the factual data that does exist is in complete opposition to your opinion.....as you have admitted, you can not post any facts whatsoever

IN other words...you have what is the text book definition of an irrational opinion....and my Grandma always taught me to never argue with drunks or crazy people....good day.

It's Friday night, I'm drunk, and there are some serious issues going on with my significant other back in the states. MCGYVER's post was about to send me into a rage that only writing a ridiculously long reply, that would ultimately be ignored, could quell, but you destroyed the hell out of his weak post.

I heart you Measure Man. This bud's for you!

[Seasons]

you still didnt answer my question but it appears that the only reason you are for pro lifting the DADT ban is because you surround yourself with homos and pre-ops and an expert on how they will perform in the military.
Which allows me to see past the stereotypes.


yawn back in your face lol
I bite.

[qutoe]I dont need to constantly debate over a tiresome subject. You know my opinions and what side I lean. Enough said. I am not getting no points in life for this.[/QUOTE]
Unsurprising.

[MCGYVER]

a. Those are the 25 countries that allow open gays in the military....DUH! I shtere another country with open gays serving that you would like to see studied? Name it!
b. Israel? Britian?
c. Canada?
d. So, naturally you have another heterosexual study to show how the Canadian, British and Israeli forces have been catastrophically destroyed since the lifting of their bans? That their officer clubs are having gay nights and they have gay parades on base...that there has been massive gay-bashing and sexual harassment through the roof...that combat effectiveness, unit cohesion and morale have plummeted? Or heck...even any report showing they are not effective in combat today?...
e. You missed the bibliography, I guess.

Jesus himself could come down and say lifting DADT is the right thing to do and you still wouldn't think he was sourced properly....

Bottom line is....as you have stated...you have an opinion that is not based on any factual data....the factual data that does exist is in complete opposition to your opinion.....as you have admitted, you can not post any facts whatsoever

IN other words...you have what is the text book definition of an irrational opinion....and my Grandma always taught me to never argue with drunks or crazy people....good day.

You obviously didn't score very high in the reading comprehension portion of the ASVAB, huh? If you care to recheck my last post I clearly stated "Many" of the countries. You then come back listing two (2) of the twenty-five as having been involved in a war in th past. Okay, YOU just proved MY point. Thanks. You did the exact same thing with Canada. It's the ONE country that's bigger than Texas, congratulations, here's your cookie.

Your study is completely biased so I don't have to provide my own. :) It doesn't work like that. You see, you can't spout a bunch of trash, call it fact and then challenge someone to refute it. You just poured bile all over the place and made yourself look like an idiot is all you did. No need for rebuttal. Besides the fact that nobody besides the gays really cares enough about the non issue to do a "study" on it. If the only "studies" available are biased then a. It speaks volumes for the ethics of those people b. You have no objective viewpoints to analyze.

[MCGYVER]

It's Friday night, I'm drunk, and there are some serious issues going on with my significant other back in the states. MCGYVER's post was about to send me into a rage that only writing a ridiculously long reply, that would ultimately be ignored, could quell, but you destroyed the hell out of his weak post.

I heart you Measure Man. This bud's for you!

So, you and measureman got a "thing"? How cute is that. Yeah, he really showed me. He proved my points for me. :)

[DarkHeart]

So, you and measureman got a "thing"? How cute is that. Yeah, he really showed me. He proved my points for me. :)

Yes you do have to provide sources for your arguments, regardless of whether or not we post sources, otherwise you're speaking out of your ass.

You should probably contact the Palms Center too, let them know that all their leading minds' research and studies don't amount to one jarhead's unfounded opinion.

[Measure Man]

You obviously didn't score very high in the reading comprehension portion of the ASVAB, huh? If you care to recheck my last post I clearly stated "Many" of the countries. You then come back listing two (2) of the twenty-five as having been involved in a war in th past. Okay, YOU just proved MY point. Thanks. You did the exact same thing with Canada. It's the ONE country that's bigger than Texas, congratulations, here's your cookie.

Okay...so OF the countries that have allowed open gays that ARE bigger than TEXAS and/or HAVE been involved in war...there are still ZERO that have suffered catastropic effects of lifting their ban on gays.

Once again...there is NOT ONE country that can show they were destroyed by allowing gays...and you're complaining that the 25 who do allow gays that have not had negative effects are not enough, not big enough, or not in enough wars?

Logic fail, my friend.

That's like getting burned by the hot stove 10 times and keep touching to see if on the 20th, 30th or 100th time you could prove that the stoves don't burn.


Your study is completely biased so I don't have to provide my own. :) It doesn't work like that. You see, you can't spout a bunch of trash, call it fact and then challenge someone to refute it.

You asserted facts...with no basis whatsoever...then when challenged called them "opinions that I can't prove".

You need a vocabulary lesson.

When you say "I don't think gays should serve in the military" that is your opinion. When you say "Unit cohesion will be destroyed, morale will suffer, combat effectiveness will decrease" those are assertions of fact....and you admit you have no basis for those assertions.


You just poured bile all over the place and made yourself look like an idiot is all you did. No need for rebuttal. Besides the fact that nobody besides the gays really cares enough about the non issue to do a "study" on it. If the only "studies" available are biased then a. It speaks volumes for the ethics of those people b. You have no objective viewpoints to analyze.

So...any study that doesn't agree with you is biased....I get it, and yet you have...nothing. I guarantee you it isn't because your side doesn't care about the issue. If any one of those militaries had a major complication with lifting their bans...you can better believe it would be on billboards and tv ads and shouted at the congressional hearings...

But nope...nothing....all you got is fear-mongering and baseless conjecture.

Did you read the analysis by the panel of former Generals...half republicans, half democrats? It's on here somewhere...again...I don't think it would matter if it came from Jesus himself you would simply say "more liberal propaganda"...you would have one thing right though...Jesus was a liberal.

I said good day, sir

[Variable Wind]

Wait, did mcguyver just use my reading sat joke on msmurotc on you mm? Wtf chuck I even used it on this thread. Illegal joke!!!

[MCGYVER]

Darkheart, you're drunk. Sleep it off.

[Variable Wind]

Darkheart, you're drunk. Sleep it off.

And youre pathetic, you can't even come up with your own cut down, you aren't even paying me royalties!

[Measure Man]

And youre pathetic, you can't even come up with your own cut down, you aren't even paying me royalties!

McGAYver...

[MCGYVER]

McGAYver...

Wow! You sure told me.

[Variable Wind]

Wow! You sure told me.

Its still more original than what you said.

[MSMUROTC]

can you guys say something ignorant and bigoted again (instead of jerking each other off) so we can tell you how dumb you are?

[Variable Wind]

Wow! You sure told me.


can you guys say something ignorant and bigoted again (instead of jerking each other off) so we can tell you how dumb you are?

Why, you getting lonely in the dunce corner? You've already proven yourself to be just as ignorant as the homophobes here. Hate baiter.

[Texpat]

MC Commandant says repealing DADT is a mistake.

Is he a homophobe too? Or is there really some substance to the idea that openly gay military members will not improve the effectiveness of the military and will likely degrade it?

Is homophobe the new racist?

[Variable Wind]

MC Commandant says repealing DADT is a mistake.

Is he a homophobe too? Or is there really some substance to the idea that openly gay military members will not improve the effectiveness of the military and will likely degrade it?

Is homophobe the new racist?

He's not, at least not by that statement.

You however are a different...sadder story altogether.

[StephenH]

For your information, I have asked many homosexuals and bisexuals. I see this promiscuous behavior more from the bisexuals (who often or not end up admitting they call themselves that because it gets them more sex). That, in my opinion, is a problem with the individual looking for excuses, not actual sexual orientation. However, that's very case by case.



The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
source (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)


You can't dispute the facts....

[DarkHeart]

You can't dispute the facts....

Yes you can, with more facts and research, that's what's so fun about intelligent debate! I think you might be getting the hang of this critical thinking thing.

Now, look at sexual promiscuity between heterosexuals, compare and contrast, and then find some research on how sexual promiscuity effects job performance. We might get some intelligent discourse out of this thread.

Micky G: I sobered up, your post is still without merit. Take a page out of Stephen's book and try finding some sources to back up your claims.

[StephenH]

Now, look at sexual promiscuity between heterosexuals, compare and contrast, and then find some research on how sexual promiscuity effects job performance. We might get some intelligent discourse out of this thread.



I'm not disputing the work ethic of homosexuals. My question here is: will encouraging homosexuals to serve be beneficial to the military, and will it be the best use of everyone's tax dollars?

Will the spike in AIDS and other medical complications be worth the warm fuzzy?

[DarkHeart]

I'm not disputing the work ethic of homosexuals. My question here is: will encouraging homosexuals to serve be beneficial to the military, and will it be the best use of everyone's tax dollars?

Will the spike in AIDS and other medical complications be worth the warm fuzzy?

Jumped right into the AIDs issue, okay, better to shoot this fish in the barrel and maybe move on to something a bit more complicated.

The military already has a successful AIDs/HIV program in place, you can be discharged for being HIV positive or at the lest put on a duty where there is minimal chance of blood contact and not be allowed to reenlist. Letting the homosexuals that are already in (they are sexually active despite DADT regulations, I don't think you can make someone celibate) be open about their sexuality will not increase instances of HIV in the military. Those that do contract HIV will be found through our annual screening and processed out just like anyone else.

As for new recruits, HIV tests are already done at MEPs.

HIV/AIDs is a non-issue.

[StephenH]

Jumped right into the AIDs issue, okay, better to shoot this fish in the barrel and maybe move on to something a bit more complicated.

The military already has a successful AIDs/HIV program in place, you can be discharged for being HIV positive or at the lest put on a duty where there is minimal chance of blood contact and not be allowed to reenlist. Letting the homosexuals that are already in (they are sexually active despite DADT regulations, I don't think you can make someone celibate) be open about their sexuality will not increase instances of HIV in the military. Those that do contract HIV will be found through our annual screening and processed out just like anyone else.

As for new recruits, HIV tests are already done at MEPs.

HIV/AIDs is a non-issue.

You havent justified the benefit/cost ratio connected with allowing gays to serve openly. Repealing DADT will not just affect the current gay military population. It will, no doubt, increase the number of gays in the service. That should be undisputed as suppression under DADT seems to be one of the reasons some gays get out of the military.

[DarkHeart]

You havent justified the benefit/cost ratio connected with allowing gays to serve openly. Repealing DADT will not just affect the current gay military population. It will, no doubt, increase the number of gays in the service. That should be undisputed as suppression under DADT seems to be one of the reasons some gays get out of the military.

In terms of HIV/AIDs, we may see an increase, maybe even a decrease, I don't know of any studies that delve into HIV/AIDs statistics in militaries that allow gays to serve. Homosexual males are more at risk statistically, but so are African American males. Our currently policies on HIV/AIDs works and is not close to a sufficient basis to exclude a population of Americans from serving with dignity.

You are also forgetting about sexual promiscuity among straight males in the US military, especially among those stationed in and around the Asian continent, where I work. With the number of STD patients I see weekly its a miracle I've yet to see an HIV case.

Again, the cost, if any, is negligible and a non-issue.

The statistics of homosexual promiscuity are extremely intellectually dishonest. I'm referencing the studies I've read by the likes of former Brigadier General William Weise, JAG Officer Wells-Petry, former Army LtCol Robert Maginnis and the Family Research Council, I'll get to your sources eventually. All of their research, and a lot of non-military research with the numbers you describe are all based on all homosexual male populations with little to no reference to their heterosexual counterparts giving zero reference to their findings with the interpretations of their results being based on biased opinion.

[StephenH]

Again, the cost, if any, is negligible and a non-issue.



Can you support this factually?



The bad news: The Navy's HIV infection rate has been rising for a decade and is significantly higher than any other military branch. In 2008, the Navy discovered 36 HIV cases for every 100,000 sailors tested - more than double its 1999 numbers....

The Navy says it does not calculate the cost of treating HIV-positive sailors. However, it has cited a study that estimates the cost of a year's care at $14,000 to $37,000. So in 2008, caring for about 560 infected sailors, the Navy likely spent $7.8 million to $20. 7 million.

There are also career implications for the sailors. Once diagnosed, they can't serve on sea duty or be stationed overseas.

Navy HIV on the rise (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/highest-rate-cases-navy-sees-hiv-infections-rise)

[StephenH]

In terms of HIV/AIDs, we may see an increase, maybe even a decrease, I don't know of any studies that delve into HIV/AIDs statistics in militaries that allow gays to serve. Homosexual males are more at risk statistically, but so are African American males. Our currently policies on HIV/AIDs works and is not close to a sufficient basis to exclude a population of Americans from serving with dignity.

You are also forgetting about sexual promiscuity among straight males in the US military, especially among those stationed in and around the Asian continent, where I work. With the number of STD patients I see weekly its a miracle I've yet to see an HIV case.

Again, the cost, if any, is negligible and a non-issue.

The statistics of homosexual promiscuity are extremely intellectually dishonest. I'm referencing the studies I've read by the likes of former Brigadier General William Weise, JAG Officer Wells-Petry, former Army LtCol Robert Maginnis and the Family Research Council, I'll get to your sources eventually. All of their research, and a lot of non-military research with the numbers you describe are all based on all homosexual male populations with little to no reference to their heterosexual counterparts giving zero reference to their findings with the interpretations of their results being based on biased opinion.

Can you support this factually?

"
The bad news: The Navy's HIV infection rate has been rising for a decade and is significantly higher than any other military branch. In 2008, the Navy discovered 36 HIV cases for every 100,000 sailors tested - more than double its 1999 numbers.

Officials say they don't know why the Navy's rate is on the rise.

One thing is certain, though: Military personnel with HIV have access to individualized, long-term care that often lasts well beyond retirement.

The Navy says it does not calculate the cost of treating HIV-positive sailors. However, it has cited a study that estimates the cost of a year's care at $14,000 to $37,000. So in 2008, caring for about 560 infected sailors, the Navy likely spent $7.8 million to $20. 7 million.

There are also career implications for the sailors. Once diagnosed, they can't serve on sea duty or be stationed overseas.
"
Navy HIV on the rise (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/highest-rate-cases-navy-sees-hiv-infections-rise)

[DarkHeart]

I already said that I know of no statistics that indicate a rise or fall in cases of HIV/AIDs in militaries that allow open service by homosexuals, but I will look.

Careful of how you present your case, you don't want people to think you're implying that all persons with HIV are homosexuals.

I just took a look at your source, The Family Research Council, an extremely biased anti-gay think-tank with a strong religious agenda. I'm not going to give you too much shit for using them as a source since you are sourcing your argument at all. I applaud that, good for you!

Here's my source, The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf), I linked their "fast facts" sheet for ease of reading for others on the board. Scroll down to their increased risk factors. Their research suggests that increased incidences of infection are compounded by lack of knowledge and discrimination.

Not a week goes by that I don't read about a school system somewhere in the world or at home refusing to teach sex ed courses that cover homosexuality. The highest rates are in young adults who may not be getting any kind of safe sex education that pertains to them in a meaningful way. I defy you to find a teen or young adult, whose homosexual, that knows what the stonewall riots were about. Young gays don't remember or are even aware of the AIDs epidemic in its early years.

And discrimination just feeds that lack of knowledge.

I argue that allowing gays to serve openly would have a positive impact on HIV/AIDs in the gay community. Its hard enough for gay couples to get health care, Tricare would help immensely along with the death by power points my fellow corpsman and I put together on practicing safe sex.

[StephenH]

I already said that I know of no statistics that indicate a rise or fall in cases of HIV/AIDs in militaries that allow open service by homosexuals, but I will look.

Careful of how you present your case, you don't want people to think you're implying that all persons with HIV are homosexuals.

I'm curious as to what you find. I think we can agree that homosexual contact is the primary way of spreading HIV. I'm in no way implying it is the only way to contract it.




I just took a look at your source, The Family Research Council, an extremely biased anti-gay think-tank with a strong religious agenda. I'm not going to give you too much shit for using them as a source since you are sourcing your argument at all. I applaud that, good for you!


I was attempting to steer clear of biased sources. THe only reason I used that source is due to it citing independent sources. So while it may be grouped together on a biased site, the information appears to be sound.


Here's my source, The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf), I linked their "fast facts" sheet for ease of reading for others on the board. Scroll down to their increased risk factors. Their research suggests that increased incidences of infection are compounded by lack of knowledge and discrimination.


Maybe so. Is this something the military should shoulder and spearhead, or is is a sociological issue?



Not a week goes by that I don't read about a school system somewhere in the world or at home refusing to teach sex ed courses that cover homosexuality. The highest rates are in young adults who may not be getting any kind of safe sex education that pertains to them in a meaningful way. I defy you to find a teen or young adult, whose homosexual, that knows what the stonewall riots were about. Young gays don't remember or are even aware of the AIDs epidemic in its early years.

I honestly think sexual education is the responsibility of the parents. I do not think this stuff belongs on the school system.


OFF TOPIC:

How are liking Okinawa?

[DarkHeart]

I'm curious as to what you find. I think we can agree that homosexual contact is the primary way of spreading HIV. I'm in no way implying it is the only way to contract it.

Negative, anal intercourse is the most effective way of transmitting HIV. Homosexual males are at greater risk because they practice anal sex more often than any other group, but with proper prophylaxis they are in no more danger that anyone else, their risk is just higher. It statistical semantics.

As others and I have pointed out in the past, if we are going to use HIV/AIDs as an argument, our forces should be made up of lesbians, since HIV transmission among them is as statistically probable as every day interactions between random people.



I was attempting to steer clear of biased sources. THe only reason I used that source is due to it citing independent sources. So while it may be grouped together on a biased site, the information appears to be sound.

This is fine, but organizations such as FRC tend to purposely misrepresent other people's findings to suit their own ends. They may say "8 in 10 homosexuals claim to have had more than 1000 sexual partners," and then cite a credible source with name recognition. Most people who are looking for information to confirm their fears of homosexuals will take this and move on (I'm not claiming this of you, this is merely an example). What the average Joe fails to notice is that the research cited is a study that pooled homosexual prostitutes. Another example would be "Homosexuals more likely to have aids," but on closer inspection of the study, its a pool of homosexuals in the rural south where there is no resources for homosexuals in terms of health education and the heterosexual population adheres to strict practices of celibacy before marriage, skewing the statistical data.

You are better off with going to the source of the data and either making interpretations directly or better yet, citing the interpretations of the professionals who don't have a bias (hopefully).



Maybe so. Is this something the military should shoulder and spearhead, or is is a sociological issue?

In my personal opinion, I think this would be the PR opportunity of the Century for the US Military. Before someone else tries to jump me, again, with the, "The Military isn't an outlet for Social Experimentation" garbage, remember that the US Military was forced by the then president to integrate blacks into the ranks. That was a social experiment that ended with the betterment of the Military and was instrumental in helping the Equal Rights movement for Black Americans.

When the Military finally moves on DADT it would be in their best interest to use this opportunity to do some good for a community that is regularly denied help and resources for no good reason in the civilian world. Considering your argument, I'm going to assume that you find no reason why homosexuals shouldn't serve in terms of ability and professionalism. That in mind, the US Military could claim the moral high road and say, "You there, Homo (lol), do you want health benefits for you and your partner? Join the US (insert branch of service here) and earn the rights that others have denied you." Holy Shit I should be a PR guy for the DoD.

I'll leave this section of my response with an anecdote; It was brought to my attention recently, by a concerned Marine, that a recent study suggested that men in the military, particularly the Marines and Navy, are at a greater risk of Testicular cancer than civilians. This socked me but I quickly recovered with some critical thinking, I responded to this Marine, "You are not at a higher risk because of something inherent to our job. Who ever reported these statistics did not take into account that military members have access to regular physicals, that are a requirement for their continued service, that the average civilian doesn't have access too. Ergo we aren't getting more cancer, we just have a better chance of noticing it."

By way of this anecdote I would wager that a higher rate of HIV in a service, for any reason, may not be because of a rise in incidents, but a rise in awareness and better testing. When looked at this way, the Military could be saving lives, a practice that we don't do enough of in my opinion.



I honestly think sexual education is the responsibility of the parents. I do not think this stuff belongs on the school system.

There is definitely something to be said for your view and I can honestly respect that. Unfortunately I don't trust parents to teach their children about the wealth of knowledge out there that I think everyone has the right to know about. I believe, as educators, teachers have a responsibility to all their students to tell them about every last bit of data and research we have on issues related to sexual health.

Adolescence is a hard time for anyone and more often than not, children are too embarrassed to talk to their families. An education in sexual health, from all angles, taught in a safe and unbiased setting can make all the difference in the world to a child dealing with their sexual identity. If you (plural, not directed at you Stephen) don't want your child to hear about homosexuality; firstly shame on you, your little Timmy could be gay and now he's going to be more confused than he was to begin with, secondly, send him or her to a privet school. Fork up the cash to deny your child all the information available to them because it is not the responsibility of the State or Federal Government to provided and education to students that is biased by religious dogma or an individual parents distaste of an acknowledged social group.



OFF TOPIC:

How are liking Okinawa?

Hate it, spent my day in the barracks playing video games and doing this because of a Tsunami Warning that came to nothing. Though there was a little shake around the time I was writing the bit about Testicular Cancer in this post.

Never come here. If I believed in souls, I'd say that Okinawa feeds on them.

Again, I have to express how happy I am with the civility you've shown in your posts. I hope we can continue in this vain and others fallow your good example.

Cheers!

[StephenH]

Negative, anal intercourse is the most effective way of transmitting HIV. Homosexual males are at greater risk because they practice anal sex more often than any other group, but with proper prophylaxis they are in no more danger that anyone else, their risk is just higher. It statistical semantics.

As others and I have pointed out in the past, if we are going to use HIV/AIDs as an argument, our forces should be made up of lesbians, since HIV transmission among them is as statistically probable as every day interactions between random people.



This is fine, but organizations such as FRC tend to purposely misrepresent other people's findings to suit their own ends. They may say "8 in 10 homosexuals claim to have had more than 1000 sexual partners," and then cite a credible source with name recognition. Most people who are looking for information to confirm their fears of homosexuals will take this and move on (I'm not claiming this of you, this is merely an example). What the average Joe fails to notice is that the research cited is a study that pooled homosexual prostitutes. Another example would be "Homosexuals more likely to have aids," but on closer inspection of the study, its a pool of homosexuals in the rural south where there is no resources for homosexuals in terms of health education and the heterosexual population adheres to strict practices of celibacy before marriage, skewing the statistical data.

You are better off with going to the source of the data and either making interpretations directly or better yet, citing the interpretations of the professionals who don't have a bias (hopefully).

I pretty much agree.



In my personal opinion, I think this would be the PR opportunity of the Century for the US Military. Before someone else tries to jump me, again, with the, "The Military isn't an outlet for Social Experimentation" garbage, remember that the US Military was forced by the then president to integrate blacks into the ranks. That was a social experiment that ended with the betterment of the Military and was instrumental in helping the Equal Rights movement for Black Americans.

When the Military finally moves on DADT it would be in their best interest to use this opportunity to do some good for a community that is regularly denied help and resources for no good reason in the civilian world. Considering your argument, I'm going to assume that you find no reason why homosexuals shouldn't serve in terms of ability and professionalism. That in mind, the US Military could claim the moral high road and say, "You there, Homo (lol), do you want health benefits for you and your partner? Join the US (insert branch of service here) and earn the rights that others have denied you." Holy Shit I should be a PR guy for the DoD.

No. I have no doubt that they can do the job.


I'll leave this section of my response with an anecdote; It was brought to my attention recently, by a concerned Marine, that a recent study suggested that men in the military, particularly the Marines and Navy, are at a greater risk of Testicular cancer than civilians. This socked me but I quickly recovered with some critical thinking, I responded to this Marine, "You are not at a higher risk because of something inherent to our job. Who ever reported these statistics did not take into account that military members have access to regular physicals, that are a requirement for their continued service, that the average civilian doesn't have access too. Ergo we aren't getting more cancer, we just have a better chance of noticing it."

By way of this anecdote I would wager that a higher rate of HIV in a service, for any reason, may not be because of a rise in incidents, but a rise in awareness and better testing. When looked at this way, the Military could be saving lives, a practice that we don't do enough of in my opinion.


I still think the military is about defending the USA. I think it should be streamlined to do exactly that.



There is definitely something to be said for your view and I can honestly respect that. Unfortunately I don't trust parents to teach their children about the wealth of knowledge out there that I think everyone has the right to know about. I believe, as educators, teachers have a responsibility to all their students to tell them about every last bit of data and research we have on issues related to sexual health.

Adolescence is a hard time for anyone and more often than not, children are too embarrassed to talk to their families. An education in sexual health, from all angles, taught in a safe and unbiased setting can make all the difference in the world to a child dealing with their sexual identity. If you (plural, not directed at you Stephen) don't want your child to hear about homosexuality; firstly shame on you, your little Timmy could be gay and now he's going to be more confused than he was to begin with, secondly, send him or her to a privet school. Fork up the cash to deny your child all the information available to them because it is not the responsibility of the State or Federal Government to provided and education to students that is biased by religious dogma or an individual parents distaste of an acknowledged social group.

I don't think people are born gay. I think it is an issue of knowing right from wrong and making a choice.
If people are born gay, natural selection failed.


Hate it, spent my day in the barracks playing video games and doing this because of a Tsunami Warning that came to nothing. Though there was a little shake around the time I was writing the bit about Testicular Cancer in this post.

Ya, i went to Jusco and didnt see a single american there lol. Guess they were hiding out.

[DarkHeart]

I pretty much agree.

I don't think people are born gay. I think it is an issue of knowing right from wrong and making a choice.
If people are born gay, natural selection failed.

Good, we're moving forward.

You see that McG, Tex, et al.? A nice civil discussion, you should try it sometime, maybe you'd get more respect.

Okay, on this I am in extreme disagreement, but so are other people that are with me in repealing DADT. VW will tell you its behavioral, and he isn't entirely wrong, and there for you are right. Someone else, I'll use ChiefB, but I might be wrong and I apologize if so, will tell you that, no, people are born gay, and you are wrong.

VW studies and, I think, has a degree in Psych. ChiefB is just a really smart guy whose opinion I respect, in so far as this is just the internet. I also have a Bachelors in Psych, working towards a PHD or a PsyD. For what my opinion is worth, and until definitive science gives us an answer, I think its both nature and nurture.

I have experience with abused adolescents and teens who may or may not have become homosexuals if not for the abuse they suffered. So there you have learned behavior.

On the other hand there are studies that suggest that biology plays a role in human sexuality. More recently there was research done by evolutionary biologist that suggests why homosexual behavior in mammals (humans included) is advantageous. That study lead to the mislabeled "Gay Gene" but the theory is still sound, though it only accounts for a small percentage of homosexual males in a population. (Interesting side note, the "gay gene" isn't something the homosexual male expresses in their biological make up, its the mother that has this "gene." Blame your parents kids!)

Semi-full disclosure, I have three family members, all on my father's side who are homosexuals; an uncle and two cousins, lesbian and gay. I was there for their formative years (except the uncle, and yes, he was the creepy uncle) and I can tell you that they were never straight. There are other reasons I favor a "born that way" argument but they hit too close to home and until there is at lest a temporary stop to DADT discharges its prudent for all parties involved that I keep my mouth shut on that particular topic.

In summary, homosexuality exists in nature. There are over 1500 species that have been documented expressing homosexual acts (Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999.). Claiming homosexuality to be "right" or "wrong" is your prerogative and you have the right to it, and as much as I loath it, its also within the law to teach that way of thinking to one's own children. Outside of one's family, however, is a different matter. The government, State or Federal, does not (should not) have the authority to regulate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, this includes firing someone because of what they do in their home with another consenting adult, when its been demonstrated that it has no baring on their ability to perform their job well and in a professional manner.

Quickly back to the subject of sex ed. My answer to parents, educate yourself on what is being taught at school and if you really think you need to tell your children there is something wrong with being gay, do so. I can't get away from the feeling that the Government has a responsibility to its child citizens to teach them "everything" without bias. Children are like sponges between pre and post adolescence and I think it would be advantageous of us to take advantage of that time to fill our kids with as much unadulterated knowledge as possible so the next generation of Americans can hold their own with the rest of the world.

[StephenH]

The government, State or Federal, does not (should not) have the authority to regulate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, this includes firing someone because of what they do in their home with another consenting adult, when its been demonstrated that it has no baring on their ability to perform their job well and in a professional manner.


I agree with this statement 100%. I'm all about freedom. I think all of us serve in the name of freedom, even for those we don't agree with.

That is why my argument was based on practicality vs. lifestyle choice.

[DarkHeart]

I agree with this statement 100%. I'm all about freedom. I think all of us serve in the name of freedom, even for those we don't agree with.

That is why my argument was based on practicality vs. lifestyle choice.

1. I have to disagree that "its a choice." I'm fairly certain my gay cousin would have given up having sex with men after the first time he was beaten to within an inch of his life if his attraction to men was a conscious decision.

2. In terms of practicality, woman and non-whites should have never been aloud to join the armed forces. This was a white Christians only organization for a long time, why change what aint broke?

I wont and can't argue that when gays are aloud to serve openly there is going to be a period of adjustment that will cost money and maybe, hopefully not, jobs and people's well being, even maybe their lives (gays being beaten up / service members screwing up on the job, possibly while in a hostile environment). Such is the cost of doing what is right. If we are a country of freedom our military should be the poster boys and girls of that ideal when we march all over the world like we own the place. No one ever said it was easy or that freedom was free. It costs a $1.05.

[StephenH]

1. I have to disagree that "its a choice." I'm fairly certain my gay cousin would have given up having sex with men after the first time he was beaten to within an inch of his life if his attraction to men was a conscious decision.

2. In terms of practicality, woman and non-whites should have never been aloud to join the armed forces. This was a white Christians only organization for a long time, why change what aint broke?

Guess they wanted to do their part. I honestly still take issue with women serving in most capacities. I think they hinder the mission rather then help complete it, but that is a personal opinion.


I wont and can't argue that when gays are aloud to serve openly there is going to be a period of adjustment that will cost money and maybe, hopefully not, jobs and people's well being, even maybe their lives (gays being beaten up / service members screwing up on the job, possibly while in a hostile environment). Such is the cost of doing what is right. If we are a country of freedom our military should be the poster boys and girls of that ideal when we march all over the world like we own the place. No one ever said it was easy or that freedom was free. It costs a $1.05.

Freedom is like $2.65 a gallon :P

[DarkHeart]

Guess they wanted to do their part. I honestly still take issue with women serving in most capacities. I think they hinder the mission rather then help complete it, but that is a personal opinion.

While in reality you have a point, I think the Military should be standing for something more than it is. America is an ideal, and we should strive for it. I'm sure I'm plagiarizing someone, there's probably something about struggling through adversity in there as well, but I think you can appreciate what I'm trying to say.



Freedom is like $2.65 a gallon :P

Fucking oil companies.

[StephenH]

While in reality you have a point, I think the Military should be standing for something more than it is. America is an ideal, and we should strive for it. I'm sure I'm plagiarizing someone, there's probably something about struggling through adversity in there as well, but I think you can appreciate what I'm trying to say.

The military stands ready to do a dirty job that needs to be done. That is the only reason we exist. While I can appreciate the adversity struggle, I'm not convinced the military is the proper grounds to meet in combat.

I'm 100% for people being able to do whatever the fuck they want to. However we need to be good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted to us.
That is my only issue here.

[MCGYVER]

Good, we're moving forward.

You see that McG, Tex, et al.? A nice civil discussion, you should try it sometime, maybe you'd get more respect.

Okay, on this I am in extreme disagreement, but so are other people that are with me in repealing DADT. VW will tell you its behavioral, and he isn't entirely wrong, and there for you are right. Someone else, I'll use ChiefB, but I might be wrong and I apologize if so, will tell you that, no, people are born gay, and you are wrong.

VW studies and, I think, has a degree in Psych. ChiefB is just a really smart guy whose opinion I respect, in so far as this is just the internet. I also have a Bachelors in Psych, working towards a PHD or a PsyD. For what my opinion is worth, and until definitive science gives us an answer, I think its both nature and nurture.

I have experience with abused adolescents and teens who may or may not have become homosexuals if not for the abuse they suffered. So there you have learned behavior.

On the other hand there are studies that suggest that biology plays a role in human sexuality. More recently there was research done by evolutionary biologist that suggests why homosexual behavior in mammals (humans included) is advantageous. That study lead to the mislabeled "Gay Gene" but the theory is still sound, though it only accounts for a small percentage of homosexual males in a population. (Interesting side note, the "gay gene" isn't something the homosexual male expresses in their biological make up, its the mother that has this "gene." Blame your parents kids!)

Semi-full disclosure, I have three family members, all on my father's side who are homosexuals; an uncle and two cousins, lesbian and gay. I was there for their formative years (except the uncle, and yes, he was the creepy uncle) and I can tell you that they were never straight. There are other reasons I favor a "born that way" argument but they hit too close to home and until there is at lest a temporary stop to DADT discharges its prudent for all parties involved that I keep my mouth shut on that particular topic.

In summary, homosexuality exists in nature. There are over 1500 species that have been documented expressing homosexual acts (Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999.). Claiming homosexuality to be "right" or "wrong" is your prerogative and you have the right to it, and as much as I loath it, its also within the law to teach that way of thinking to one's own children. Outside of one's family, however, is a different matter. The government, State or Federal, does not (should not) have the authority to regulate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, this includes firing someone because of what they do in their home with another consenting adult, when its been demonstrated that it has no baring on their ability to perform their job well and in a professional manner.

Quickly back to the subject of sex ed. My answer to parents, educate yourself on what is being taught at school and if you really think you need to tell your children there is something wrong with being gay, do so. I can't get away from the feeling that the Government has a responsibility to its child citizens to teach them "everything" without bias. Children are like sponges between pre and post adolescence and I think it would be advantageous of us to take advantage of that time to fill our kids with as much unadulterated knowledge as possible so the next generation of Americans can hold their own with the rest of the world.

Very good points. Problem is, they have no bearing on the MDMP. What I mean is, the points you make have no (and should have no) effect whatsoever on what decisions MILITARY commanders or congress impose on the military. Once you swear an oath you have to abide by a different set of rules than the average citizen and that's by design.

[StephenH]

Very good points. Problem is, they have no bearing on the MDMP. What I mean is, the points you make have no (and should have no) effect whatsoever on what decisions MILITARY commanders or congress impose on the military. Once you swear an oath you have to abide by a different set of rules than the average citizen and that's by design.

I think the points will affect the MDMP now. It sucks but we have BO. What do you expect?

[DarkHeart]

Very good points. Problem is, they have no bearing on the MDMP. What I mean is, the points you make have no (and should have no) effect whatsoever on what decisions MILITARY commanders or congress impose on the military. Once you swear an oath you have to abide by a different set of rules than the average citizen and that's by design.

Why? Are you suggesting that the rules set up when the US Military was organized, are perfect and unchangeable? Should we only be allowed to have consensual marital sex in the missionary position?

Laws are changeable, and when we decide that a law needs changing because its constitutionality is in question every last piece of information available should be considered. The Military is a unique society, but it is not above constitutional law.

Stephen: between 1994 and 2003 we lost about 9500 military personnel to DADT. It cost the American people about $363 million dollars to discharge those service members (source = Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (http://www.sldn.org) a nonprofit organization that provides legal counsel to US Military service members who are facing discharge under DADT).

[MCGYVER]

Darkheart, I'm suggesting that unless you can provide some evidence as to a "substantial" benefit to miltary readiness or combat capability by dropping DADT then there is no MILITARILY significant logic or reasoning to changing the rule.

The main theme I keep hearing from the gaysayers is that "it's all about the constitution". Problem is, if you are a pure constitutionalist you would have a problem with a lot more than just DADT and unless you are a hypocrite you wouldn't be a member of a group such as the military where we don't allow all constitutional freedoms and you know this coming in the door.

I know you were addressing Stephen with the Lambda thing but do you not think that the SLDN would be just a tad biased and possibly overstating (exagerating) the $ figure? I mean, maybe, possibly, worst case scenario but come on?!?! How would you put a dollar figure on the morale or good order and discipline of those units had those soldiers not been discharged? I'll give you (actually them) the benefit of the doubt though. Let's do some math. 363 million over 10 years is 36.3 million per year. The Army's budget for one year is approximately (all things considered) 663.8 Billion. This comes out to an incredibly small drop in the bucket (hardly noticeable).

I'm just sayin.

[MSMUROTC]

Do even really know what the MDMP process is, or are you just throwing it out there because you've heard people talk about it?

Just curious, and pretty sure it's the latter. Why? Because it just follows a pattern of you talking out of your ass.

[MCGYVER]

Military Decision Making Process. And, no, didn't have to look it up stud as I've been using it for many years.

[DarkHeart]

Darkheart, I'm suggesting that unless you can provide some evidence as to a "substantial" benefit to miltary readiness or combat capability by dropping DADT then there is no MILITARILY significant logic or reasoning to changing the rule.

The main theme I keep hearing from the gaysayers is that "it's all about the constitution". Problem is, if you are a pure constitutionalist you would have a problem with a lot more than just DADT and unless you are a hypocrite you wouldn't be a member of a group such as the military where we don't allow all constitutional freedoms and you know this coming in the door.

I know you were addressing Stephen with the Lambda thing but do you not think that the SLDN would be just a tad biased and possibly overstating (exagerating) the $ figure? I mean, maybe, possibly, worst case scenario but come on?!?! How would you put a dollar figure on the morale or good order and discipline of those units had those soldiers not been discharged? I'll give you (actually them) the benefit of the doubt though. Let's do some math. 363 million over 10 years is 36.3 million per year. The Army's budget for one year is approximately (all things considered) 663.8 Billion. This comes out to an incredibly small drop in the bucket (hardly noticeable).

I'm just sayin.

Its the other way around, discriminating against a group is unconstitutional, the onus is on the Military to prove that it is necessary to continue to discriminate against homosexuals.

Who's talking about constitutionalists? The hypocrisy is that we are defenders of the constitution yet we are complicit in the needless discrimination of American Citizens.

Did you even try to look up the numbers for yourself? In this, bias isn't an issue. What the military spends on training a service member, how much it costs to discharge them, and the number of people discharged a year is all a matter of public record.

If your going to butt into other people's conversations (lol, couldn't help myself) try to keep up. Stephen is worried about medical cost increases or any financial cost that could come with repealing DADT. I was pointing out that there is already a cost associated with maintaining DADT.

[INGUARD]

Why? Are you suggesting that the rules set up when the US Military was organized, are perfect and unchangeable? Should we only be allowed to have consensual marital sex in the missionary position?

Laws are changeable, and when we decide that a law needs changing because its constitutionality is in question every last piece of information available should be considered. The Military is a unique society, but it is not above constitutional law.

Stephen: between 1994 and 2003 we lost about 9500 military personnel to DADT. It cost the American people about $363 million dollars to discharge those service members (source = Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (http://www.sldn.org) a nonprofit organization that provides legal counsel to US Military service members who are facing discharge under DADT).

This guy is going to bring attention to himself lol
http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/mountain-soldier-discusses-dadt/

Time to get my websites lol

[INGUARD]

Military Decision Making Process. And, no, didn't have to look it up stud as I've been using it for many years.


A souped up (officer) version of Troop Leading Procedures lol

[INGUARD]

Negative, anal intercourse is the most effective way of transmitting HIV. Homosexual males are at greater risk because they practice anal sex more often than any other group, but with proper prophylaxis they are in no more danger that anyone else, their risk is just higher. It statistical semantics.

As others and I have pointed out in the past, if we are going to use HIV/AIDs as an argument, our forces should be made up of lesbians, since HIV transmission among them is as statistically probable as every day interactions between random people.



This is fine, but organizations such as FRC tend to purposely misrepresent other people's findings to suit their own ends. They may say "8 in 10 homosexuals claim to have had more than 1000 sexual partners," and then cite a credible source with name recognition. Most people who are looking for information to confirm their fears of homosexuals will take this and move on (I'm not claiming this of you, this is merely an example). What the average Joe fails to notice is that the research cited is a study that pooled homosexual prostitutes. Another example would be "Homosexuals more likely to have aids," but on closer inspection of the study, its a pool of homosexuals in the rural south where there is no resources for homosexuals in terms of health education and the heterosexual population adheres to strict practices of celibacy before marriage, skewing the statistical data.

You are better off with going to the source of the data and either making interpretations directly or better yet, citing the interpretations of the professionals who don't have a bias (hopefully).



In my personal opinion, I think this would be the PR opportunity of the Century for the US Military. Before someone else tries to jump me, again, with the, "The Military isn't an outlet for Social Experimentation" garbage, remember that the US Military was forced by the then president to integrate blacks into the ranks. That was a social experiment that ended with the betterment of the Military and was instrumental in helping the Equal Rights movement for Black Americans.

When the Military finally moves on DADT it would be in their best interest to use this opportunity to do some good for a community that is regularly denied help and resources for no good reason in the civilian world. Considering your argument, I'm going to assume that you find no reason why homosexuals shouldn't serve in terms of ability and professionalism. That in mind, the US Military could claim the moral high road and say, "You there, Homo (lol), do you want health benefits for you and your partner? Join the US (insert branch of service here) and earn the rights that others have denied you." Holy Shit I should be a PR guy for the DoD.

I'll leave this section of my response with an anecdote; It was brought to my attention recently, by a concerned Marine, that a recent study suggested that men in the military, particularly the Marines and Navy, are at a greater risk of Testicular cancer than civilians. This socked me but I quickly recovered with some critical thinking, I responded to this Marine, "You are not at a higher risk because of something inherent to our job. Who ever reported these statistics did not take into account that military members have access to regular physicals, that are a requirement for their continued service, that the average civilian doesn't have access too. Ergo we aren't getting more cancer, we just have a better chance of noticing it."

By way of this anecdote I would wager that a higher rate of HIV in a service, for any reason, may not be because of a rise in incidents, but a rise in awareness and better testing. When looked at this way, the Military could be saving lives, a practice that we don't do enough of in my opinion.



There is definitely something to be said for your view and I can honestly respect that. Unfortunately I don't trust parents to teach their children about the wealth of knowledge out there that I think everyone has the right to know about. I believe, as educators, teachers have a responsibility to all their students to tell them about every last bit of data and research we have on issues related to sexual health.

Adolescence is a hard time for anyone and more often than not, children are too embarrassed to talk to their families. An education in sexual health, from all angles, taught in a safe and unbiased setting can make all the difference in the world to a child dealing with their sexual identity. If you (plural, not directed at you Stephen) don't want your child to hear about homosexuality; firstly shame on you, your little Timmy could be gay and now he's going to be more confused than he was to begin with, secondly, send him or her to a privet school. Fork up the cash to deny your child all the information available to them because it is not the responsibility of the State or Federal Government to provided and education to students that is biased by religious dogma or an individual parents distaste of an acknowledged social group.



Hate it, spent my day in the barracks playing video games and doing this because of a Tsunami Warning that came to nothing. Though there was a little shake around the time I was writing the bit about Testicular Cancer in this post.

Never come here. If I believed in souls, I'd say that Okinawa feeds on them.

Again, I have to express how happy I am with the civility you've shown in your posts. I hope we can continue in this vain and others fallow your good example.

Cheers!


I dont harp on the AIDS argument because in the 90s I knew alot of Marines that contracted it and got kicked out. Now you can serve if you get it. But you cant deploy. That is very important though. Hurting a unit's readiness due to that disease.

Remember the AF and Army deploys differently. The Army sends the whole unit out (train together for years). The Air Force sends individuals from different bases to fill the deployment requirements downrange.

[wolfeydawg]

All I have to say is props to INGUARD, if you don't mind? You can make an argument...

[DarkHeart]

I dont harp on the AIDS argument because in the 90s I knew alot of Marines that contracted it and got kicked out. Now you can serve if you get it. But you cant deploy. That is very important though. Hurting a unit's readiness due to that disease.

Remember the AF and Army deploys differently. The Army sends the whole unit out (train together for years). The Air Force sends individuals from different bases to fill the deployment requirements downrange.

Its also important to remember that HIV doesn't just effect homosexuals.

[INGUARD]

Exactly. That was my point. Maybe I should of said Marine heterosexuals lol

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/10/homosexuals-military.html

Homosexuals in the Military
Editorial
February 2010

by: Mackubin T. Owens



In a February 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed, I argued that the current law banning military service by homosexuals ought to remain in place. I based my contention on the importance of non-sexual bonding as the glue of unit cohesion, which is an important contributor to military effectiveness. As expected, I received a great deal of feedback, some positive, some negative. I thought it might be useful to lay out the objections to my piece with my responses.

First, some have claimed that the studies indicating the importance of cohesion in war have been "discredited." On the one hand, I am tired of academics who rarely have any military experience telling me and others who have actually led men in combat that unit cohesion is not that important. On the other hand, the only way they can get away with the claim is to redefine cohesion in such a way it loses all significance. A law office on K Street is in no way comparable to a military unit operating under the stress of combat.

Here’s how the 1992 report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces described cohesion: the relationship that develops in a unit or group in which 1) members share common values and experiences; 2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; 3) members lose their identity in favor of a group identity; 4) members focus on group activities and goals; 5) unit members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of their mission or survival; and 6) group members must meet all the standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.

Of course, a number of people observed that my argument regarding the potential impact of open homosexuals on unit cohesion could just as well be applied to women. They are correct of course. Indeed, I first deployed my argument about eros vs. philia in 1993 to the issue of women in combat. And while many military specialties have been opened to women since I first wrote, service in ground combat still remains closed to women for exactly this reason.

Second, some argue that the integration of open homosexuals in the military is merely a manifestation of the quest for equal civil rights that began with African-Americans after World War II: according to this argument, lifting the ban against permitting military service by open homosexuals is analogous to President Truman’s executive order that racially integrated the military services. They echo the claim of James Carroll in a Boston Globe column some years ago: "today’s soldiers and sailors reluctant to serve shoulder to shoulder with homosexuals are the progeny of racist and sexist soldiers and sailors who were told to get over it or get out."

But Truman’s order was motivated by concerns about military effectiveness, not civil rights. For a variety of reasons, segregated African-American units generally did not perform well on the battlefields of World War II. Truman’s actions were in response to military manpower experts who believed that integration would improve the military effectiveness of black soldiers.

In addition, many African-Americans take offense at the comparison between their struggle for equal civil rights and the quest by homosexuals to serve openly in the military. As Colin Powell noted in his memoirs, the reaction among African-American groups to the argument in 1993 linking gay rights and the civil rights movement was mixed. "The Congressional Black Caucus favored removing the ban on homosexuals in the armed services. But other leaders were telling me that they resented having the civil rights crusade hijacked by the gay community for its ends."

Gen. Powell was not alone. Testifying before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on this issue on April 29, 1993, Lt. Gen. Calvin A. H. Waller, a highly-respected African-American military leader, responded to a query by the Chairman, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) concerning whether he agreed with equating homosexual rights and civil rights for racial minorities. Waller replied, "We are talking about the lifestyle or the sexuality of a person who wants to be open with their sexuality or with their lifestyle into a force or into the Armed Forces where I think that is detrimental to readiness and to good law and order and discipline." Waller further commented that he strongly disagreed with the racial analogy. "I am opposed to that. I do not like that analogy. I do not think it is the same in any respect."

The late Charles Moskos, testifying on the same day, suggested that the black/white analogy vis-à-vis homosexuals/heterosexuals was less appropriate than the male/female analogy

While personal animosity to homosexuals has always been present and still exists, as a group they have never faced the organized legal obstacles that African-Americans did.

Third, commentators claim that homosexuals are victims of military "witch hunts." The New York Times and the Washington Post suggest that homosexuals are being "drummed out" of the military on a regular basis. But the numbers don’t support this contention. In FY 2008, the last year for which figures are available, the Pentagon involuntarily separated 633 men and women under the ban. This hardly constitutes a witch hunt.

As Dr. Moskos pointed out in 1993, 80 percent of homosexuality-related discharges resulted from voluntary statements, a figure that has not changed. Furthermore, almost all discharges for homosexuality occur in the first term of enlistment, and more than half in the first year. The fact that so many of those who voluntarily claim to be homosexuals do so early in their enlistment is an important point. As Gen. Carl Mundy, former Commandant of the Marine Corps observed, this "is a very demanding period during which it is not uncommon for those who are not equal to the challenge of military life to seek opportunities for release from the service. A claim to be homosexual, whether factual or not, provides such an opportunity."

While discussing this issue with my Naval War College seminar, a student related an anecdote that illustrates the problem. He was the executive officer of a ship about to make a six-month deployment. Over a period of weeks, a female sailor approached him with a number of reasons why she could not make the deployment. He rejected them and advised her that she would indeed deploy with her ship. Finally he received a call from the JAG advising him that she would not deploy because she had confessed to being gay.

Fourth, some commentators claimed that the ban on homosexuals spawns anti-gay violence. Exhibit one is the case of PFC. Barry Winchell, a homosexual soldier at Fort Campbell, Kentucky who was brutally murdered in 1999. Homosexual groups immediately portrayed the murder as an example of anti-homosexual bigotry run amuck in the Army. But in Paul Harvey’s formulation, "the rest of the story" is somewhat more complicated. It turns out that the murder was inspired by a "love triangle" involving Winchell, another soldier, and a transsexual performer in a Nashville gay bar who was in transition from male to female.

Fifth, correspondents observed that other Western countries have lifted their bans on open service by homosexuals without suffering adverse effects. But with the exception of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, such militaries still discriminate, banning service in ground combat units and special operations forces. According to Dr. Moskos, "there is no country in Europe, much less Israel, that American advocates of gay rights would find a suitable model."

Finally, critics of my piece conclude that those such as myself who make the argument that the ban on homosexual service in the military are simply bigots. This claim is similar to that of those who argue that opposition to President Obama’s policies is motivated by racism. I can’t speak for others who share my view, but in fact my late brother was homosexual. I got along fine with him and his circle of friends, all of whom were cognizant of my views. I am as opposed to bigotry as anyone. Homosexuals should and do possess the equal civil rights of their fellow citizens. But there is no "right" to serve in the military and in that case, military effectiveness should trump all other considerations.

Mackubin T. Owens is an adjunct fellow of the Ashbrook Center and a professor at the Naval War College. He is editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

[MCGYVER]

Inguard, most excellent source. I fully concur with it. Too many people want the military to conform to "their" view of what it should be instead of simply accepting it for what it is.

[Lauraroberts]

Inguard, most excellent source. I fully concur with it. Too many people want the military to conform to "their" view of what it should be instead of simply accepting it for what it is.

Excellent Article.

[DarkHeart]

Excellent Article.

Too bad the guy who wrote the article sources religious zealots "Dr" Moskos and Sen. Sam Nunn.

Nunn in particular, besides being against the repeal of the gay ban on religious moral grounds, did everything in his power to undermine Clinton because he felt snubbed when he was passed over for Sec. of Defense.

[MADAMESINCERE]

Exactly. That was my point. Maybe I should of said Marine heterosexuals lol

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/10/homosexuals-military.html

Homosexuals in the Military
Editorial
February 2010

by: Mackubin T. Owens


But Truman’s order was motivated by concerns about military effectiveness, not civil rights. For a variety of reasons, segregated African-American units generally did not perform well on the battlefields of World War II. Truman’s actions were in response to military manpower experts who believed that integration would improve the military effectiveness of black soldiers.



Mackubin T. Owens is an adjunct fellow of the Ashbrook Center and a professor at the Naval War College. He is editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

I've never heard the bolded before. I'd like to see some legitimate proof of that if it is true.

[KTucker]

Lets clarify what is actually the DADT policy. It is not that if you are gay or bi-sexual that you cannot serve or remain serving in the US Military, but if you ENGAGE in homosexual activities that will get you kicked out. That is the difficult aspect for all who serve because it includes any form of same sex contact beyond a handshake and hug, even if it is non-sexual contact (which is only what is stipulated). In order to nullify DADT, recind the clause of removal from service for homosexual conduct. That is all you have to do, you can still ask that people keep their sexuality to themselves, but not punish them should they let someone know or someone sees them making at a club with their same sex squeeze. It is actually that incredibly simple.

Religously speaking. Also in Genisis, God said that ownership of a dog, eating pork, and touching a woman during her monthly, were all against his law. So...on all those scores I and my husband are super sinners! We have two dogs, I love me some pig, and I demand extra cuddles (with chocolate of course) during my time of the month. Then that was overridden when he said that Man's Laws are God's Laws, and then Jesus said, love thy neighbor, do not judge, only through me...etc. I am a Christian because I believe in the purpose of Christs' death on the cross and that he is the Son of God...but I no longer go to church because most have forgotten how to be good Christians and I don't ascribe to all the extra crap that man has jumbled into what is a very simple and easy religion. Which is...be a good person, give a helping hand, and love others (or leave them alone). God and I will figure it out and it is for no one else to dictate whether I have lived well enough to attain heavenly entrance, save for God. God has given us free will, and the rest is up to us.

And finally for the argument as to whether or not being gay or attracted to the same sex is nurture or nature...well...I'm Bi-sexual. I find both sexes fantastically attractive, and I have since I was self aware of that kind of attraction, about the age of five. It wasn't though until I was older that I fully understood why I thought some women were pretty like I thought some guys were handsome and others not. That kind of understanding definitely was when I was older. Since very few people have come forward with personal experiences where they are the gay/bi party (its always a friend or relative). I will say that I chose to wait until I was older and until I meet someone I like well enough to explore that aspect of my being. MY BEING. It is a CHOICE to ACT, but the DESIRE is INNATE. I can deny it or I can embrace it. Since I am female, my husband isn't exactly dissappointed if I should embrace it.

On the above, the Army, any church, and especially the US Government, much less any other individual has no place sticking their nose into my bedroom and dictating what actions I can and cannot partake of between sober myself and sober consenting adults. If it does not effect my performance in the discharge of my duties than it is not an issue and should not be made one.

[DarkHeart]

Lets clarify what is actually the DADT policy. It is not that if you are gay or bi-sexual that you cannot serve or remain serving in the US Military, but if you ENGAGE in homosexual activities that will get you kicked out. That is the difficult aspect for all who serve because it includes any form of same sex contact beyond a handshake and hug, even if it is non-sexual contact (which is only what is stipulated). In order to nullify DADT, recind the clause of removal from service for homosexual conduct. That is all you have to do, you can still ask that people keep their sexuality to themselves, but not punish them should they let someone know or someone sees them making at a club with their same sex squeeze. It is actually that incredibly simple.

I could almost live with that. DADT should be a rule that applies to all forms of sexuality. I don't care to hear about anyone's sexual exploits and I don't care what people do with eachother outside of working hours.

[MADAMESINCERE]

Lets clarify what is actually the DADT policy. It is not that if you are gay or bi-sexual that you cannot serve or remain serving in the US Military, but if you ENGAGE in homosexual activities that will get you kicked out. That is the difficult aspect for all who serve because it includes any form of same sex contact beyond a handshake and hug, even if it is non-sexual contact (which is only what is stipulated). In order to nullify DADT, recind the clause of removal from service for homosexual conduct. That is all you have to do, you can still ask that people keep their sexuality to themselves, but not punish them should they let someone know or someone sees them making at a club with their same sex squeeze. It is actually that incredibly simple.

Religously speaking. Also in Genisis, God said that ownership of a dog, eating pork, and touching a woman during her monthly, were all against his law. So...on all those scores I and my husband are super sinners! We have two dogs, I love me some pig, and I demand extra cuddles (with chocolate of course) during my time of the month. Then that was overridden when he said that Man's Laws are God's Laws, and then Jesus said, love thy neighbor, do not judge, only through me...etc. I am a Christian because I believe in the purpose of Christs' death on the cross and that he is the Son of God...but I no longer go to church because most have forgotten how to be good Christians and I don't ascribe to all the extra crap that man has jumbled into what is a very simple and easy religion. Which is...be a good person, give a helping hand, and love others (or leave them alone). God and I will figure it out and it is for no one else to dictate whether I have lived well enough to attain heavenly entrance, save for God. God has given us free will, and the rest is up to us.

There were rules in the Bible that applied to Jews and other to Gentiles. Unless you and your husband are Jewish, I don't think it applies to you (if I'm remembering my lessons correctly).

[shredder]

There were rules in the Bible that applied to Jews and other to Gentiles. Unless you and your husband are Jewish, I don't think it applies to you (if I'm remembering my lessons correctly).

but then why do so many christians use those same books as the basis for their morality? christianity is an offshoot of judaism, after all. even the new testiment says basically that all those who became the first christians were jews and followed the jewish laws and religion.

[Variable Wind]

but then why do so many christians use those same books as the basis for their morality? christianity is an offshoot of judaism, after all. even the new testiment says basically that all those who became the first christians were jews and followed the jewish laws and religion.

Lots of Christians forget that we are Jews in many respect as well. Jesus was a Jew.

[DarkHeart]

It's always fun to watch the "God Hates Fags" people protest and quote "laws" from the Bible that a flanked by other laws about selling your daughter into sexual slavery and how to properly murder disobedient children.

God loves you, kids!

[MCGYVER]

Lots of Christians forget that we are Jews in many respect as well. Jesus was a Jew.

Jesus was a jew in name only. He cannot be compared to any other jew because there aren't any other jews that could perform miracles or that were born of immaculate conception. He had to be born of "some" family so why not some jews. Jesus was murdered by the jews though. On the other (also ridiculous) end of the spectrum would be to say that Hitler was a Christian.

[eggshells]

Jesus was a jew in name only. He cannot be compared to any other jew because there aren't any other jews that could perform miracles or that were born of immaculate conception. He had to be born of "some" family so why not some jews. Jesus was murdered by the jews though. On the other (also ridiculous) end of the spectrum would be to say that Hitler was a Christian.

Saying that Jesus was a Jew in name only is like saying even though I go to church, help the community, take care of my neighbor, pray, worship and believe in God and his Holy Son that I'm a Christian in name only. Aside from 1) being born and 2) performing miracles, everything else, all the day-to-day activities, that Jesus did, were Jew-ish.


Besides, I thought Jesus was killed by the Romans? So if Jesus was killed by the Jews, are you saying the Romans were Jewish? If Jesus was Jewish, doesn't that mean that Jesus was also Roman?

[Lauraroberts]

It's always fun to watch the "God Hates Fags" people protest and quote "laws" from the Bible that a flanked by other laws about selling your daughter into sexual slavery and how to properly murder disobedient children.

God loves you, kids!

I find those people very distasteful. While I may not agree with ones beliefs or religion, that is just wrong in so many ways. I ride with Patriot riders where we have to shield families from protesters that say much the same and that God loves dead soldiers. Trust me when I say its very hard to not wipe the ground with these idiots.

[StephenH]

Jesus was a Jew.

Wrong. He was Galilean. He was from Galilee.

[StephenH]

It's always fun to watch the "God Hates Fags" people protest and quote "laws" from the Bible that a flanked by other laws about selling your daughter into sexual slavery and how to properly murder disobedient children.

God loves you, kids!

There is a context to the Bible. The Old Testament was given while mankind was still under the law. We are now in the age of grace(unless you are jewish).
The New Testament is more applicable to us these days.

[DarkHeart]

three sexual assaults this week in my AO in Afghanistan. 2 out of 3 were male on male.

All the men in my shop are laughing about when DADT will be lifted hahaha.

We all telling one another to start carrying your "whistle"

too funny.

Rapists tend to rape whomever is available, the sex of the victim doesn't matter to the offender as rape isn't about sexual gratification, it is about power. Its about a 50/50 split that male victims of male rape are either hetero or homosexual while the offenders could be best described as bisexual, again, rapists are opportunists in general. In largely/all male populations like the military and prisons, gay men or men who act "gay" are seen as weak easy targets (National Center for Victims of Crime (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361#4)).

This is by and large why the "gay rape" argument doesn't fly as an argument for keeping anti-gay laws, the perpetrators rarely, if ever, self identify as gay, and the victims are just as likely, if not more so in an all macho masculine environment like the military, to be homosexual.

[DarkHeart]

There is a context to the Bible. The Old Testament was given while mankind was still under the law. We are now in the age of grace(unless you are jewish).
The New Testament is more applicable to us these days.

The Holy Bible is either the infallible word of God or it isn't.

[INGUARD]

Rapists tend to rape whomever is available, the sex of the victim doesn't matter to the offender as rape isn't about sexual gratification, it is about power. Its about a 50/50 split that male victims of male rape are either hetero or homosexual while the offenders could be best described as bisexual, again, rapists are opportunists in general. In largely/all male populations like the military and prisons, gay men or men who act "gay" are seen as weak easy targets (National Center for Victims of Crime (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361#4)).

This is by and large why the "gay rape" argument doesn't fly as an argument for keeping anti-gay laws, the perpetrators rarely, if ever, self identify as gay, and the victims are just as likely, if not more so in an all macho masculine environment like the military, to be homosexual.

yeah I forgot, you are the POG, non combat arms resident expert on gay statistics and the reasons to lift DADT :rolleyes: and I forgot a google extraordinaire since that is the only place you search for sources and reading your books too

you obviously are too worried about this policy since this is your only focus on this website

no argument flies with you lol

[INGUARD]

three sexual assaults this week in my AO in Afghanistan. 2 out of 3 were male on male.

All the men in my shop are laughing about when DADT will be lifted hahaha.

We all telling one another to start carrying your "whistle"

too funny.

[DarkHeart]

yeah I forgot, you are the POG, non combat arms resident expert on gay statistics and the reasons to lift DADT :rolleyes: and I forgot a google extraordinaire since that is the only place you search for sources and reading your books too

you obviously are too worried about this policy since this is your only focus on this website

no argument flies with you lol

If your arguments were any good I'd give them more credence. Maybe you should try that reading thing you mock me for, I know its a hard thing for you combat arms types. Remember, top to bottom, left to right.

I post here cause its a hot issue in the news and quite frankly the other boards bore the shit out of me.

[eggshells]

three sexual assaults this week in my AO in Afghanistan. 2 out of 3 were male on male.

All the men in my shop are laughing about when DADT will be lifted hahaha.

We all telling one another to start carrying your "whistle"

too funny.

NCIS comes to the base I work at every Friday to brief personnel on what NCIS does, is, investigates, etc. Every Friday since they started, they have stated that male-on-male sexual assualt is on the rise.

They started saying this BEFORE Adm Mullen stated DADT should be lifted.

At least in the Navy, the process for reporting sexual assualt has changed- hopefully to make it easier for the victims to come foward and report the crime.

It is possible that the "rise" in male-on-male assualt is actually NOT on the "rise". The reporting procedures simply made it easier for the victim to report.

I think there are at least 2 factors at work here:

1) Improved reporting procedures for sexual assualt
2) The millineal generation may feel less stigma attached to reporting sexual assualt, particularly male-on-male assualt.

None of which have anything to do with the repeal of DADT.

[INGUARD]

If your arguments were any good I'd give them more credence. Maybe you should try that reading thing you mock me for, I know its a hard thing for you combat arms types. Remember, top to bottom, left to right.

I post here cause its a hot issue in the news and quite frankly the other boards bore the shit out of me.

Like I should care what you think about my opinions.

Anyway, you have 9 months to keep complaining before a decision is made or perhaps it will keep going back to the drawing board lol

[ChiefB]

I find those people very distasteful. While I may not agree with ones beliefs or religion, that is just wrong in so many ways. I ride with Patriot riders where we have to shield families from protesters that say much the same and that God loves dead soldiers. Trust me when I say its very hard to not wipe the ground with these idiots.

I admire what you guys stand for and do...Thank you.

ChiefB

[DarkHeart]

Like I should care what you think about my opinions.

Anyway, you have 9 months to keep complaining before a decision is made or perhaps it will keep going back to the drawing board lol

You should care what I and others on this board think of how you defend you opinions. This is a discussion board where anyone can have any opinion on the subject at hand, as long as they are prepared to defend that opinion when scrutinized.

Here's a helpful hint, using internet search engines and reading books to defend your opinions are good things.

[Seasons]

yeah I forgot, you are the POG, non combat arms resident expert on gay statistics and the reasons to lift DADT :rolleyes: and I forgot a google extraordinaire since that is the only place you search for sources and reading your books too

you obviously are too worried about this policy since this is your only focus on this website

no argument flies with you lol

You mean like how we forgot that you have absolutely no idea how sexual dominance works? I mean, you always did strike me as a sub...Oh, I'm sorry. DADT and all.

Rape is about power and dominance. Male on male rape most often occurs in macho idealogically dominated groups, because there is nothing more manly than the total assertion of sexual power, and nothing more demeaning than the loss of that dominance. Did you know that Brazil, a society overflowing with machismo, is most well known in the world of sexual anthropology for a class of person called the travestis? They're men who have modified themselves as far as they can (sans sexual reassignment surgery) to become feminine. They are also the most requested prostitutes for *heterosexual* males to use.

Now, I know your rebuttal already: "they're doing guys so they must be gay, not straight". This just shows your ignorance about how cultures groom their people, how sex evolved, and how the human mind works. Isolate any heterosexual group from the opposite sex for a prolonged period of time, leave the question of stratification for them to decide amongst themselves, and you'll find that any of them that were predisplaced towards rape or violent assertion of their power will go outside their sexuality to establish themselves.

Your assertions also ignore the sheer number of homosexuals who are raped as punishment by heterosexuals for their sexuality. Again, its a matter of dominance against those who are viewed as feminine.

[INGUARD]

super yawn.

wow back in action from the banned world. I think we learned about rape and power from rape movies in the 80s so again I am far from impressed of her female post lol.

I guess she has learned alot too from male general population movies as well lol

I guess my law enforcement training and my experiences in the subject matter provides ignorance lol



again another cheesy bookworm with no real world talking ying yang. just like the rest:rolleyes:

[JD2780]

+1 point for seasons.

[DarkHeart]

super yawn.

wow back in action from the banned world. I think we learned about rape and power from rape movies in the 80s so again I am far from impressed of her female post lol.

I guess she has learned alot too from male general population movies as well lol

I guess my law enforcement training and my experiences in the subject matter provides ignorance lol

what a stupid girl.

again another cheesy bookworm with no real world talking ying yang. just like the rest:rolleyes:

Well besides being well read, which I guess is a bad thing now, I wish I got that memo, I worked as a counselor at a few inpatient facilities after obtaining my degree in psychology and before joining as a Hosptial Corpsman, I'm also the Victim Advocate for my unit. My patients were almost all victims of rape at some point in their lives, a few of them were perpetrators as well.

I'm pretty sure I speak with authority in this matter when I say, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

[INGUARD]

Well besides being well read, which I guess is a bad thing now, I wish I got that memo, I worked as a counselor at a few inpatient facilities after obtaining my degree in psychology and before joining as a Hosptial Corpsman, I'm also the Victim Advocate for my unit. My patients were almost all victims of rape at some point in their lives, a few of them were perpetrators as well.

I'm pretty sure I speak with authority in this matter when I say, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

And I say the same thing when it comes to you. You think that because there is supposed "evidence", and you can dress up your posts with good BS, that you are right but let me tell you something my friend; you are not.

And that is my true honest opinion. Darkheart=hot air lol

and now that I know that you are a swabbie; makes my case more the obvious.

[Seasons]

+1 point for seasons.
Thanks.


super yawn.

wow back in action from the banned world. I think we learned about rape and power from rape movies in the 80s so again I am far from impressed of her female post lol.

I guess she has learned alot too from male general population movies as well lol

I guess my law enforcement training and my experiences in the subject matter provides ignorance lol



again another cheesy bookworm with no real world talking ying yang. just like the rest:rolleyes:

The problem with "real world" experience is you most often don't bother to discover the underlying cause of actions. You just deal with the effects. Now, yes, your law enforcement training gives you knowledge of the basic subject matter of rape, but it doesn't provide knowledge into why it occurs. You deal with the results and action of rape, while the causes are up to psychologists and lawyers to determine.

Are you either of those? No, and you don't seem to care to do the research either. I do, because human nature and the evolution of society is a fascinating subject to me. It can be used as a predictor for progression of almost any group of humans. This is why I took both law *and* anthropology courses during college. And religion, and culture studies (Native American, etc). They had nothing to do with my major (Engineering), but they gave me a far greater understanding of how to deal with people, and how to predict them or rationalize their activities.

Because you seem incapable of doing the research, allow me to clear something up for you: I am a Yang. But since you call it "ying" yang instead of Yin and Yang, I doubt you know what that means. I'll even take that as a compliment, because the concept of Yin and Yang is the concept of perfect harmony and balance created by opposing and equal powers working in tandem. It could be translated into the idea of the perfect discussion, created by arguments presented by equal parties designed to achieve a common understanding, instead of a singular big dick contest.

But finding an opposing party on this subject matter that is literate, clear, researched, and supported by facts is hard (and I mean often on both sides of the subject). Instead, you get zealots and self-supporters. Unfortunate.

[Seasons]

And I say the same thing when it comes to you. You think that because there is supposed "evidence", and you can dress up your posts with good BS, that you are right but let me tell you something my friend; you are not.

And that is my true honest opinion. Darkheart=hot air lol

and now that I know that you are a swabbie; makes my case more the obvious.

Thank you for showing that you have an unhealthy bias in general. You choose to attack the individual rather than their argument, which shows a distinct lack of trust in your own beliefs to withstand any sort of factual bombardment.

[DarkHeart]

And I say the same thing when it comes to you. You think that because there is supposed "evidence", and you can dress up your posts with good BS, that you are right but let me tell you something my friend; you are not.

And that is my true honest opinion. Darkheart=hot air lol

and now that I know that you are a swabbie; makes my case more the obvious.

Yeah, I'm really full of it. Only ignorant tards think they can make valid points by referencing accredited literature.

From now on I'll just state opinion as if it were fact without ever justifying myself.

Good with you INGUARD?

[Variable Wind]

More spamming in the DADT threads.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Much talk has been made about how allowing openly gay persons to serve in the military will hurt the military. Well, let me say that it probably will, but the Military will get over it and deal with it.


When President Truman signed the executive order that "Integrated" the races in the US Military, the same arguments were made about how this would hurt the military. Again, it did, and the Military got over it, and adjusted so as to deal with it. Again, the issue of housing came up, and the issue of Logistics, and the issues of Morals and Morale, and it is a fact that the US Military started the movement by giving it lots of lip service in place of action.

Actually, integrating by Race was much harder to achieve than integrating Sex Preferences could be for the simple reason that integration by race involved the US Military's not only changing of policy and mindset, but also the complete change of logistics, strategy and tactics. The US Navy had segregation of specific job assignments, with most African Americans assigned as Mess Stewards and other tasks considered beneath the dignity of White Americans. The most obvious assignment was that of Mess Steward, a task that African Americans shared with Asian Americans. Curiously, this ensured that US Navy ships would almost always be "Integrated" simply because the Mess Department would be either 100% African American, or a mixture of African Americans and Asian Americans. The US Army segregated by Unit, and - by extension - the Air Force followed this course.

In both cases, African Americans were already ahead of where Gays are at today, because "Don't Ask; Don't Tell," was impossible to accomplish when it came to Race. Where Race and Sexual Preference is equal is in terms of medical testing. If we must have a "Test" of responsible Sex Preference Practice, then let the current test for HIV be the determinant whether a person can be allowed to serve. Likewise, whereas African Americans had to adhere to the same disciplinary practices and policies as White Americans, the same should be required of Gays. Thus, while Gays should be permitted to serve, make them subject to the same Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault regulations that Straights already follow. Replace "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" with "Level Regulating Field".

Lastly, if we had let Army Leaders continue to make the decisions back in 1948 about the then-current Army Policy that required Discrimination based on Race, it is highly likely we would still be arguing personal feelings, instead of arguing the facts. Therefore, the President should take President Truman's Executive Order, and expand it to include the words "Sexual Preference Practice".

SSG Cornelius Seon, USA, (Retired)

[CORNELIUSSEON]

I see that lots of people here aren't properly informed as to how the President can legally order the integration of Gays into the Military. There is NO requirement that the President wait for Congress to act. Here is a text copy of the executive order that President Truman issued that integrated the races in the US Military: As written it is only necessary that President Obama pull the word "or" from between "religion" and "national", and add the phrase "or sexual preference practice" after the words "national origin" to make the same executive order effective in today's issue.


===================


EXECUTIVE ORDER 9981
Establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In the Armed Forces.

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.

3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the Armed Services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgment of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.

4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.

5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.

6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order.

Harry Truman

The White House
July 26, 1948

===========================

[INGUARD]

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=68562

Costly decision on gays
Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, Tuesday, March 9, 2010
During 25 years of active duty, I’m certain I’ve served with homosexuals; 10 years with local law enforcement, I know I’ve served with homosexuals.

Those homosexuals I’ve worked with do a good job. However, those folks have chosen to be homosexuals. Soldiers who are black, white, males or females never had a choice.

When a group of heterosexual scientists provides empirical data that an individual is predisposed toward homosexuality, that’s different. Then they should enjoy the status of a protected class. But that hasn’t happened.

Choice aside, look at the costs. There will be additional cost to our heath care system. Will the Department of Defense recognize that several states now authorize civil unions? Post housing now becomes an issue. If DOD doesn’t recognize these unions, that will be the next issue. The Uniform Code of Military Justice will have to be adjusted. These things cost money.

Let’s look at the soldier’s reaction. While the American soldier is most adaptable to his environment, it won’t be an easy sell. There will be problems for commanders. We’re in the middle of a war; something like this won’t help. Never having served in the military, the president doesn’t understand that the military is different from the civilian world. We have to be different; there are no jobs in the civilian world like ours. A number of past presidents have served in the military and understand the difference. The president who instituted the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and the current president haven’t served at our level.

If a person wants to be homosexual, fine, that’s his decision, but don’t ask for special consideration.

For the president to impose this political decision on the military is wrong. We endure enough political decisions without one more.

Maj. David Junghans
Baghdad

[MSMUROTC]

"When a group of heterosexual scientists"

good thing he put that caveat in there, because there are platoons of gay scientists working around the clock on this issue in their secret underground gay labs.

[Shrike]

"When a group of heterosexual scientists"

good thing he put that caveat in there, because there are platoons of gay scientists working around the clock on this issue in their secret underground gay labs.

But those heterosexual scientists CHOSE to be heterosexual, so how can we trust their data? Especially considering they could secretly be gay scientists who CHOSE to be heterosexual just long enough to trump up a fake study identifying a gay gene which will ultimately allow gays to serve openly in the military. Then the sneaky, sinister scientists will switch sides again and join the Army so they can deploy downrange and try to sneak a peek at some tired-ass soldier's twig and berries in the shower.

Damned sneaky gay agenda. How much more obvious do those people need to be?

[Variable Wind]

But those heterosexual scientists CHOSE to be heterosexual, so how can we trust their data? Especially considering they could secretly be gay scientists who CHOSE to be heterosexual just long enough to trump up a fake study identifying a gay gene which will ultimately allow gays to serve openly in the military. Then the sneaky, sinister scientists will switch sides again and join the Army so they can deploy downrange and try to sneak a peek at some tired-ass soldier's twig and berries in the shower.

Damned sneaky gay agenda. How much more obvious do those people need to be?

Maybe this obvious?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p129/BOYRACER1684/miata.jpg

[Measure Man]

I see that lots of people here aren't properly informed as to how the President can legally order the integration of Gays into the Military. There is NO requirement that the President wait for Congress to act. Here is a text copy of the executive order that President Truman issued that integrated the races in the US Military: As written it is only necessary that President Obama pull the word "or" from between "religion" and "national", and add the phrase "or sexual preference practice" after the words "national origin" to make the same executive order effective in today's issue.
===========================

It's not that simple.

The miitary was segregated as a matter of policy, not law...so the President could simply change that policy.

Gays are banned from serving openly as a matter of law...the President can not enact a policy that defies the law, Congress must first act to change the law.

[MSMUROTC]

He can simply pass an executive order, do a signing statement, or order the military to do so in his capacity as CoC. The first two are extra-legal executive branch measures that all recent presidents have used and all recent congresses have allowed.

If military members refuse, they can be court martialed.

Congress can push back, either through the courts or through withholding funding.

I think it's amazing that people see no issue with the president unilaterally taking the country to war, but not with the president making human resources changes.

[Measure Man]

He can simply pass an executive order, do a signing statement, or order the military to do so in his capacity as CoC. The first two are extra-legal executive branch measures that all recent presidents have used and all recent congresses have allowed.

The federal law mandates restrictions against gays serving openly. The President does not have the authority to simply order the military to not comply with the law.

Signing statement? A President can make a signing statement when he signs a law..but he isn't signing DADT, the law has been signed and in effect since 1993. If there was going to be a signing statement on DADT, Clinton would've had to do it in 1992.

Though he could probably direct the military to be less than zealous in processing discharges...and order commanders to "not believe" statements unless backed up by hard evidence....and to not look for hard evidence.


I think it's amazing that people see no issue with the president unilaterally taking the country to war, but not with the president making human resources changes.

Which people are you talking about?

[MSMUROTC]

I honestly don't spend enough time / pay enough attention on these boards to know who's who in this debate right now, so if the shoe fits, wear it.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

It's not that simple.

The miitary was segregated as a matter of policy, not law...so the President could simply change that policy.

Gays are banned from serving openly as a matter of law...the President can not enact a policy that defies the law, Congress must first act to change the law.

Actually, you are NOT correct.

President Theodore Roosevelt had previously eliminated Segregation from Federal lands and offices during his Terms in office, starting the second period when African Americans were hired for Federal positions, most often the Post Office.

President Wilson - as one of the Executive Orders he signed when he took office in 1912 - re-Segregated Federal Lands and Offices, almost totally reversing the integration that Roosevelt had accomplished. The US Military took this opportunity to codify the semi-official segregation and exclusion that had continued to exist during Roosevelt's time. Thus, Truman's Executive Order canceled Wilson's Executive Order.

Until "Don't Ask; Don't Tell was established, there was absolutely no Law or Executive Order on the subject of Homosexuality in the US Military, only the Prejudice that was rampant, and the Regulations that were based on that Prejudice. Laws that had been placed on the books to prevent "deviant" sexual practices in general were used against Homosexuals as they became known as a separate group.

"Don't Ask"; Don't Tell" was put into place as a means to replace the regulations that had no basis in law. You are correct that it needs to be overturned by like legislation, BUT, it can be amended or modified as per Article One, Section 8, Clause 14: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;...", and - of course - the President can do the same thing by Executive Order under Article Two, Section 2, Clause One: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ..." The only thing that Congress can do to reverse such an Executive Order would be to pass legislation to void the Executive Order. He cannot otherwise be punished for publishing such an Executive Order.

[Measure Man]

Actually, you are NOT correct.

President Theodore Roosevelt had previously eliminated Segregation from Federal lands and offices during his Terms in office, starting the second period when African Americans were hired for Federal positions, most often the Post Office.

President Wilson - as one of the Executive Orders he signed when he took office in 1912 - re-Segregated Federal Lands and Offices, almost totally reversing the integration that Roosevelt had accomplished. The US Military took this opportunity to codify the semi-official segregation and exclusion that had continued to exist during Roosevelt's time. Thus, Truman's Executive Order canceled Wilson's Executive Order.

In other words....segregation in the military was policy...which is what I said. Executive Orders are not laws.


Until "Don't Ask; Don't Tell was established, there was absolutely no Law or Executive Order on the subject of Homosexuality in the US Military, only the Prejudice that was rampant, and the Regulations that were based on that Prejudice. Laws that had been placed on the books to prevent "deviant" sexual practices in general were used against Homosexuals as they became known as a separate group. "Don't Ask"; Don't Tell" was put into place as a means to replace the regulations that had no basis in law.

key words..."Until DADT"....which when passed, became a law...again, which is what I said.

The prior regulations may not have had a basis in law...but DADT is a law,more specifically Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). .


You are correct that it needs to be overturned by like legislation, BUT, it can be amended or modified as per Article One, Section 8, Clause 14: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;...",

naturally...congress can pass other legislation that overturns previous legislation, they do it all time...of course it would still need to be signed by the President


and - of course - the President can do the same thing by Executive Order under Article Two, Section 2, Clause One: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ..." The only thing that Congress can do to reverse such an Executive Order would be to pass legislation to void the Executive Order. He cannot otherwise be punished for publishing such an Executive Order.

...but he can't issue an Executive Order that violates a current law...

President Obama can not today...simply issue an Executive Order to overturn DADT...as he would be ordering in violation of a federal law...he is not above the law.

Actually I am quite correct...and your lengthy diatribe only illustrates that point.

[ChiefB]

But those heterosexual scientists CHOSE to be heterosexual, so how can we trust their data? Especially considering they could secretly be gay scientists who CHOSE to be heterosexual just long enough to trump up a fake study identifying a gay gene which will ultimately allow gays to serve openly in the military. Then the sneaky, sinister scientists will switch sides again and join the Army so they can deploy downrange and try to sneak a peek at some tired-ass soldier's twig and berries in the shower.

Damned sneaky gay agenda. How much more obvious do those people need to be?

Showers! We don't need no stinkin' showers!

Always with the showers.:tongue:

ChiefB

[LOAL-D]

Showers! We don't need no stinkin' showers!

Always with the showers.:tongue:

ChiefB

I'm still waiting for those daily communal showers....I have loufa sponges and sope-on-a-rope!!!

let's party!

[Measure Man]

You misquoted me. What I said is that the President is free to publish his Executive Order to AMEND or MODIFY the law under his power as Commander in Chief. As such, he will not have overturned the law, which remains in effect. The President is free to do everything up to and including suspending the application of the law until such time as Congress clarifies what ever language the President has a problem with. This is done all the time. The President - or his Department heads in his name - take the Law, and modify or extend it or reword it into Regulations, Rules, etc. Most laws are inapplicable as written since they don't actually tell you HOW to implement them.

You might want to back up and see where this started...is started with your claim that all the President needed to do to integrate gays in the military was add "sexual orientation" to the Executive Order that integrated the military racially...as I said before...it's not that simple. Do you see that now?


As to "Diatribe", you need to look at a Dictionary before you misuse words. "Diatribe" refers to: "a bitter, abusive, and usually lengthy speech or piece of writing", or an "ironical or satirical criticism."

Just because I take the time to use good writing that is correctly cited does not make it a "Diatribe".

...you made a point to say how I was NOT correct"...(that's the bitter part)....and then went on to explain it great detail, with irrelevant history exactly why I was correct...(that would be the lengthy part)

thanks again for proving me correct.

Cheers...

[CORNELIUSSEON]

...but he can't issue an Executive Order that violates a current law...

President Obama can not today...simply issue an Executive Order to overturn DADT...as he would be ordering in violation of a federal law...he is not above the law.

Actually I am quite correct...and your lengthy diatribe only illustrates that point.

You misquoted me. What I said is that the President is free to publish his Executive Order to AMEND or MODIFY the law under his power as Commander in Chief. As such, he will not have overturned the law, which remains in effect. The President is free to do everything up to and including suspending the application of the law until such time as Congress clarifies what ever language the President has a problem with. This is done all the time. The President - or his Department heads in his name - take the Law, and modify or extend it or reword it into Regulations, Rules, etc. Most laws are inapplicable as written since they don't actually tell you HOW to implement them.

As to "Diatribe", you need to look at a Dictionary before you misuse words. "Diatribe" refers to: "a bitter, abusive, and usually lengthy speech or piece of writing", or an "ironical or satirical criticism."

Just because I take the time to use good writing that is correctly cited does not make it a "Diatribe".

[LOAL-D]

You misquoted me. What I said is that the President is free to publish his Executive Order to AMEND or MODIFY the law under his power as Commander in Chief. As such, he will not have overturned the law, which remains in effect. The President is free to do everything up to and including suspending the application of the law until such time as Congress clarifies what ever language the President has a problem with. This is done all the time. The President - or his Department heads in his name - take the Law, and modify or extend it or reword it into Regulations, Rules, etc. Most laws are inapplicable as written since they don't actually tell you HOW to implement them.

As to "Diatribe", you need to look at a Dictionary before you misuse words. "Diatribe" refers to: "a bitter, abusive, and usually lengthy speech or piece of writing", or an "ironical or satirical criticism."

Just because I take the time to use good writing that is correctly cited does not make it a "Diatribe".

Diatribe was an Industrial rock group from San Jose, California which was active in the 1990's. They had a sound similar to 16 Volt and Chemlab, integrating synthesizers and vocal samples with more traditional rock instruments.

[Lauraroberts]

And how many years did it take them to honor the Code Talkers? I'm native American, how do you think I've felt all these years when we as Indians served this country.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

You might want to back up and see where this started...is started with your claim that all the President needed to do to integrate gays in the military was add "sexual orientation" to the Executive Order that integrated the military racially...as I said before...it's not that simple. Do you see that now?



...you made a point to say how I was NOT correct"...(that's the bitter part)....and then went on to explain it great detail, with irrelevant history exactly why I was correct...(that would be the lengthy part)

thanks again for proving me correct.

Cheers...
I'd have to really care if you were right or wrong in order to be bitter. I was just trying to save you from your self-imposed bitterness.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Diatribe was an Industrial rock group from San Jose, California which was active in the 1990's. They had a sound similar to 16 Volt and Chemlab, integrating synthesizers and vocal samples with more traditional rock instruments.
Sorry, I wouldn't know industrial Rock from Hip Hop. I stopped listening to new sounds with 1980s groups. I leave the newer groups for my Grandchildren

[CORNELIUSSEON]

And how many years did it take them to honor the Code Talkers? I'm native American, how do you think I've felt all these years when we as Indians served this country.
I can fully understand. They drafted my Father for World War One, and then wouldn't let him deploy because they were over quota for African Americans.

[MCGYVER]

And how many years did it take them to honor the Code Talkers? I'm native American, how do you think I've felt all these years when we as Indians served this country.

Everyone wants to get press don't they?

[Variable Wind]

I'd have to really care if you were right or wrong in order to be bitter. I was just trying to save you from your self-imposed bitterness.

If you didnt care, then why are you still responding to his posts?

[MCGYVER]

Where did everyone go?

[Pullinteeth]

The forum was shut down this weekend and would allow you to log on but it seems only a handful of people could actually post...