Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think homosexual people should have the right to serve in the US armed forces?

IMHO people are people. That said anyone that can cut it in the field should be allowed to serve. i have seen pansies waist solders that needed to be kicked out and i really care less about their sexually oration. all i care about is can that person save me in a fire fight. because damn it i will do the same for them. their blood is my blood and it all spills if we cant work together. peoples personally lives is for back home not on the job. i know i have said it, but 2nd times a charm, i dont care if you got tits, balls,or what you do with them. all i care about is that we all come home in the end. nuff said.

Sebster-
Actually I neither hate nor fear homosexuals. God knows as a career corrections professional I would be in for a load of trouble if I had some morbid fear of homosexuals. ("homophobe" is a meanigless term anyway...but that's another subject) If I feel any particular emotion toward homosexuals it would be pity, just as I pity anyone who lives with the pain of an untreated mental disorder.
What I do resent is the effort by the homosexual lobby and their allies in the political left to "normalize" what most people (at least those who have not been brainwashed by PC idiocy) instinctively realise is an abnormality. Dito for the efforts to grant them special rights based upon a behavior pattern.

Wrexasaur-

Meaning, as long as the current administration suffers, and in doing so, effects numerous aspects of many peoples lives in detrimental ways? That is a good thing?

Actually you have it backward. The admin is in the process of doing harm. A sucessful mid-term election would force it, as occured with Clinton, to have to temper it's actions and move to the Right (that is to say more in alignment with the center-right majority of the country) to get anything acomplished. The DADK issue is a polarizing one that might help to push the voters to do the right thing.

Finally...

ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:
Well, I stand corrected. But if that's the case then the numbers of those negatively effected by DADT is even lower than I estimated.

It also follows that the potential affect on the ability of the military to function would be correspondingly small.

Trench-Raider wrote:
Because it's pushing a "progressive" change to tradtional social and moral values. It certainly is social engineering...for no good purpose.

Its doing no such thing. You can continue feeling apprehensive about homosexuality at your leisure. You are under no obligation to derive your personal moral code from the law, or statutory codes of the organizations to which you belong.

Trench-Raider wrote:
DADT is not actually invasive at all. In fact it is an avenue by which homosexuals can current serve should they chose to. The problem is that the minority of homosexuals that wish to serve in the military are not interested in following existing rules. Instead they want them to be re-written to cater to their laughably tiny demographic.

No, they want a rule which is specifically tailored to their demographic to be altered such that it no longer allows discrimination against that demographic on an institutional level. This isn't terribly complicated. If you do away with DADT you're essentially saying that any given person who is discovered to be a homosexual cannot be dismissed as a result of that alone. They could still be dismissed for any incident of sexual harassment, which is really what people here seem to think is the primary threat to military functionality.

Trench-Raider wrote:
Actually I do. The point of contention is that you disagree with my claim that open homosexuals in the military is likely to negatively effect that most important of institutions.

I made no such claim. You're imagining that. I simply called into question the notion that any change to DADT is either the legislation of morality, or an invasive 'special' rule.

Trench-Raider wrote:
I ask again, why do whims of a tiny minority of a tiny minority trump the needs of the military? If there is any posibility that open homosexuality in the military will have a negative effect upon that institution, then why is it even being considered?

Because we frequently make choices that damage the ability of the military to function in the interests of political, and social pressure. That's the nature of living within a modern nation-state. This is not a junta, and even if it were the situation would not be especially different.

Finally...

ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?

Bigger than you tex. Why don't you quit the thread again? I mean really, you can't seem to avoid running away when in the presence of reality.

Trench-Raider wrote:
What I do resent is the effort by the homosexual lobby and their allies in the political left to "normalize" what most people (at least those who have not been brainwashed by PC idiocy) instinctively realise is an abnormality.

You are, of course, aware that abnormal is not tacit to bad. Genius is also abnormal, though you would be hard pressed to describe at as negative.

Trench-Raider wrote:
Dito for the efforts to grant them special rights based upon a behavior pattern.

What are you talking about? What special rights?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Finally...

ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?

Bigger than you tex. Why don't you quit the thread again? I mean really, you can't seem to avoid running away when in the presence of reality.

If you go back and look you will note that I "quit the thread" because I was going to bed...something I'm about to do again.
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality". Go back to trolling /b/ (or whatever they call it) , because your pretty substandard at it here.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:If I feel any particular emotion toward homosexuals it would be pity, just as I pity anyone who lives with the pain of an untreated mental disorder.

What I do resent is the effort by the homosexual lobby and their allies in the political left to "normalize" what most people (at least those who have not been brainwashed by PC idiocy) instinctively realise is an abnormality. Dito for the efforts to grant them special rights based upon a behavior pattern.

Being very good with trigger words, I have officially lost track of any intent you had from the beginning of this. Wait... OMFG A TRAIN!!!

just as I pity anyone who lives with the pain of an untreated mental disorder.

I pity the fool too... but that is not what you are talking about at all... so what exactly are you talking about? "Gays are bad" is still what I have drawn for your perceptional summary. You have an apple, an orange, and a... umm... is that a jar of peanut butter?



Mr. T is an icon better left to promoting fruits and veggies... and milk too, DRINK THE MILK DAMMIT!!!

Trench-Raider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Finally...

ShumaGorath, have i told you lately that you are an idiot?
Why don't you go back to 4chan, little boy?

Bigger than you tex. Why don't you quit the thread again? I mean really, you can't seem to avoid running away when in the presence of reality.

If you go back and look you will note that I "quit the thread" because I was going to bed...something I'm about to do again.
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality". Go back to trolling /b/ (or whatever they call it) , because your pretty substandard at it here.

TR

Umm. Then go back to the clan parade, you jingoistic north korean moon demon? I mean if we're drawing incredibly vague connections from previous statements then I think I have a hell of a lot more ammo then you do. A quick lookup of you're posts in the search engine presents a cavalcade of ridiculously childish ignorance and outright racist/intolerant/homophobic sentiment.

Trench-Raider wrote:
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality".

Amusingly, you're both coming at this from the same foolish direction, but with opposing, ideological intent. He's invoking reality, you're invoking normalcy and majority. Its all really quite amusing to watch.

Dogma is obviously preparing some sort of... wait... he is already ready and firing. WOOT!

ShumaGorath wrote:
Umm. Then go back to the clan parade, you jingoistic north korean moon demon?

Seriously, your titles by tirade are probably my favorite component of your posts.

dogma wrote:

Trench-Raider wrote:
Oh yes, and it's pretty amusing listening to you talk about "reality".

Amusingly, you're both coming at this from the same foolish direction, but with opposing, ideological intent. He's invoking reality, you're invoking normalcy and majority. Its all really quite amusing to watch.

One of us stopped being particularly serious in post refutations a few posts ago. I'll let you make up your mind as to who it is.

Seriously, your titles by tirade are probably my favorite component of your posts.

I'm glad you enjoy them as much as I enjoy coming up with them. Every time I do one of those I worry that fraz is going to ban me though.

Doesn't this debate kind of ignore the fact that there are a lot of homosexuals in the military already? I've heard from friends in Iraq that it's not exactly a huge secret which way different people swing. Here's an article on the same thing:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-01-07-gay-troops_N.htm

The punchline seems to be: if you're a good soldier, and do your job, and you're useful, the Army is in no hurry to push you out. It's at least anecdotal evidence that much of the worry about combat effectiveness might be over inflated.

As sebster alluded to in his excellent post, I think there's more going on here than simply worries about the military. I think there's a big chunk of the population that really still sees homosexuality as a very bad thing that should not be condoned or endorsed by society or the government. So, gay marriage bans aren't about tradition or values, but simply because being gay is wrong and the government shouldn't support it. If you're gay, it's like being a felon or drug addict, and you can't serve in the armed forces.

The real genius behind this movements (and the laws preventing gay adoption) are that they create a paradox for homosexuals. The accusation is that homosexuality is a harmful and decadent lifestyle, and those that engage in it are doomed to moral failings. Opponents can point out and say "they're not married, they're not raising families, they're not serving our country. They're bad people." My point being, how can you tell a decorated veteran that's been married for 10 years to his gay partner with whom he's raising kids that what he's doing is wrong? It's simply harder than if the same guy was booted from the army, and is living with another guy.

This thread has devolved into a flame war and is therefore being locked.

Users are reminded that at all times when posting on Dakka you are expected to be polite, even in the off-topic forum.

Insults, whether directed generally at a group of people or specifically at another poster will not be tolerated.

If you have trouble expressing yourself politically without insulting others then I suggest you refrain from posting in our off-topic forum.