| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2005 09:35:56 PM |
| Object: |
Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
A perfect compromise to this issue would be the creation of all gay
units. Gays could serve their country freely and openly and America
could benefit from the skills these soldiers could offer.
http://news.newkerala.com/world-news/?action=fullnews&id=79562
Bill submitted to allow gays in military:
Fifty-two Democrats and a single Republican Wednesday sponsored a
bill that would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and
give those who left under the policy banning gays a chance to rejoin
the armed forces.
.
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 09:09:35 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m38y4qyijp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> writes:
Maybe you can try to answer a question I posed on a different
thread. Who would you prefer to have in your unit - a highly
professional gay soldier, whose sexual orientation you know but who
keeps his sex life as his own business, or a straight draftee who
would really rather be doing something else and is a bit miffed
that he got inducted at the start of the surfing season? Or you
could opt for having nobody available, but that has its own
problems. Those are basically your choices - they aren't getting
enough people and with the deficit, they'll have some real trouble
being able to raise the pay to attract more people.
We do not have draftees, which are at best amateurs.
You do not *currently* have draftees. There is, however, a shortfall
- not enough people enlisting. If it gets bad enough, they'll start
drafting people - they'll have no choice.
There is another choice... STOP GETTING INTO THESE DAMNED SKIRMISHES WITH
THESE FUCKED UP THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES!
And those homosexuals who do get put out tend to make a big deal out
of their sexuality.
You mean someone inadvertently blurts out the name of the person who
he went on a date with? Or do you mean that they reach the point
where they can't keep it under cover any longer? How do you think
straight soldiers would react if they were told that they could never,
ever say one word about their attraction to women or even let on that
they might be attracted to women, and could above all never mention
their girlfriends' names or even call them girlfriends?
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 09:45:45 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> writes:
We do not have draftees, which are at best amateurs.
You do not *currently* have draftees. There is, however, a shortfall
- not enough people enlisting. If it gets bad enough, they'll start
drafting people - they'll have no choice.
There is another choice... STOP GETTING INTO THESE DAMNED SKIRMISHES WITH
THESE FUCKED UP THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES!
Unfortunately, that will require a regime change in Washington, and we
are stuck with the current regime for another 4 years (minus a few
months), and will not have another House or Senate election for about
2 more years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 09:52:15 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> writes:
We do not have draftees, which are at best amateurs.
You do not *currently* have draftees. There is, however, a
shortfall - not enough people enlisting. If it gets bad enough,
they'll start drafting people - they'll have no choice.
There is another choice... STOP GETTING INTO THESE DAMNED
SKIRMISHES WITH THESE FUCKED UP THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES!
Unfortunately, that will require a regime change in Washington, and we
are stuck with the current regime for another 4 years (minus a few
months), and will not have another House or Senate election for about
2 more years.
I know, sad as that is.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Erickson" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
17 Mar 2005 02:03:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:08:21 GMT, "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com>
wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m38y4qyijp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> writes:
:
: > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: > news:m3d5u2ex2r.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
: > :
: > : > Andrealphus wrote:
: > :
: > : > > They can work side-by-side while bathing and sleeping together.
They
: > : > > already do.
: > : >
: > : > But they're not doing it openly, which is the issue at hand.
: > :
: > : You seem to be unclear on the concept. They may be open about whether
: > : they are gay, but the assumption is that there would be no change
: > : regarding what goes on when they work side-by-side and bathe and
: > : sleep in the same facilities.
: > :
: > : I presume it would *not* be acceptable in a shared room for a gay
: > : soldier to have sex any more than it would be acceptable for a
: > : straight soldier to have sex. The others in the room need their sleep
: > : and shouldn't have to try to doze off while listening to someone in
: > : the next bed saying "you're so hot" all night long.
: > :
: > : It should be acceptable for a gay soldier to make a declarative
: > : statement that he is gay. Then one of his buddies won't waste
: > : time trying to help him find a date with a girl, and can try to
: > : help one of his straight buddies instead.
: >
: > Who says that you will see that room much during your enlistment? more
: > likely you will be doing rotations at JRTC at Ft Polk LA, sleeping in
the
: > dirt. Or tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
:
: I don't really care if it is a room or a tent, or a hut, or whatever
: it is you people sleep in, but the J. Young guy seemed very concerned
: about sleeping and bathing arrangements. If he got those wrong, by
: all means talk to him abaout it.
:
: Maybe you can try to answer a question I posed on a different thread.
: Who would you prefer to have in your unit - a highly professional gay
: soldier, whose sexual orientation you know but who keeps his sex life
: as his own business, or a straight draftee who would really rather be
: doing something else and is a bit miffed that he got inducted at the
: start of the surfing season? Or you could opt for having nobody
: available, but that has its own problems. Those are basically your
: choices - they aren't getting enough people and with the deficit,
: they'll have some real trouble being able to raise the pay to
: attract more people.
We do not have draftees, which are at best amateurs.
And those homosexuals who do get put out tend to make a big deal out of
their sexuality.
How do you know? The only ones you know of are the ones that make it
obvious? Is this from experience or from the records the military
keeps on sexual orientation?
One of the things about Don't Ask, Don't Tell is that you
can be in service if homosexual but it is when you become political about it
that you get your ***** kicked out. UCMJ is not forbidding homosexuals, just
the lifestyle.
How innocent.
Slobbering Skeleton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 10:49:17 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m38y4qyijp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> writes:
Those are basically your
choices - they aren't getting enough people and with the deficit,
they'll have some real trouble being able to raise the pay to
attract more people.
That's the beauty of evil-doers - left to their own designs they're self
defeating.
When faced with an absence of outside fights, they turn on each other.
NeoConservatism is NOT a survival trait.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 09:07:53 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110737798.430891.160160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The military already has experience with segregation. Negroes were
intergrated because of social pressures, not because it didn't work.
Nonsense. Blacks were integrated for one reason only. Truman
ordered it. Polls taken at the time showed that fully 72% opposed
the integration.
Polls? Have you learned nothing these past few years? The political
tide in this country was beginning to change. Truman only beat the
USSC to the punchline.
And the proof of your assertion is..? The USSC isn't social pressures, as
you claimed.
The services today run as a cohesive unit despite the seperation of
the sexes. Homos and straights can work side by side without having
to bathe and sleep together.
They can work side-by-side while bathing and sleeping together. They
already do.
But they're not doing it openly, which is the issue at hand.
Yet, they do so. And they also do so in other militaries around the globe
openly. Where are the problems?
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 09:31:29 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110737798.430891.160160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The military already has experience with segregation. Negroes
were
intergrated because of social pressures, not because it didn't
work.
Nonsense. Blacks were integrated for one reason only. Truman
ordered it. Polls taken at the time showed that fully 72% opposed
the integration.
Polls? Have you learned nothing these past few years? The political
tide in this country was beginning to change. Truman only beat the
USSC to the punchline.
And the proof of your assertion is..? The USSC isn't social
pressures, as
you claimed.
The provided link will timeline the history of armed forces
intergration. You will notice that Congressional legislation was
already pending. I believe Brown v Board of Education a few years later
backs my claim of prospective USSC involvement in segregation issues.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology
The services today run as a cohesive unit despite the seperation
of
the sexes. Homos and straights can work side by side without
having
to bathe and sleep together.
They can work side-by-side while bathing and sleeping together.
They
already do.
But they're not doing it openly, which is the issue at hand.
Yet, they do so. And they also do so in other militaries around the
globe
openly. Where are the problems?
The problem is the laws currently written that forbid gays from
serving. Even the standard bearer of modern Liberalism, Bill Clinton,
couldn't impose his will upon the military. Legislation is needed and
sometimes that requires compromise. Segregation is perhaps not the best
solution but it is better than the status quo.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 10:16:49 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110737798.430891.160160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The military already has experience with segregation. Negroes were
intergrated because of social pressures, not because it didn't
work.
Nonsense. Blacks were integrated for one reason only. Truman
ordered it. Polls taken at the time showed that fully 72% opposed
the integration.
Polls? Have you learned nothing these past few years? The political
tide in this country was beginning to change. Truman only beat the
USSC to the punchline.
And the proof of your assertion is..? The USSC isn't social
pressures, as you claimed.
The provided link will timeline the history of armed forces
intergration. You will notice that Congressional legislation was
already pending. I believe Brown v Board of Education a few years
later backs my claim of prospective USSC involvement in segregation
issues.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology
Yet, none of this shows social pressures, as you claim. The fact of the
matter is, the legislation pending was strongly opposed by the house, and
the senate, and had already been filibustered twice. That was the reason
Truman got fed up and issued the executive order. Additionally, I checked,
and there was no pending USSC Case at the time of the executive order.
The services today run as a cohesive unit despite the seperation
of the sexes. Homos and straights can work side by side without
having to bathe and sleep together.
They can work side-by-side while bathing and sleeping together.
They already do.
But they're not doing it openly, which is the issue at hand.
Yet, they do so. And they also do so in other militaries around
the globe openly. Where are the problems?
The problem is the laws currently written that forbid gays from
serving. Even the standard bearer of modern Liberalism, Bill Clinton,
couldn't impose his will upon the military. Legislation is needed and
sometimes that requires compromise. Segregation is perhaps not the
best solution but it is better than the status quo.
Seperate but equal laws have never stood, or worked. Just work for serving
freely in the military and cut out the middle man.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 06:09:42 PM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
What are you going to do? Build another Pentagon? Paint it pink?
Well, the military always builds two of everything... So, let's make it
with *two* pink triangles -- in the shape of the Star of David -- and
give the conspiracy theorists something to *really* talk about.
;-)
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes: porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
17 Mar 2005 01:53:47 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Bill submitted to allow gays in military:
Did Bill protest ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 12:31:15 AM |
|
|
On 2005-03-13 16:35:56 +1300, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said:
A perfect compromise to this issue would be the creation of all gay
units. Gays could serve their country freely and openly and America
could benefit from the skills these soldiers could offer.
http://news.newkerala.com/world-news/?action=fullnews&id=79562
Bill submitted to allow gays in military:
Fifty-two Democrats and a single Republican Wednesday sponsored a
bill that would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and
give those who left under the policy banning gays a chance to rejoin
the armed forces.
So you'd have a unit of highly educated soldiers. Hmm, I don't know
about you, but who then are going to lead the rest of the defence
force? Joe "lower class, white boy, trailor park trash" Smith?
Matt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 01:23:11 AM |
|
|
Ridiculous, there are many countries that allow gays to serve without
segregation, Israel is one example!
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110684956.541768.27990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
:A perfect compromise to this issue would be the creation of all gay
: units. Gays could serve their country freely and openly and America
: could benefit from the skills these soldiers could offer.
:
:
: http://news.newkerala.com/world-news/?action=fullnews&id=79562
:
:
: Bill submitted to allow gays in military:
:
: Fifty-two Democrats and a single Republican Wednesday sponsored a
: bill that would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and
: give those who left under the policy banning gays a chance to rejoin
: the armed forces.
:
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|