| 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: "Omega" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 09:36:55 PM |
|
|
"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.
:
Gays can serve. As minefield sweepers...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tobin" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 01:04:04 PM |
|
|
I seem to recall the openly gay T. E. Lawrence kicking a lot of
arab butt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omega" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 08:09:56 PM |
|
|
"Tobin" <adriangilbarco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110827044.312408.88390@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:
:
: I seem to recall the openly gay T. E. Lawrence kicking a lot of
: arab butt.
:
Back then people were a lot tougher. Now days most Americans are wimps.
Emasculated. Homosexuals included. That is why we now have stress cards in
Basic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 08:37:46 PM |
|
|
Omega (d) wrote:
"Tobin" <adriangilbarco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110827044.312408.88390@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:
:
: I seem to recall the openly gay T. E. Lawrence kicking a lot of
: arab butt.
:
Back then people were a lot tougher. Now days most Americans are
wimps.
Emasculated. Homosexuals included. That is why we now have stress
cards in
Basic.
LOL, do they REALLY?!? Damn, do they bother to carry them
into battle as well? If they make bootcamp any easier, the units
won't be able to do their jobs in the heat of battle.
Look's like I got good reason for the concerns I spoke of earlier.
Thanks for your comments, they have been for real so far.
bd4u
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
17 Mar 2005 06:35:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:09:56 GMT, "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com>
wrote:
"Tobin" <adriangilbarco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110827044.312408.88390@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:
:
: I seem to recall the openly gay T. E. Lawrence kicking a lot of
: arab butt.
:
Back then people were a lot tougher. Now days most Americans are wimps.
Emasculated. Homosexuals included. That is why we now have stress cards in
Basic.
Funny you mention that. My dad said the same, when he saw our training
barracks. "Sonny, in my days we slept on straw pallets. 40 to a room.
You guys got it soft."
Much, much later, long after my discharge, I visited the rebuild
training centre again. Instead of 14 man to a room, now only 4. With a
TV, fridge and running water (not from the wall, as in my days).
I _almost_ said exactly the same to one of the trainees showing us old
foggies around. I remembered my pop's words.
I guess every generation has the same experience...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 09:48:18 PM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2005 11:04:04 -0800, "Tobin" <adriangilbarco@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I seem to recall the openly gay T. E. Lawrence kicking a lot of
arab butt.
So did a funny colonel under the name of Baden Powel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ward stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 02:34:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:04:04 -1000, Tobin wrote
(in article <1110827044.312408.88390@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
I seem to recall the openly gay T. E. Lawrence kicking a lot of
arab butt.
And vice-versa.
ward
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 12:07:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:55 GMT, "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com>
wrote:
Gays can serve. As minefield sweepers...
Wouldn't it be much more effective to use empty barrels like yourself
for that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Omega" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 08:25:15 PM |
|
|
"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.
:
It is not homosexuality, or even homosexuals, that is banned. It is
homosexual conduct, the homosexual lifestyle, that is forbidden. It must be
proven that you will engage, repeatly, in homosexual acts and that you are
supportive of a lifestyle (like gay pride parades) that is not compatible
with military life.
Here are the laws (UCMJ) that effect homosexuals
http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html#925.125
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal
copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal
is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete
the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial
may direct.
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and
neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,
ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes
and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be
guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary
court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall
be punished at the discretion of that court.
http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/title10.pdf
http://dont.stanford.edu/doclist.html
http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/pl103-60.pdf
SEC. 571. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED
FORCES.
(a) CODIFICATION. - (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
"Sec. 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
"(a) FINDINGS. - Congress makes the following findings:
"(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise
and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make
rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
f o r c e s .
"(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed
forces.
"(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article
I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the
discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and
conditions of service in the armed forces.
"(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare
for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
"(5) The conduct of military operations requires members
of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including
the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common
defense.
"(6) Success in combat requires military units that are
characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and
unit cohesion.
"(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability
is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual
service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military
unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness
of the individual unit members.
"(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian
life in that
PUBLIC LAW. 103-160 - NOV. 30, 1993 107 STAT. 1671
"(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed
forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the
critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military
community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a
specialized society; and
"(B) the military society is characterized by its own
laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous
restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable
in civilian society.
"(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed
forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning
at the moment the member enters military status and not
ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated
from the armed forces
"(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed
forces at all times that the member has a military status,
whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the
member is on duty or off duty.
"(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct
is necessary because members of the armed forces must be
ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat
environment.
"(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military
forces, the international responsibilities of the United States,
and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual
combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed
forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working
conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized
by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
"(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding
element of military law that continues to be necessary
in the unique circumstances of military service.
"(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies
that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would
create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards
of morale, good order and discip
are the essence of military capability.
l i n e , and unit cohesion that
"(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual
acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards
of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that
are the essence of military capability.
"(b) POLICY. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated Regulations.
from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and
approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
"(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage
in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts
unless there are further finings, made and approved in accordance
with procedures set forth
member has demonstrated thatin
such regulations, that the
"(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's
usual and customary behavior;
"(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is
unlikely to recur;
107 STAT. 1672 PUBLIC LAW 103-160 - NOV. 30, 1993
"(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force,
coercion, or intimidation;
"(D) under the particular circumstances of the case,
the member's continued presence in the armed forces is
consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper
discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent
to engage in homosexual acts.
"(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual
or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is
a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures
set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated
that he or she is not a person who engages in,
attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends
to engage in homosexual acts.
"(3) That the member has married or attempted to many
a person known to be of the same biological sex.
"(c) ENTRY STANDARDS AND DOCUMENTS. - (1) The Secretary
of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and
appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies
set forth in subsection (b).
"(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment
of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth
the provisions of subsection (b).
"(d) REQUIRED BRIEFINGS - The briefings that members of the
armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically
thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation
of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual
conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies
prescribed under subsection (b).
'(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. - Nothing in subsection (b) shall
be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be
processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination
is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense that-
"(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements
for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service;
and
"(2) separation of the member would not be in the best
interest of the armed forces.
"(f) DEFINITIONS. - In this section:
"(1) The term 'homosexual' means a person, regardless
of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity
to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and
includes the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian'.
"(2) The term 'bisexual' means a person who engages in,
attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends
to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
"(3) The term 'homosexual act' means-
"(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively
permitted, between members of the same sex for
the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
"(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person
would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent
to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).".
PUBLIC LAW 103-160 - NOV. 30, 1993 107 STAT. 1673
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following:
"664. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.".
(b) REGULATIONS. - Not later than 90 days after the date of 10 USC 654 note
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department
of Defense regulations, and issue such new regulations as
States Code, as added by subsection (a).
may be necessary to implement section 654 of title 10, United
(c) SAVINGS PROVISION. - Nothing in this section or section 654 10 USC 651
note.
of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), may
be construed to invalidate any inquiry, investigation, administrative
action or proceeding, court-martial, or judicial proceeding conducted
before the effective date of regulations issued by the Secretary
of Defense to implement such section 654.
(d) SENSE OF CONGRESS. - It is the sense of Congress that - 10 USC 654 note.
(1) the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality
as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the
Armed Forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993,
should be continued, but the Secretary of Defense may reinstate
that questioning with such questions or such revised questions
as he considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that
it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the policy set
forth in section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added
by subsection (a); and
(2) the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing guidance
governing the circumstances under which members of
the Armed Forces questioned about homosexuality for administrative
purposes should be afforded warnings similar to the
warnings under section 831(b) of title 10, United States Code
(article 31(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
SEC. 572. CHANGE IN TIMING OF REQUIRED DRUG AND ALCOHOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 06:44:36 AM |
|
|
"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.
Gay people have been serving openly in the military in the uk with no
problem for the past couple of years, and no they don't have a separate
unit.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tock" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
12 Mar 2005 09:57:02 PM |
|
|
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would be the
way to go -- at least for now.
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for them,
and get their feet in the door.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can do
anything that heterosexuals can do.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough for now .
.. .
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omega" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 09:39:46 PM |
|
|
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iSOYd.10569$WK2.5120@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
:
: "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.
:
:
: Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would be the
: way to go -- at least for now.
: It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for
them,
: and get their feet in the door.
: It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
: anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
: direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can do
: anything that heterosexuals can do.
:
: A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough for now
..
It worked for the Greeks...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 10:49:11 PM |
|
|
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:5I7Zd.127079$4q6.64814@attbi_s01...
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough for
now
It worked for the Greeks...
Spoken like a true Athenian.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 02:55:24 AM |
|
|
The Greeks did not have a SEGREGATED ARMY!
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:5I7Zd.127079$4q6.64814@attbi_s01...
:
: "Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: news:iSOYd.10569$WK2.5120@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
::
:: "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.
::
::
:: Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would
be the
:: way to go -- at least for now.
:: It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for
: them,
:: and get their feet in the door.
:: It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
:: anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
:: direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can
do
:: anything that heterosexuals can do.
::
:: A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough
for now
: .
:
: It worked for the Greeks...
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 06:20:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:55:24 +0200, "Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
The Greeks did not have a SEGREGATED ARMY!
Oh yes, they did! Women were not allowed to serve, nor the poorer
strata of society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
12 Mar 2005 11:59:32 PM |
|
|
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iSOYd.10569$WK2.5120@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can do
anything that heterosexuals can do.
Segregation was not how blacks got into the military, it's how they were
kept out.
The effect of segregation ensure they got the worst trainers, the worst
equipment, and the worst support.
It's immoral to demand these people be kept away from others.
They pose no threat, and have as much to contribute as anyone else.
The ONLY purpose of segregation is for the evil-doers to identify an
arbitrary group of people to hate on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N9NWO" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
16 Mar 2005 11:45:04 AM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
And what is happening now? Blacks and women are bailing out of the
Army and Marines. Why?
Because all the "good jobs", the easy jobs, the jobs that give civilian
job skill are being give to
civilians and the slots are being used for combat positions.
Others have pointed out that most of you civilians, those looking at
the military from the outside,
are clueless. Do you realize how hardcore the military is becoming?
It has been pointet out here
by others that the Navy and Air Force are cutting their force, that
they are getting rid of people.
I really doubt that gays would stay anymore than women and blacks are
staying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 12:40:38 AM |
|
|
On 2005-03-13 16:57:02 +1300, "Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> said:
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would be
the way to go -- at least for now.
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for
them, and get their feet in the door.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can
do anything that heterosexuals can do.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough for
now . . .
-Tock
I think a better move would be for other countries to open their doors
to recently dismissed soldiers who were kicked out because they're gay.
Heck, NZ Defence force is 2000 men/women short of the required numbers,
if it were me, I'd be out there recruiting those people like there was
no tomorrow.
Matt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 07:03:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:57:02 GMT, "Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would be the
way to go -- at least for now.
Why? As not to hurt the tender feelings of gaybashers and homophobes?
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for them,
and get their feet in the door.
I recall that the US army has a great reputation in segregation.
However, they eventually overcame it.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can do
anything that heterosexuals can do.
Certainly. In perhaps another 100 years or so even the gay units may
serve on the front.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough for now .
For you, perhaps. But I wouldn't want to serve in such an army.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 12:20:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:57:02 GMT, "Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would be the
way to go -- at least for now.
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for them,
and get their feet in the door.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can do
anything that heterosexuals can do.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough for now .
So, on Navy ships you would berth the male homos with the het females
and the female homos with the het males. Is that how you would do it?
I think the male hets would go along -- the female hets, hmmmm,
that's another story. You fucking idiot.
-Tock
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
12 Mar 2005 10:50:21 PM |
|
|
Tock wrote:
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would
be the way to go -- at least for now.
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for
them, and get their feet in the door.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can
do anything that heterosexuals can do.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough
for now . . .
-Tock
We accepted African-Americans into the services on an equal basis
We've accepted women into the services on almost an eqyal basis.
We will in the future accept gays into the services on an equal basis.
It takes a long time to overcome stupid habits
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omega" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 09:39:04 PM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VwPYd.24471$6g7.9917@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
: Tock wrote:
: > "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.
: >
: >
: > Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would
: > be the way to go -- at least for now.
: > It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for
: > them, and get their feet in the door.
: > It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
: > anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
: > direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can
: > do anything that heterosexuals can do.
: >
: > A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough
: > for now . . .
: >
: > -Tock
:
: We accepted African-Americans into the services on an equal basis
: We've accepted women into the services on almost an eqyal basis.
: We will in the future accept gays into the services on an equal basis.
:
: It takes a long time to overcome stupid habits
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during the
period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of the big
reason that troops fragged NCOs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 10:49:10 PM |
|
|
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:sH7Zd.127078$4q6.45173@attbi_s01...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during the
period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused their
power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of the big
reason that troops fragged NCOs.
B.S.
Prior to WWII gays were excluded, too - when they were identified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 08:49:34 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:sH7Zd.127078$4q6.45173@attbi_s01...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during
the period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused
their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of
the big reason that troops fragged NCOs.
B.S.
Prior to WWII gays were excluded, too - when they were identified.
Two men in my unit were arrested during WWII.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
15 Mar 2005 02:38:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:49:34 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:sH7Zd.127078$4q6.45173@attbi_s01...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during
the period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused
their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of
the big reason that troops fragged NCOs.
B.S.
Prior to WWII gays were excluded, too - when they were identified.
Two men in my unit were arrested during WWII.
Who was the other one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
17 Mar 2005 09:47:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:49:34 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:sH7Zd.127078$4q6.45173@attbi_s01...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during
the period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused
their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of
the big reason that troops fragged NCOs.
B.S.
Prior to WWII gays were excluded, too - when they were identified.
Two men in my unit were arrested during WWII.
Who was the other one?
LOL !
--
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: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
13 Mar 2005 10:17:32 PM |
|
|
Omega <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote:
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VwPYd.24471$6g7.9917@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Tock wrote:
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would
be the way to go -- at least for now.
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety
for them, and get their feet in the door.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation
is anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the
right direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that
gays can do anything that heterosexuals can do.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough
for now . . .
-Tock
We accepted African-Americans into the services on an equal basis
We've accepted women into the services on almost an eqyal basis.
We will in the future accept gays into the services on an equal
basis.
It takes a long time to overcome stupid habits
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during
the period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused
their power by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It
was one of the big reason that troops fragged NCOs.
Citation?
--
"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: "Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 02:24:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:39:04 GMT, "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com>
wrote:
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during the
period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of the big
reason that troops fragged NCOs.
Oh, cool! Do you have any links on that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 12:08:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:39:04 GMT, "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com>
wrote:
: It takes a long time to overcome stupid habits
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during the
period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of the big
reason that troops fragged NCOs.
Proof?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ward stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill submitted to allow gays in military |
14 Mar 2005 02:06:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:39:04 -1000, Omega wrote
(in article <sH7Zd.127078$4q6.45173@attbi_s01>):
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VwPYd.24471$6g7.9917@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Tock wrote:
"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.
Although it would mean gay segregation, I think all-gay units would
be the way to go -- at least for now.
It would mean less hassle for the gay military folks, more safety for
them, and get their feet in the door.
It's the same way blacks got in the military, not that segregation is
anything to applaud, but in practical terms, it's a step in the right
direction, and is the most practical way to demonstrate that gays can
do anything that heterosexuals can do.
A segregated military -- not my first choice, but it's good enough
for now . . .
-Tock
We accepted African-Americans into the services on an equal basis
We've accepted women into the services on almost an eqyal basis.
We will in the future accept gays into the services on an equal basis.
It takes a long time to overcome stupid habits
The reason that the military restricted homosexuals was that during the
period from WW2 to Vietnam, a lot of homosexual sergeants abused their power
by sexually harassing and even raping their troops. It was one of the big
reason that troops fragged NCOs.
Citation please for this improbability - NOT from the Washington Times!
ward
--------------------------
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
— H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
