Not personally, but the purpose of all that is to facilitate the killing of people (enemy combatants, if that's any better) during war. I say the moral dilemma of that should trump the gay question.11 Bravo wrote:
ya um i dont think some IT dude or lawyer in the military is there to kill people
so it was just created to kill. got it.
Yes, pretty much. And when the institution isn't killing people it's (hopefully) preparing to kill people if it has to, or our tax dollars are going to even more waste than any of us knew.
Created to defend or attack by means of killing, or the threat of it.11 Bravo wrote:
so it was just created to kill. got it.
Not saying that it has not diversified since its establishment.
Last edited by Nic (2010-09-21 19:29:43)
I think IT jobs were created for people with no social skills
so people with skills could log into the forum.11 Bravo wrote:
I think IT jobs were created for people with no social skills
Burn...
Direct attacks on burnzzzzzzz are not permitted on the forums, he will IT your ass outta here.11 Bravo wrote:
I think IT jobs were created for people with no social skills
people at work.....burnzz wrote:
so people with skills could log into the forum.11 Bravo wrote:
I think IT jobs were created for people with no social skills
i guess what i am getting at is the modern military is not just there to kill. you can say it was created for that but then the constitution was created not to have all people equal so then this whole discussion is pointless.
Well, half of the DREAM Act is ridiculous... In-state tuition for illegals? Only in America...Ticia wrote:
The Republicans won twice here, they delayed the repeal of the DADT and blocked the Senate from considering the DREAM act.Turquoise wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the DREAM act killed this bill. To be honest, I would've voted against it too as long as that's in it.
why does the title say by republicans? i am confused. should say by clinton.
You're not thinking like a liberial.Nic wrote:
I didnt think the military was established to give IT dudes or lawyers jobs.11 Bravo wrote:
ya um i dont think some IT dude or lawyer in the military is there to kill people
11 Bravo wrote:
i guess what i am getting at is the modern military is not just there to kill. you can say it was created for that but then the constitution was created not to have all people equal so then this whole discussion is pointless.
So even if your job isn't to kill, you're still specifically working in a support position for those who do."I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I'm not saying that the military doesn't do other things like humanitarian aid, but it's not really the point of having one. It seems to me a little silly to be focusing on keeping gays out the military.
well there are so many govt contracts jobs from civi companies...plus you pay taxes yes? so............................
Almost touche, except for the fact that this point is wandering away from the topic at hand: a killing institution being nervous about gays. And more to the OP, the politicians who encourage these restrictions for whatever reason.11 Bravo wrote:
well there are so many govt contracts jobs from civi companies...plus you pay taxes yes? so............................
<Insert Rear Admiral Joke here>unnamednewbie13 wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
i guess what i am getting at is the modern military is not just there to kill. you can say it was created for that but then the constitution was created not to have all people equal so then this whole discussion is pointless.So even if your job isn't to kill, you're still specifically working in a support position for those who do."I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I'm not saying that the military doesn't do other things like humanitarian aid, but it's not really the point of having one. It seems to me a little silly to be focusing on keeping gays out the military.
Don't ask don't tell has always seemed strange to me.
We have 1 quite openly gay guys in my div (of 42 people) and its never been a problem. There's the odd joke, but it's all taken with good humour. The ADF allows openly gay people to serve and does not require members to ever "record" their sexuality, and as far as I can tell it has absolutely no effect on morale, discipline, combat effectiveness or postings of specific people. In fact as far as I can tell, its a completely non-issue amongst defence members. I think the general consensus (obvioisly can't speak for everyone) is that it doesn't matter what sexuality (or race for that matter) you are, if you can do the job, and back your oppos up then thats all your oppos care about.
The only thing I think we need to address now is that gay couples get the same rights as regular de-factor partners.
We have 1 quite openly gay guys in my div (of 42 people) and its never been a problem. There's the odd joke, but it's all taken with good humour. The ADF allows openly gay people to serve and does not require members to ever "record" their sexuality, and as far as I can tell it has absolutely no effect on morale, discipline, combat effectiveness or postings of specific people. In fact as far as I can tell, its a completely non-issue amongst defence members. I think the general consensus (obvioisly can't speak for everyone) is that it doesn't matter what sexuality (or race for that matter) you are, if you can do the job, and back your oppos up then thats all your oppos care about.
The only thing I think we need to address now is that gay couples get the same rights as regular de-factor partners.
This is such a no-brainer. It's the military. All they ask is that you don't talk about being gay. It's not 'discrimination'. You can separate males and females from each other: different sleeping quarters, bathrooms, etc. You can't do that with homosexuals. You can't have potential lovers getting distracted with each other in the heat of battle.
lolwutDeadmonkiefart wrote:
You can't have potential lovers getting distracted with each other in the heat of battle.
Just the fact that there is a policy on gay people is laughable ... and sad ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
"Bullets are flying everywhere, buddy! Give me a kiss."11 Bravo wrote:
lolwutDeadmonkiefart wrote:
You can't have potential lovers getting distracted with each other in the heat of battle.
lol
too much drama to have gays in tbh. unit cohesion is no1 in my books. or just make an all gay brigade lulz.
From page one -
Why do you insist on telling me what it takes to get you off ?
Im sure it would make no difference if I didn't know ?
If the ( person ) at the video store announced " they like to ( add your own here )" I would deem it inappropriate to have such intimate knowledge of what should have been a professional relationship only.
As a matter of interest, what makes it " absurd " in your opinion that a potential employer would say
" We don't care - we don't even need to know. "
I have Friends and relatives I am pretty sure are Gay but I don't move in that part of their life.
( Some people, as do I, will Occasionally capitalize a word in mid-sentence for emphasis. Sorry if it throws some. People take all kinds of license here )
OK, here is my try,Ticia wrote:
Republicans along with two democrats made "don't ask don't tell" won't go away with a swift 56-43 vote. The democrats had higher salaries for troops and increased funding which republicans usually support but that was not enough to get their vote.Link"This is a victory for the men and women who serve our nation in uniform. At least for now they will not be used to advance a radical social agenda,” said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.
Still waiting for a good argument defending this absurd policy.
Why do you insist on telling me what it takes to get you off ?
Im sure it would make no difference if I didn't know ?
If the ( person ) at the video store announced " they like to ( add your own here )" I would deem it inappropriate to have such intimate knowledge of what should have been a professional relationship only.
As a matter of interest, what makes it " absurd " in your opinion that a potential employer would say
" We don't care - we don't even need to know. "
I have Friends and relatives I am pretty sure are Gay but I don't move in that part of their life.
( Some people, as do I, will Occasionally capitalize a word in mid-sentence for emphasis. Sorry if it throws some. People take all kinds of license here )
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-22 04:11:27)
Democrats have The White House - The House and the Senate. They can do anything they want if they wanted to ! The Elections are coming up and they will answer to the people not just the C.L.A.M.s but with all the hypocracy here who really cares.11 Bravo wrote:
why does the title say by republicans? i am confused. should say by clinton.