GOP again attacking Gays in the Military

[The Silver Thong]

Older than you and a lot wiser in military issues.

You dont know many cops do you? Traffic cops are the best. Why do you think people refer to them as the Gestapo?

Alrighty then

[ninjadude]

I I do not work for you I protect society from the likes of you. I will not tolerate any disobedience, any mouthyness, and swearing, and witty remarks or any backchat of any form. Try it and you'll get warned only once then the next time I'll arrest you. Resist and you'll get 50,000 volts and a few hours locked up in a Police Cell.

Police departments all over have been paying out millions in judgements for officers like you. And firing those officers.

In fact, there's a big case in Chicago for a detective that tortured suspects. For years. He's gonna love his cell mates.

Edited June 2, 2010 by ninjadude

[eqgumby]

I guess you're just going to believe whatever fantasy you wish. I don't recall politicizing this issue. This must say more about you than me. So you're claiming that unless civilians "experience the military sacrifice" that we don't have the right to direct the military. And telling the military what to do is "disrespectful"?!! It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that civilian control and direction of the military is a bedrock principle of our nation. You are really out there. More so that usual. And then you're making outlandish wild assumptions about my personal "appreciation" that are not warranted. In the slightest. I'm not going to parade my families military history out for your inspection. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything under discussion here.

It speaks volumes about your current attitude.

YOU don't dictate good order and discipline. And civilians running the military at the level you're implying instantly politizes it, since it's politicians doing the "running".

[ninjadude]

It speaks volumes about your current attitude.

YOU don't dictate good order and discipline. And civilians running the military at the level you're implying instantly politizes it, since it's politicians doing the "running".

How in the world does my families military history have anything whatsoever to do with this discussion? I never claimed that civilians would dictate good order and discipline. But I will claim that gays in the military has nothing to do with it except for those soldiers with homopobia. They will have to be resocialized.

I thought that civilian control of the military was well known and a non-issue. Of course, it's government politicians doing the "running". Is this a surprise? Are you apparently upset about that? I think they point that out during basic training. Certainly it's taught in schools.

I serve the people of the United States,

link

[+DieChecker]

He wasn't really saying that the military is under any civilian control nor should it be. However the public can sway the government as to what the public deems acceptable and what is not. It has been done befor and well continue to happen. The civilian population has in it's power to change who is commander in chief and if said commander wish's to ignor the public he is replaced generaly with a new chief more in tune with the publics demand. However being America is of a one government party now, that trend could be gone forever.

He did say, "And that means ME.", as if he had some direct control over military issues.

As far as gay marriage goes though. I don't quit get what you mean that if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military it will destroy the movement to allow gay marriage. How so?

Only that gays married in Gay Marriage states will not have it recognized by the Feds (Yet) and so will not get all the married soldier benefits. So that will force the gay marriage issue and in the current national climate "Gay Marriage" will suffer yet another setback.

[eqgumby]

He did say, "And that means ME.", as if he had some direct control over military issues.

Only that gays married in Gay Marriage states will not have it recognized by the Feds (Yet) and so will not get all the married soldier benefits. So that will force the gay marriage issue and in the current national climate "Gay Marriage" will suffer yet another setback.

Currently, openly gay members serving in the military is a military issue that reaches far beyond "let them serve". Some people don't get that, and refuse to listen to those that do get it.

[ninjadude]

He did say, "And that means ME.", as if he had some direct control over military issues.

oh lord. How can you get this from that!! Of course I have no DIRECT control. Who would think such a thing?!!! I do have indirect influence by my vote. Again these are not controversial things. They are what any school child should already know.

In my original post, I was suggesting/asking/positing, again for those that missed it, that since the military serves at the pleasure of the civilian population (civilian control of the military), that they should seriously consider that majority opinion (or words to that effect). This is not a gotcha moment. It should be clear for some time that DADT is not working and they need to create a better way. Civilians do set rules and guidelines for the military. This is nothing new.

Eggy seems to think that somehow I was disrespectful for questioning the military because I didn't parade my families military history for him and because I'm very liberal in my views and that, in his view, the military doesn't answer to the people. I think it's because there is this hidden discrimination and homophobia of the old boys in the military that can't even talk about it honestly but use weasel phrases like I don't "get it".

Edited June 4, 2010 by ninjadude

[eqgumby]

I can tell you now that even your Congress and President arent aware of everything that goes on in your military because their security clearence isnt high enough.

That's not the point, the point was the civilian authority meddling in social internal military issues, such as the gays in the military issue. That's all part of good order and discipline, which this has everything to do with.

[sp840tril]

eqgumby is very passionate about this topic based on previous boards i had with him. he also loves to question peoples military history as he did mine. i am on his side, but what he fails to accept is that regardless of whether it is right or wrong there will always be opposition to homosexuality and unfortunately we have to accept and respect their opinons.

[eqgumby]

I'm certainly not an attention seeker. And our military is not a local policeman. And we're talking about policy not a traffic stop or individual war. Although that says a lot about your worldview.

Lot of cojones talking about me and my ad homs.

But yes, its' a policy!!!! Not a military action, not a decision on who to attack, who to defend, where to deploy to support allies or serve the best interest of the USA. It's a policy regarding good order and discipline, on military bearing, rules and regulations, and standards of personal behavior, all above and beyond any civilian standards. So, who the hell are these people to tell the military how to handle their affairs? They "serve at your discretion", so does that mean they have to live up to standards set by you? Or do they live up to a higher expectation?

[The Silver Thong]

Lot of cojones talking about me and my ad homs.

But yes, its' a policy!!!! Not a military action, not a decision on who to attack, who to defend, where to deploy to support allies or serve the best interest of the USA. It's a policy regarding good order and discipline, on military bearing, rules and regulations, and standards of personal behavior, all above and beyond any civilian standards. So, who the hell are these people to tell the military how to handle their affairs? They "serve at your discretion", so does that mean they have to live up to standards set by you? Or do they live up to a higher expectation?

The reason the military does have to listen to the general public in a round about way is because with out civilians signing up there would be no military unless of course manditory military service was the law. The military should try to cater to the broadest base of recruitment if they want to keep the numbers they require. If the military makes it uncomfortable to join it only hurts itself in the long run. Those that have personal issues with gays in the military will just have to deal with it. If the folks in the military arn't mature enough to deal with the gay issue then maybe there not mature enough to deal with much more than high school.

Edited June 4, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[eqgumby]

oh lord. How can you get this from that!! Of course I have no DIRECT control. Who would think such a thing?!!! I do have indirect influence by my vote. Again these are not controversial things. They are what any school child should already know.

In my original post, I was suggesting/asking/positing, again for those that missed it, that since the military serves at the pleasure of the civilian population (civilian control of the military), that they should seriously consider that majority opinion (or words to that effect). This is not a gotcha moment. It should be clear for some time that DADT is not working and they need to create a better way. Civilians do set rules and guidelines for the military. This is nothing new.

Eggy seems to think that somehow I was disrespectful for questioning the military because I didn't parade my families military history for him and because I'm very liberal in my views and that, in his view, the military doesn't answer to the people. I think it's because there is this hidden discrimination and homophobia of the old boys in the military that can't even talk about it honestly but use weasel phrases like I don't "get it".

I think it's ignorant to imagine that the civilian population is stupid enough to push openly serving gays in the military, when the question of same-sex couples in the civilian sector is far from answered. The idea of openly serving gays in the military is part of the agenda of homosexuals to legalize some form of gay unions.

Personally, I don't care. Do it. Once the civilian sector can answer that question, the military can follow suit and make adjustments as are needed, just as they did when African Americans were allowed to serve in any thing greater than a cooks position.

And your disrespectful attacks and use of words like "weasel" are very telling. We get it. You don't like the military because they are not like you, so you do your best to point out how they discriminate, have "old boy" networks and are full of homophobes, and how the civilians "allow" them to serve. Gee, thanks for letting us kiss your butt, we really appreciate serving at your "pleasure". Keep up the good work.

[Startraveler]

So, who the hell are these people to tell the military how to handle their affairs?

What people? The leaders of our government?

[eqgumby]

What people? The leaders of our government?

Do you REALLY want the leaders of our government involved in this specific level of discipline in our military? Maybe Obama can revise the rules and regulations pertaining to NJP, hair-cuts, the entire UCMJ for that matter, and finally make sodomy NOT an offense punishable by fines and actual imprisonment at a FEDERAL prison.

The leaders of our government need to fix a LOT of other things before making it OK to serve and be openly gay. Just BEING gay, makes you eligible for being punished. And the UCMJ hasn't been changed for quite a while.

[Alien Being]

eqgumby is very passionate about this topic based on previous boards i had with him. he also loves to question peoples military history as he did mine. i am on his side, but what he fails to accept is that regardless of whether it is right or wrong there will always be opposition to homosexuality and unfortunately we have to accept and respect their opinons.

What to you mean regardless of whether it is right or wrong to oppose homosexuality?

Thats exactly the point. Some people are only willing to accept the view that opposing it is wrong and that all opposers are bigots. Its like the cogs that go around in their heads are differant from ours.

[venqax]

What people? The leaders of our government?

At this level, no, the "leaders of our government" should not being micromanaging military affairs. This is not a simple question of what color the uniform should be, or when you salute or remove your cover. This is a very basic question of military discipline and military psychology. Civilians who want this change keep emphasizing how unremarkable it would be because it doesn't matter to THEM. It matter A LOT to the military. Look at the numbers. Around 70% of those who it will affect, and those whose job performance it will affect don't want it. That is not a minor issue. Civilians shouldn't be telling the military when to use a plane and when to use a helicopter, either.

[Paranormalcy]

Still remaining civil, it appears. A pleasant surprise.

[eqgumby]

Still remaining civil, it appears. A pleasant surprise.

Was that really necessary?

[Agent X]

Yeah. It's a shame moderators are immune to reports of inflammatory material.

[The Silver Thong]

Yeah. It's a shame moderators are immune to reports of inflammatory material.

never mind...

Edited June 5, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[ninjadude]

At this level, no, the "leaders of our government" should not being micromanaging military affairs.

if it was indeed "micromanaging" such a minor issue, no one would care.

[venqax]

if it was indeed "micromanaging" such a minor issue, no one would care.

Actually, as I clearly stated in the second to last sentence, That is not a minor issue. The difference is the not part. It is, in fact, a very important issue of military discipline and military culture. That matters to people in the military, and people concerned about having an effective military. People whose priorities are sexual expression obviously have concerns that are....different.

[shadowhive]

Perhaps there should be a sort of compromise. They could just keep the don't ask part and remove the discharging part. The American military is currently active and shouldn't have to worry about such trivial things as this. They shouldn't lose people that want to serve their country just because they're different.

[ninjadude]

Actually, as I clearly stated in the second to last sentence, That is not a minor issue. The difference is the not part. It is, in fact, a very important issue of military discipline and military culture. That matters to people in the military, and people concerned about having an effective military. People whose priorities are sexual expression obviously have concerns that are....different.

You're not making sense. First you rail about civilians micomanaging the military over this issue and then claim it is not a minor issue. But I agree it is a very important issue that needs direction from civilians. Other countries seem to have no problem with military discipline over it. But I do agree it will require a change to military culture. Something they should have started some time ago.

[venqax]

You're not making sense. First you rail about civilians micomanaging the military over this issue and then claim it is not a minor issue. But I agree it is a very important issue that needs direction from civilians. Other countries seem to have no problem with military discipline over it. But I do agree it will require a change to military culture. Something they should have started some time ago.

Don't know what you are thinking of, but a micromanaging style isn't necessarily applicable to only minor problems. The issue that you and others never address is WHY? Why mess with something- military efficacy-- that is not broken? What benefit is doing away with DADT supposed achieve? Is the military going to be better for this? Maybe you think their culture should change, tho you have offered no rational reason for thinking this, but their culture is a huge factor in their success. Do you know anything about military psychology (that is how the military model of self/group identity? I'm guessing you don't, but the people IN the military do. Their jobs involve a little more "conditioning" than most. But you just want to f with them, why?