EPTDADT Repeal is Official! - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
| ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
|
sanya
482 Posts
there was a law against homosexuals in the army ? oO the hell ? somebody explain the reasoning behind that to little uninformed me , would you ? it's not like you can't shoot people if you're gay am i missing something ? User was warned for this post | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:15 sanya wrote: ok this will sound stupid because i couldn't give a rats ass about america in general since i don't live there and have no intention to visit but ... there was a law against homosexuals in the army ? oO the hell ? somebody explain the reasoning behind that to little uninformed me , would you ? it's not like you can't shoot people if you're gay am i missing something ? they were scared of gay soldiers doing things to straight soldiers, so rather than lose out on the man power of all their gay buddies, they just stopped asking about sexual orientation, or atleast expected you to lie. because gay people only rape you when they tell you their gay first, obviously | ||
|
ChampionZerg
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment. i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army. | ||
KwarK
United States41471 Posts
At the very least you have to realise how wasteful it is to invest in soldiers and train them up only to discard them because someone heard they might be gay. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43409 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:11 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I wonder how the military is going to organize who rooms with who. You realize that the repealing of DADT isn't actually turning a 100% straight military partially gay, right? Straight guys slept alongside gay guys just fine before the repealing, and they'll continue to do so. As proven by the plenty of other countries that allow this. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
DADT means Don't Ask Don't Tell The military, the soldiers themselves, and everyone else knew it employed gay soldiers. As long as said soldiers kept it too themselves, no one cared. That means gay and straight soldiers showered together, slept together, etc etc. Guess what? If a gay guy makes a move on his straight comrade, he's going to be treated the same way a straight guy would if he makes a move on a female comrade. Jesus people, no ones joining the military because they want to fuck their fellow soldiers. (At least I hope not, because thats just really stupid.) That includes straight, gay, transgender, blue, red, and turqoise people. You're far more likely to "shower" with a gay guy at your local gym then in the military anyways. | ||
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment. lol, the new policy isn't like people have to carry a sign around saying that they're gay. in fact dadt was only a bandaid. the new law repeals the main problem, which is that they weren't allowed to serve if they were outed. dadt going away is like taking off the bandaid because the wound isn't there anymore. | ||
|
ChampionZerg
United States19 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:25 turdburgler wrote: i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army. That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it? | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:50 ChampionZerg wrote: That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it? Man A: That's a nice picture you got there, who is that with you? Man B: My wife. Fin. Man A: That's a nice picture you got there, who is that with you? Man B: My husband. Man A: DADT. Man B fired. Fin. Also. Fake gay marriages for benefits? It is possible for people to get fake heterosexual marriages for the same benefits you know. edit: Edited for simplicity. | ||
|
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:50 ChampionZerg wrote: That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it? what's the difference between worrying about a fake gay marriage and worrying about a fake straight marriage? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43409 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:50 ChampionZerg wrote: That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it? Probably the same people who are paying for fake straight marriages. Stop with the slippery slope. DADT doesn't force gays to talk about how they're gay. It only makes it so they won't get kicked out of the military for being recognized as gay. They aren't bringing up any extra drama, because they aren't showing off sexual promiscuity. Relax. The same rules apply between straights and gays as far as that's concerned. | ||
|
ChampionZerg
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 21 2011 06:33 Signet wrote: It's just a rationalization. We let couples get married where both partners are over the age of 50; they won't be having any kids. Besides that, the "financial incentive" for having kids is bring able to claim them as dependents on tax returns or to itemize expenses on them such as education or daycare (I think?). Difficult to argue that hospital visitation rights for your partner or joint filing status should be dependent on having children. I wasn't attempting to argue, nor is almost anyone arguing, against certain rights such as hospitalization visitation rights. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. User was warned for this post No idea why this poster was warned for stating his opinion. I am personally not opposed to gay marriage, but different opinions are perfectly legitimate and should not be supressed. User was warned for this post | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared. That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place? You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:50 ChampionZerg wrote: That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it? They shouldn't. If someone has a problem bunking with a homosexual, then they can GTFO out of the military. I'd rather kick out the homophobe than kick out the homosexual. | ||
| ||
