B
BigBadWlf
Guest
The old if you cant come up with an actual reason for discrimination falsely compare homosexuals to pedophiles ploy
Upvote
0
The old if you cant come up with an actual reason for discrimination falsely compare homosexuals to pedophiles ployWell, if pedophiles were barred then it too is because of their sexuality. Sexuality is a broad term. If someone sleeps their way up the military ladder and is expelled for it then it is because of their sexuality also.
All said and done it is good that someone in the military is standing up for integrity. At least you cannot say he is ignoring corruption in the government!
There is never common sense involved in bigotry.Looks like that reality check just bounced. To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order. When that is your mindset then you will see the common sense of man and woman being made for eachother. The pro homo lobby does not see that. They think that their feelings dictate reality
Similar? heck they are identical.It's amazing how similar the arguments against letting gays serve openly are to those used against integration of the armed services.
I think so too. If the situation weren't so.. pathetic, it would actually be sorta funny. How does it feel guys, to be treated like a piece of meat?!What they don't really want to say is this:
"Letting homosexuals openly serve in the military will disrupt order and cause trouble because 'normal straight' soldiers will constantly be wary of the homosexual soldiers attempting to 'hit on' them or potentially that these homosexual soldiers will attempt to rape them."
There is never common sense involved in bigotry.
Worse for the pro-discrimination side…studies from countries that no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians in the military have shown that this has not led to any perceptible decline in operational effectiveness, morale, unit cohesion, retention, or attrition. Quite the reverse in fact…there has been a discernable improvement in the moral and military working environment. A significant number of commanders and soldiers, believe that these improvements are associated with the removal of discrimination policies fostering a working environment that is freer from the burdensome and unproductive consequences of hate, mistrust, and prejudice that are the true reasons for the compromised the integrity of units in the past.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to WalkingforHim again.While I think DADT should be gotten rid of. These results may not be so applicapble to us. Most of those countries aren't populated with idiots, fools, and misguided right wing homophobes.
So you are saying that being afraid of something causes being against it, and being against something means you are afraid of it? By that reasoning humanists are Christophobes and you have an irrational fear of General Pace. Just because your are against something or think it is bad does not mean you have an irrational fear or even fear of it.Strange, one would think if there was no fear of homosexuals, there would be no policy against them. Your logic doesn't jive.
If you do some research on the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy they give a pretty thorough explanation.So are you saying that homosexuals will disrupt the integrity and function of the ranks? If so, could you please explain how?
To bad the facts dont back DADT upSo you are saying that being afraid of something causes being against it, and being against something means you are afraid of it? By that reasoning humanists are Christophobes and you have an irrational fear of General Pace. Just because your are against something or think it is bad does not mean you have an irrational fear or even fear of it.
If you do some research on the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy they give a pretty thorough explanation.
If you do some research on the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy they give a pretty thorough explanation.
The success of the armed forces in pre-screening out gays and bisexuals from the 1940s - 1981 remains in dispute, and during the Vietnam Conflict some heterosexuals would try to pretend to be gay in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of gay men and women did manage to avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction. For example, in the 1950s - 1960s the Navy medical doctor Tom Dooley received national fame for his anti-Communist and humanitarian efforts in Vietnam. His homosexuality was something of an open secret in the Navy, but eventually he was forced to resign and the Navy conducted the first official study on sexual orientation and the Navy regulations and rules. The 1957 report, titled Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals (aka the Crittenden Report) found that gays were no more likely to be a security risk than heterosexuals and found there were no rational basis for excluding gays from the Navy, although it stopped short of recommending a change in the regulations because of society's social mores.
Beyond the official regulations, gays were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow heterosexual servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a "blanket party" and involved several other service members during the night in the barracks, who first covered the face of the victim with a blanket and then committed assault, often quite severely and occasionally even fatally. The introduction of "Don't ask, don't tell" with the later amendment of "don't harass, don't pursue" has officially prohibited such behavior, but reports suggest that such harassment continues. The degree of official and unofficial attempts to separate gays from the armed forces seems to be directly related to the personnel needs of the armed forces. Hence, during wartime, it has not been uncommon for the rules regarding homosexuality to be relaxed. Up until 1981 it was the policy of all branches of the armed forces to retain a homosexual, at their discretion, thus promoting the "queen for a day" rule which allowed a person accused of homosexuality to remain in the armed forces if they could successfully claim that their behavior was only a temporary occurrence. This especially became the case during the Vietnam War.
Well, if pedophiles were barred then it too is because of their sexuality.
If someone sleeps their way up the military ladder and is expelled for it then it is because of their sexuality also.
All said and done it is good that someone in the military is standing up for integrity.
At least you cannot say he is ignoring corruption in the government!
Looks like that reality check just bounced. To claim that military men have some sort of fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. They are concerned with keeping order and integrity in the ranks, and preserving function and order. When that is your mindset then you will see the common sense of man and woman being made for eachother. The pro homo lobby does not see that. They think that their feelings dictate reality
What they don't really want to say is this:
"Letting homosexuals openly serve in the military will disrupt order and cause trouble because 'normal straight' soldiers will constantly be wary of the homosexual soldiers attempting to 'hit on' them or potentially that these homosexual soldiers will attempt to rape them."
So we see now really what "disruptions" will occur when gays serve openly in the military. It's the straight soldiers that can't resist the urge to harass and beat on the gay men - not the other way around.
And we also see that when the military needs men, they stop caring about sexual orientation so much and put anyone they can get in the trenches.
Now, how does that jibe with the idea that allowing gays into the military disrupts order and discipline? Isn't war-time a time when discipline and order are in higher demand? Wouldn't then allowing gays to serve be defeating that purpose, if in fact that claim were remotely true?
Actually processing of chapter paperwork on DADT offenders (that's the process by which people are removed from military service) is down, in large part due to "stop loss" orders because we need every available troop for deployment. So the military brass, by doing so, is tacitly admitting lesbian and gay troops aren't a problem.
Lets throw over weight people in there to thats racist to ( messy) on and on we go were do stop no one knows.It's amazing how similar the arguments against letting gays serve openly are to those used against integration of the armed services.
Huh?Lets throw over weight people in there to thats racist to ( messy) on and on we go were do stop no one knows.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?