Knew Stuff Like This Was Coming After DADT Repeal

The only thing I can come up with that comes close to a reasonable argument is because groups 1 and 3, and 2 and 4 can't cause pregnancy, while groups 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 can.

(My wife was enlisted in the Navy, she's seen all kinds of crazy ***people have tried to get back out. I can easily see people getting the bright idea of *** each other to get pregnant in a desperate attempt to get back out, regardless of whether it's worked in the past or likely to work in the future.)

I was in California, and we had some days off. A couple guys went to the beach, got drunk, and fell asleep in the Sun. Got REALLY sunburned, and actually couldn't work very well for a few days.

They got charged.

/anecdote

I have an idea. Instead of letting 535 congresspeople duly elected by the citizenry, the President, his Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs dictate appropriate policy regarding equal treatment under the law (not to mention the courts, who have already ruled against this BIGOTED policy), lets just get a thousand or so new recruits stationed in Georgia somewhere who are already trained by American pop culture to call each other *** have a voice vote?

Fair? Sure would be according to the posters arguing in the style of "Eric Cantor's Coded Republican Talking Points for Dummies."

LOL, whine all you want. You're still in denial.

Can anyone think of something that a gay person could do now that couldn't be done before the repeal. Is it just being able to say "I'm gay."?

There is no way there are "Flamers" in the military. Right?

I can see this going on at the naval bases around the world...

That's the gist.*

Edit: *From my experience and understanding.

Yeah totally. I totally trust the government to make all the decisions that affect my life for me. I don't worry when Congress is on the job!!

Wait...

Edit, PS: Net Neutrality

I dunno.
you seem to be looking at this weird.
this repeal isn't granting anything new to these people.
they are just removing the stipulations that would lead to punishment.
it isn't about gay people getting extra rights but getting the same rights as everyone else who is serving :/
I really don't know the specific constraints of DADT(like what exactly you have to do to get booted for it), but I mean...yeah you won't get booted for sexual preference is the big thing :/

That's true. I guess the real issue is more like:

Your individual preferences vs. the effects of those preferences* on other people.

*Whether or not they "should" effect people doesn't matter.

Right. It's easy to forget that, when A. them hiding that fact makes them inconspicuous, and B. a lot of people ARE arguing against the repeal based on hate/ignorance.

I guess DADT is almost more of an enforced social etiquette than anything else.

Kind of like a parent saying something like, "Billy, I know you really like baseball. But not everyone does. If you find out that the people around you don't like it, don't talk about it."

Of course this is more serious and important than a kid and some cards.

I actually went and read through DADT and it seems like it's obsessed with the core function of gay sex :/
it tags on if you say you are gay you can be booted under further inspection and that you can't be married essentially.
so that means LGBT servicemen/women couldn't get married to their possible partner within the constrains of DADT.
so I guess that could be considered to be one thing that was granted.
:D
repealing DADT granted LGBT in the armed forces to get married without termination :/
-bolded was for the anon dude wolfpack lol

Well, since getting married is a part of public record, not to mention your own service records, getting married is kind of like saying it.

Also, many military laws in that regard are written that way. Like the post about non-missionary position sex. I don't recall if that's absolutely true, but I DO remember it referencing oral and anal sex as a forbidden.

yeah you could say that.
which is why it was repealed i'd imagine.
good old hot button gay marriage issue i say!

Sure would be handy if most everyone got along, and if they didn't, they automatically found a way to at least leave each other alone.

i could understand their demands against gay sex in the work place...but meh.
i'd honestly say that should be held on the same standards as normal sex.
kinda like in the 50's with the black bathroom and the white bathroom.
not the same kind of racism but the same kind of "separate but equal" ideology.
they needed a mandate to say no normal sex AND no butt sex lol.
makes me think a lot of guys were getting ***-raped the way they make it seem lol.

NEITHER? I will NOT stand for that!!

But yeah, I think the whole situation is crazy complicated, and probably society isn't at a point where everyone, or even a good majority, will be happy. I think treating everyone the same way is the best way to go - but I also know that there are a lot of people not ready for that. So...what to do? At least there are people thinking about it, evolving, questioning, learning, etc.

You're a turd.

If only we had some kind of legislature that said your CO wasn't allowed to ask you if you were with a same sex partner. That legislature should also mention that you don't tell them.

I don't have any personal investment in this arguement. I will never join the military and I don't believe in marriage for those who don't have a religious investment in the process (note: I'm not against marriage for anyone, I just don't think it's the next progression to a serious relationship).

I do, however, have a vested interest as a taxpayer. I have a friend who has been seperated from his wife for years but they still go through the motions because they get money for it. Before you get mad at him in particular I would like to point out that it is outrageously common in his branch of the military. I also know someone who is closeted and gay who married a female (who was also gay) because they were friends. The inherent benefit was that they not only got a stipend on their salary but they would pay for her to be stationed with him. She gets a paycheck monthly being the military does not expect her to be able to hold down a long-term job while traveling from base to base AND her travel expenses are paid for while she sees the world one base at a time.
I already have to pay for a large portion of people who fraudulently manipulate wellfare and unemployment because they are too lazy (not to mention soon to be medical expenses). A friend of mine from Kansas once told me that his parents struggled to get any federal assistance for their farm. I know of, or hear of, dozens of people a year who I am either only one friend away from or one family member away from; who get food stamps or assistance just to suppliment their money. "We aren't getting married because she files the kids still. We'll get married when they're 18". Hell, Russell Tyrone Jones (ODB aka Dirt aka Dirt McGirt) was a famous rapper who made millions and there is a video of him walking into wellfare to collect a check.
I already have to pay for the retirement of people, knowing that the same service will most likely not support me when i get old.

I also want to clarify one thing: I don't like straight people stealing my tax money when they don't deserve it, either. I don't approve of my straight friend lying about his marriage any more than i do the gay one. I just view this as another way to take the money of the working man and give to those who con the federal system.

Terminus, I read your lengthy post on Page 1, and although I disagree with what you said, I like how you said it. You presented a fair argument, and a rational one.

I would like for you to consider this, though.
The rationale you used to condone/support the DADT policy could be applied to anything.

Soldiers have to spend months in inhospitable conditions, in close quarters with others who were previously strangers, maintaining constant vigilance, and representing one's nation proudly while following orders that could result in an untimely death, every moment of every day. You're absolutely correct. There's no denying this. And those are inherently stressful situations, that really no one should have to endure. It's extremely taxing and stressful and unhealthy, and I do not envy the soldier.

But what if blonde-haired people stress me out? What if people with freckles stress me out? What if Jews stress me out? What if vegetarians stress me out? What if New York Yankees fans stress me out? What if Asian-Americans stress me out? What if short people stress me out? What if left-handed people stress me out? What if people with hairy arms stress me out?

I'm hoping that you see my point and the flaw in your argument now. We can not condone segregation of any type, anywhere, if we truly wish to be a free and enlightened people or nation. The possibility that homosexuals might stress out the already-stressed heterosexual soldiers is irrelevant. A soldier's job is to follow orders and defend the people of his/her nation, and that includes ALL the people of that nation, including the left-handed ones, the ones with freckles, the short one, and yes, the gay ones.

Thus, the gay person has just as much of a right to serve in the military, and it's completely irresponsible for the government to say s/he can not. There are a lot of potential benefits for soldiers who live and complete their service: college tuition, significant clout on a resume or job application, Veterans Administration services, and much more. It would be (I can't believe I am gonna use this word) unconstitutional to exclude citizens from the military based on sexual orientation. If the foundation of the USA is freedom and the pursuit of happiness ... then a young gay person with a dream to serve in the military, risking his/her life in the balance, in order to secure a college education and a more stable future ... we CAN NOT, and MUST NOT deny that person his/her dream, solely because s/he is gay.

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.
Only a coward would allow himself to believe that a gay person can not serve his country as well as a straight person.

okay I just wanna say this.
1st off I can't tell you how many people i've seen discharged from Basic training because they said they were "Gay" and the truth of the matter is they weren't gay. OH BOO HOO the people who sign up to join the military and can't go thru basic training are no longer able to have an easy scape goat to get out. so yes this DADT needs to go away!

I'll agree with the heads of the military on their viewpoint on the bigots that have a problem serving with homosexuals, the military isn't the place for them, so if there's people that won't join because of it, so be it. Our armed forces is measured by the technology, not the number of weapon fodder we have.

Oh and as a citizen of Virginia, *** that representative, he like the governor and the attorney general know nothing of the constitution.

lol preaching.
I agree with the sentiments.
separate but equal hasn't been a very good idea for a long time

Firstly and importantly, is that I would much rather have a better solution than DADT - I think it's pretty archaic and sad and stupid. That being said, I also feel bad because there ARE some good reasons for it - depending on point of view, of course.

For me, I don't see DADT as "gay people < straight people," but as "much of society just can't handle it." Hopefully we can, sometime, but right now, it is a problem.

Anywho, you're right - you can say what I said about anything, and that sort of takes away from any merit it might have. At the same time, there is usually a general "line" in any group of people of socially acceptable behavior. For me, being gay is pretty far on the "good" side of the line. For others, it is not. It seems as if in the military, in general, it's more on the "bad" side of that line.

And really, I want everyone with the desire and ability to serve to have the opportunity to do so. The number one priority needs to be mission oriented, however.

Do I think most people can and do coexist between sexual orientations? From my experience, absolutely.

What I don't know is whether there is the potential for this (or any other topic - fitness, age, total force numbers, budget, etc) to drastically hamper our forces. If the answer is that it will not, then great! If it will, then another answer needs to be found (if only an interim one till all the haters get weeded out.)

Sorry... I am afraid this is long again. :(

PS I am left handed and have freckles... but I still want you to love me!

Another edit: tl:dr: 1. We must win. 2. We can decide how best to do it.

meh.
society both can and cannot handle it. :/

society is a pretty big concept.

in regards to "drastically hampering our forces", i'd imagine proxy wars on terror hamper our forces as well :/

This is stupid, as long as they get the *** job done what does it matter? So what if Paul is a Peter Puffer, what if he's a *** bad *** and has killed more insurgents then anyone else? Would you still think he wasn't able to do his job as say an Infantryman? Or even if he was an Army Ranger?

This is just HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE logic and if this guy does pass the bill. He could be robbing our forces of people who actually want to be there fighting for us.

That's the key - which way gets more, qualified people? Whichever it is, I bet the government picks the other one!

Those contrarian ***!

You have used FDR's quote so completely and utterly out of context, and so completely missunderstand what he meant that I am must facepalm.

/Facepalm

You are also preaching about an idealist world. In your world there are rainbows and everyone is nice and friendly. We do not live in that world. You know when we ended slavery the south didn't say "oh geewilkers I loves me some black folks now". No, they made their life hell. There is more to implementation than simply ideals. While you are correct in everything you have written you have to remember that regardless of what is right we must protect everyone. If the military had concluded that gays would destablize the military I would be completely against removing DADT. However, since the military actually concluded that implementation would be no issue, I think this guy is a complete ***. I guess he thinks he knows better than the chief of staffs who have only been in the military about 50 years and have done more and seen more than he has in his entire life, and probably the entire life of everyone in his family combined.