Obama to call for repeal of DADT in State of the Union

[RedRalph]

Oh, believe me, it's taken me awhile to come to this POV. I still don't personally think the military should be the front for social changes. In fact, given the nature of the beast it would normally be best for it the be the last to change. But...it is going to happen, there is no doubt in my mind. Everybody should realise this, so let's just do it and get the adjustment phase out of the way so our army can be standing proud and tall when the ChiComs come gunning for us.

But that's exactly why I can respect you on this. It may not be your political or personal instinct to go along with this, but instead of making up ridiculous BS reasons why you don't think it should happen, you accept that it will, and accept that it should be gotten over with.

People disagreeing with me, I can handle, people refusing to accept reality and BSing me, not so much.


Listen to me, i sound like a New York Jew what with my phrasing.

 

[JollyRoger]

I can see it now. Gay guy makes pass at 11B10 and gets a knuckle sandwich. We end up kicking the gay guy out for sexual harassment and we also have to kick out the 11B for assault.

Isn't that the way it works now? Or does the knuckle sandwich guy get a pass because of the DADT violation?

 

[aneeshm]

Citation required. A misogynist in addition to a bigot apparently.

I could, at this point, call you a fool in addition to a fanatic. The reason I refrained from such infantile slurs is because I did not want to personalise the discussion. That's the last word I'm going to have on this topic, at least with you. I may re-open this when you have learnt what you need to about mature discussion.

Moderator Action: Please don't counter-flame. Report the post instead
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Formaldehyde]

These statements show a lack of understanding of asymetric warfare and of the actual MP mission.

No, not at all. It simply shows your lack of being able to comprehend what I actually write, and how willing you are to misinterpret those comments so you can better attack them.

The bottom line is that the military agrees with my assessment and disagrees with your own. Hence, MPs are not considered to be combat arms. And they likely never will be.

I don't care about 70% Americans, or any other number. The relevant opinions are those of the psychologists who have studied the dynamics of army units, and what effect they think this will have, along with the results of studies conducted on similar groups to see what effects it actually did have.

What makes you think these experts happen to agree with your own personal opinions in this matter?

[citation needed]

And why haven't all the military units of other countries which have managed to crawl past the provincial and hypocritical DADT policy of the US military had numerous problems as a direct result?

Yes, I did. In both cases, a majority of uninformed, fanatical, and closed-minded people with voting rights rode (or will ride) roughshod over the judgement of those actually qualified to make such a judgement.

You mean as the US military brass apparently did when implementing the past policy of forbidding gays in the military and the current policy of DADT? (Minus the voting part, of course.)

...I did not want to personalise the discussion.

By apparently calling those who disagree with you "uninformed, fanatical, and closed-minded"?

 

[aronnax]

Aneeshm, it will be economically sensible to kill off all the old, the infirm, the dangerously sick and the mentally challenge then let them live off the social security checks they receive that drains the state of potential money.

But we don't. Cause it violates the very basic precedents of Human Rights. Same goes with enforcing DADT (Defence Against the Dark Tarts).

 

[Mr. Dictator]

If you think sexual assault is a compliment, you need to talk to some ladies and see how they feel about getting their backsides pinched.

Regarding DADT. It's going to get repealed someday. I view it as a historical inevitability. So regardless of my feelings on it, let's...er...GIT 'R DONE now.

if you notice, no one mentioned sexual assault. "sexual harrassment" was used, but that's an "unwanted pass" in some circles. the term me and mobboss actually used was "making a pass"

would you feel sexually harrassed if a male soldier hit on you? let's say at a bar near base, he's never met you (so doesn't know you're straight)

and kudos from me also for being a realist, now if only you'd realize that civil evolution (tribes->city-states->empires->nations, and after that superstates) means the logical conclusion is a unified world

 

[Karalysia]

The best type of argument is one where your opponent runs away. Who said that? I think it was Mobboss.

 

[warpus]

He always does that when he loses an argument.

 

[bhsup]

if you notice, no one mentioned sexual assault. "sexual harrassment" was used, but that's an "unwanted pass" in some circles. the term me and mobboss actually used was "making a pass"

would you feel sexually harrassed if a male soldier hit on you? let's say at a bar near base, he's never met you (so doesn't know you're straight)

and kudos from me also for being a realist, now if only you'd realize that civil evolution (tribes->city-states->empires->nations, and after that superstates) means the logical conclusion is a unified world

Pinching someone's backside without permission is sexual assault. And yeah, if some fellow Marine had done that to me when I was still serving, I would have felt harassed and assaulted.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Pinching someone's backside without permission is sexual assault. And yeah, if some fellow Marine had done that to me when I was still serving, I would have felt harassed and assaulted.

please, you're missing almost everything i'm saying. reread what i said.

 

[MobBoss]

No, it's a rights issue. Even if the army says it would be bad for morale, tough. They probably said the same things about mixed-race regiments, and the precedent was set.

Except that people dont have a right to serve in the military. Its a selective service.

No, not at all. It simply shows your lack of being able to comprehend what I actually write, and how willing you are to misinterpret those comments so you can better attack them.

I had no need to misinterpret what you wrote.

The bottom line is that the military agrees with my assessment and disagrees with your own. Hence, MPs are not considered to be combat arms. And they likely never will be.

Actually, no. MPs are on the very edge that defines combat arms from combat support, and while they may not be combat arms, they are often engaged in direct combat itself due to the nature of asymetrical warfare. To ignore that fact is just silly.

He always does that when he loses an argument.

Good thing I neve lose an argument then.

 

[BasketCase]

Dude, being gay and being homophobic are not in any way comparable.

Being openly gay and openly anti-gay, however, are one and the same.

I have as much right to wear my opinions on my sleeve as anybody else. Would you prefer I keep my trap shut? Then you do the same. Voice your opinions and I will voice mine.

 

[useless]

Being openly gay and openly anti-gay, however, are one and the same.

I have as much right to wear my opinions on my sleeve as anybody else. Would you prefer I keep my trap shut? Then you do the same. Voice your opinions and I will voice mine.

I'm at a loss as to how you can equate homosexuality, which is a sexuality not an opinion, with an opinion and a view that is not only judgemental, but is also bigoted and has the same logic as racists who look down upon other races.

 

[RedRalph]

I'm at a loss as to how you can equate homosexuality, which is a sexuality not an opinion, with an opinion and a view that is not only judgemental, but is also bigoted and has the same logic as racists who look down upon other races.

Exactly. It's identical to saying being black is as bad as hating all blacks. Idiotic.

 

[Camikaze]

Being openly gay and openly anti-gay, however, are one and the same.

I have as much right to wear my opinions on my sleeve as anybody else. Would you prefer I keep my trap shut? Then you do the same. Voice your opinions and I will voice mine.

Saying that being openly gay and openly anti-gay is the same is like saying being black and being anti-black is the same. They are nowhere even close to being the same.

 

[bhsup]

Except that a choice of sexual preference has nothing to do with genetic pigmentation. Otherwise you guys would be correct.

 

[Camikaze]

Oh, I see, you're attempting to go with the archaic 'sexuality is a choice' argument. That was so 1950's.

 

[useless]

Except that a choice of sexual preference has nothing to do with genetic pigmentation. Otherwise you guys would be correct.

I take it that you chose to be straight?

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, every time I look at a gal

 

[useless]

Not only is your view backwards, but there is no evidence to prove it. Gay people don't wake up and suddenly like the same gender, are you seriously suggesting this?