House Votes To Repeal DADT

Actually, if you're a professional paid for his time, and you're off the clock, you should be able to retreat to private quarters. And it has nothing to do with whether you "like" anyone -- that privacy should offer all the same security that's offered when women are isolated from men. It used to, before political correctness became more important than the comfort of our troops.

And it's hypocritical to characterize anybody's feelings as more "delicate" than the misfits we're trying to appease with this legislation. It's all PC bullshit. If more people had a real spine when it came to people's "delicate little feelings," we wouldn't be doing this to the troops just to accommodate a minority who just happen to have malfunctioning sex drives and a sense of entitlement.

 

Unless the job you signed on for entails something else.

Comfort = emotionality = irrelevance.

GET.THE.FUCK.OVER.IT.

Hypocriticy is applying different standards to different people, you fucking bigot. I don't ever need to hear from a grown ass man that his "feelings" are getting in the way of him doing his job. That's a bunch of pathetic, juvenile bullshit, right there.

 

Comfort = retention. Retention is relevant.

Hypocrisy is feigning concern for the feelings of members of a politically protected class while saying "tough shit" to good people who are effectively a captive laboratory for social engineering experiments.

 

It's your problem if you're too sensitive to withstand that. Not your employer's, and not society's.

I have no concern for anybody's feelings on this subject. The problem here is the amount of attention paid to everyone's irrational, emotional sentiments. Too much of that, and not enough "get the fuck over it and do your goddamned job." I don't care if the gays feel loved and included, and I don't care if self-rationalizing bigots like you are allowed your comforting little security blankets.

 

Why won't you call Nova "she" like she prefers?

 

Because, in perfect consistency with my entire stance on this subject, I do not care how Nova "feels" about it. And I'm sure the feeling is mutual. No reason for Nova to give two shits what I think, either. That bit of reciprocation is righteous and proper, as far as I'm concerned.

But really, that's not a valid comparison to the subject of gays in the military. You're just talking about superficial bullshit like the use of pronouns. Nowhere near as significant of a controversy as someones eligibility for employment with the government.

 

Newsflash....the military gets rid of "good" people all the time over trivial bullshit. I could write a book on how the military shoots themselves in the foot with hiring. firing, promotions, etc.

As far as retention I said this before.....there isn't one fucking military member (worth a shit anyway) who would not reenlist because of gays.
Will some kids not enlist because they might have to serve with gays?
Probably.....guess they don't want the job then....thanks for playing.
Next please! Sign right here.....

 

What is "eligibility"? Needs of the service determine eligibility for entry into an environment where people must share close quarters. Not political correctness. And this includes consideration of military retention factors.

The military is not a jobs program. People do not have a "right" to serve.

There is nothing wrong with heterosexuals who don't want to share space with blatant homosexuals. Everybody here would want some say in the matter of sharing their own bedroom with a gay stranger of the same sex -- people in the military won't have that. Why shouldn't they?

 

Can one legitimately object on the basis of race? Or tone of voice? Or flatulence?

 

This.

There will never be a shortage of recruits for the military. If nothing else, they will just lower the ASVAB scores - which are ridiculously low as it is.

 

More elaborate rationalization for pandering to ignorant bigots. Sexual preference has no bearing on one's ability to do the job. End of line.

Nor do military personnel have the "right" to be free from offense.

Nothing that you choose to accept as wrong, but that hardly counts as irrefutable fact. Regardless, the leap at issue here is from not wanting something to acting like a petulant fucking child and refusing to do your job because of it. Thoroughly unimpressive weakness of character that deserves zero accommodation.

 

Because women can get pregnant. That's the main, root reason for separate quarters and whatnot for female service members. To reduce pregnancies. Being pregnant renders a women incapable of performing her assigned duties, especially later in the pregnancy. Last I checked, two gay dudes can pack all the fudge they want and neither one of 'em will wind up pregnant.

Don't confuse an actual biological difference with a meaningless cultural one.

 

But those cultural differences are insurmountable. They apparently render able-bodied adults unable to do their jobs.

 

It's interesting that after all this the only invalid reason for rejecting a candidate is because he wants to be public about his homosexuality.

And this is interesting because the "needs of the service" argument in favor of gays is that we deny ourselves good soldiers by not accepting them. But suddenly any straight soldier who doesn't want to bunk next to a gay automatically isn't "worth a shit"? Disagreed. Some of the people who are lost will undoubtedly be better for the mission than some of the people who are gained. The difference is the cost of "political correctness."

And the gays who were really the best for the service are already in -- so in the end we're doing this to accommodate activists, and people who find it more important to be gay than to serve. After a bump in those numbers, I can't see how some people won't be uncomfortable about this.

 

Bigots are not good soldiers, employees, people, or mammals.

Irrational prejudice is a primitive, weak-minded human failing that should never be enabled or indulged.

 

I don't disagree with you for the most part.

But, there is a difference in my opinion. Except for Michael Jackson, most black people aren't going to be changing the color of their skin.

Many times you cannot tell someone is gay or heterosexual until they identify themselves.

 

Damn right. I'm a vet and I support the repeal of DADT. Don't speak for me Chest, you fucking bigot prick.

 

But, I don't.

 

I disagree. You're the only person who I've ever heard give that argument as the reason for separating males and females. Feminist interests would obviously scream bloody murder if women were integrated into male berthing -- and it wouldn't be because they're afraid of getting pregnant.

Your scenario presumes that the gay guys can pack fudge without without getting pregnant, while females would get pregnant. But the assurance here has been that the gays will not be having gay sex in the berthing areas, which means there's no chance of pregnancies since the rules also prohibit straight sex in berthing.

It's implied that we can't rely on rules against fraternization to keep women from getting pregnant (so we have to separate them), but apparently the rules are going to be enough that straights in the barracks aren't going to occasionally have to deal with two guys in their midst who are "sharing a bunk"? That's very reassuring.

 

Frankly, I don't see what all the hub bub's about.

 

You've no idea what you're talking about. "Feminist interests" have been doing their damndest to get women fully integrated in the military including co-ed basic training (which I cringe at), co-ed housing and women in combat zones.

 

you sir, are simply not paying attention - because you don't have to.

the far and away #1 biggest day-to-day risk factor for transwomen is the potential of being harassed for trying to use the ladies room. if you have ANY difficulty passing, it's more stressful than almost anything else you can do on a daily basis.

If what you argue is true, that would not be the case.

There ARE "family bathrooms" but they are usually one-seaters and those which are not are never the only alternative.

Who here is arguing that men and women should bunk seperately anyway? You.

Complete and utter bullshit. I never answer my phone while in the ladies room for fear my voice will out me. I have been directly challenged, back when i was first going full time, IN the bathroom on what my gender was (i was told I had "scared a little girl to death") and a lot of my sisters don't pass as well as I do now, and never will. They take a HUGE risk whichever bathroom they use. Specifically because they WILL be challenged if someone clocks them.

and there is NOTHING in this new policy which says anything about the use of bathrooms in the military - that's the most insane comment in this whole thread.
Use of the restroom by homosexuals is a non-factor in this discussion.

 

This succinctly describes the real reasons bigots fear the idea of non-heterosexuals serving without having to hide their sexuality in any fashion. The whole idea behind DADT was to keep the bigots ignorant of the many gays already serving in the military. As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss," and repealing DADT is effectively stripping them of that ignorance, hence their reaction to it. Frankly it's pathetic.

 

But I guess a lot of folks are having a hard time understanding the bold part.

 

I never said a soldier who doesn't want to bunk next to a gay isn't worth a shit. A soldier who quits over having to do something he doesn't like isn't worth a shit.

I can only think of one incident in my 22+ years when a soldier flat out quit because something upset him. An NCO with about 10 years in quit because some dirtbag got promoted ahead of him + everyone else.....which happens a lot in my career field, but I guess it pushed him over the edge.

 

I think so. I'm having a very difficult time understanding the fear and hatred in regards to it.

I personally hope that when the military creates new policy regarding gays in the military, which is something I believe they will have to do, I hope that the people like EP are shown the door with a dishonorable discharge for anything inappropriate they may do to openly gay men or woman in the military.

 

I dunno. If someone wants to pick up a gun, put on a uniform and defend the country I live in, then they're braver than I am and I don't give a damn who they have sex with.

But that's just me.

 

I heard a comedian once say "I don't care if they fuck chimps off-duty - they are protecting my ass." :santa_ok:

 

Bottom line for the several retards in this thread: Gays are in the military at every level. Always have been. Any soldier with 2 brain cells to rub together was aware of one or more gays serving closely with them. The only exceptions were the extreme bigots who needed the blind fold of DADT in order to function as a professional soldier should. This is no longer acceptable. It's a grown man's military now.

 

No-one is saying that.

I haven't seen anyone on Wordforge saying that soldiers should be discharged for simply thinking that homosexuality is a sin. They want to be small minded bigots, they can live their little lives like that all they want.

The instant that bigotry gets in the way of their duty is when they need to be booted. Not for being bigoted, but for being incompetent.

Many homophobes seem to think that criticism is a one way street, dishing it out, but then acting all offended when it is directed back at them. If they want to judge others, then they lose any standing to bitch when they are judged in return.

When has UA ever said that any group he dislikes should be legally discriminated against?

Because that's all policies like DADT ultimately come down to. The government deciding that it is too hard to fix the fundamental problem (soldiers who can't man up, get over their prejudice and do their fucking job) and instead getting rid of a smaller group whose personal sexual preferences don't affect their ability to perform in any way whatsoever.

I have seen you post a few times in the past about your views on how politics and the church shouldn't really intermingle, so I'm surprised you don't understand the difference here.