Ask, Tell.

  • Thread starter Thread starter spagina
  • Start date Start date
Ironically, you'll hate my views because I'm far more involved in gay rights issues than you, although I take a more realist approach to it than this idealistic crap.

There is no logical reason to serve as an openly gay military member. You can't even openly serve as a fully heterosexual military member with all of the "activities" that go with it. The military would just as soon discharge you for having straight sex as gay sex.

Gays approach their rights in an illogical manner overall. If they focused on making headways into changing the legal marriage structure in government, as opposed to completely trying to subvert established social and religious structures, they'd be far more successful in their quest and would make a hell of a lot more leeway.

Ironically, government is what's screwing them over, and will continue to screw them over, because DADT is mainly an issue for idiots to focus on. The real meat of the civil rights issue is something that even democrats don't want to touch and will continue to repeal and vote down for years to come.
 
I'm for getting it done intelligently. The actual vote was merely a political ploy, which I'm generally against.
 
Wow are you really this dumb are am i being uber trolled?


Answer me this, How is it reasonable to kick someone out because of their sexual preference in bed in the privacy of their home?

you do realize that there are closeted gays in the military as is right now>?
 
So where do you bunk the faggots? Do they go in with the other females, or do they stay in with the real men?
 
You obviously let your small mind get into the way of logic.

Historically, marriage was a matter for the church. It became an issue for the state when the state decided it could tax the event, and the church decided it was ok to intermarry within a family, which started to create a burden on the state. (you probably have a pretty good grasp on THAT concept)

Again, "marriage" is a biblical reference, and as an atheist, I think it would be better to refer to a "State Licensed Union of The Heart", or "SLUTH" for short.

Being as open minded as possible, you would then be able to refer to your goat as your "SLUTH" partner.

We would all understand, and your goat would have all the benefits of your civil union without bringing anyone's religious beliefs into it....
 
I'm cautious about political hacks trying to force things on the military. Their agenda is merely to be reelected. Since the top brass is on side to making the change, I see no need to try and score political points by trying to pressure them into doing something too quickly, particularly in a timeframe where our resources are stretched.
 
Way to dodge my question Neo

Plus don't compare a goat to LGBT marriage. And like i said i dont care about whatever you call it, Marriage or Civil Union. Just give them their rights like anyone else.

So when are you going to answer my question? Or are you still steadfast in protecting your bigoted bridge you troll..
 
I'm not going to say it's reasonable, but you really need to read and understand the UCMJ, being in the military takes a lot of things away from anyone who joins. As of right now, there are a couple of different articles about sex and how certain acts are illegal...
 
Right now they are assumed to be "normal" and are bunked with other "normal" males.

Would you want to shower daily with a faggot?
 
I understand what your saying, but from what i understand the rules are somewhat vague. Plus the whole repeal is mostly to change how its "ok" to discharge someone based on sexual orientation or taste.
 
First, what rights are you/they being deprived of? Name them, fucktard, or just wander off. The Constitution does not deal with marriage. I have never seen a Federal Marriage License, or Federal Certificate of Civil Union.

It is a states rights issue. Go find a state that will recognize that union, or fight for a change in the state where you live. If the GLBT's had fought for civil unions instead of "Marriages", in most states the issue would have been resolved long ago.

Now bugger off, you twitt.
 
I might have gotten off topic but werent we talking in part about Gays in the military??? Gay marriage is its own seperate beast that if you want we can argue about in a seperate thread

Now how is Gays in the military any different than the inclusion of African-Americans, Asians,etc into the ranks?? People use the same tired remarks of " blah blah blah units will fall apart if blacks/women are able to serve" As a matter of fact the military has yet to fall apart because of this.


So why is it such a big deal if Chad happens to be gay and in a unit in Iraq/Afghanistan if he is doing his job just as well as anyone else?
 
As I have said before, I do not have a problem with who serves in the military, and what their sexual preference is. My standard would be "Don't tell, because I didn't ask". I don't care. I don't want to hear it.

There seems to be an issue because of the proclivity of some non-heterosexuals to proclaim their preferences. There also seems to be an issue with some heterosexuals who proclaim their sexual conquests.

For both, I would, again, institute a "don't tell, because I didn't ask" policy.

There are some mission critical situations where I would not mix sexes, just from a logistical or strategic standpoint.
 
Back
Top