|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2002 : 12:06:28 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for the answer Trish, I understand now what you're saying.
As for rights, I'll leave that to a combat veteran of a "good" war to answer:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/BillRights_ZR.html
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2002 : 03:09:53 [Permalink]
|
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Is your speech here or anywhere censored?
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think Solly covered this fairly well. Yet it would seem the liberal side of the house would like to rid us of this amendment. Do you support 'gun control' legislation?
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
A house'd be much nicer than some of the barracks I've lived in. Especially considering some of them were condemned by the local state/county/city governments.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You've never had someone enter your room, go through your drawers, wall locker (closet), refridgerator, etc, have you? That's one of those things that military members give up, while living in the barracks, barracks room are subject to search without notice - it's generally called an inspection.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Why do you think so many of us didn't like the idea of military tribunal? Courts martial are conducted under slightly different regulations.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Seems the military is allowed this one, for the most part. It's actually not subject to this amendment, but rather the UCMJ.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Hmm, what can I say. Most CO's will attempt to settle something, there really isn't such a critter as a civil lawsuit in the military.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Office hours, not requiring courts martial can result in confinement to quarters (for upto 3 months), loss of up to 1/2 military members pay. This is without trial, decided by your CO.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Seems this is the most forgotten of the Amendments. The constitution defines the rights given to the government by its citizens. We've forgotten this, and this must be remembered. (I'll agree with Zinn there.)
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Hmm, seems this is another forgotten amendment.
This is an important document. Sadly, people are neither required to read nor understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. This is a failure of the citizenry, it is our duty and our responsibility to know what our rights are and to defend those rights. Remaining in ignorance of our rights, basic to all citizens, is the easiest and quickest way to lose our rights.
No one promised that everyone would have an easy life. Its a nice sentiment, but that is all the concept is. People can also get up off their fucking asses and go find a fucking job and bring home a fucking paycheck. People need to take responsibility for themselves, and quit fucking whining that the fucking world owes them something. The only thing the world owes anyone is that which they earn. Yeah, I'd like a better paying job, well whaddya know, I'm going back to college and working on my bachelor's degree. When I started as an illustrator no one told me that my job would disappear in 8 years, no one guaranteed that my job would always be there. No one guaranteed the company I worked for wouldn't go belly up. I chose my job, or stumbled into it really, and it's gone. There aren't positions for technical illustrators, why, advances in engineering programs have done away with the necessity for an illustrator. Why pay me to create an iso when the computer program does just as good a job in a fraction the time? Who says that a company has to keep me around, and why? Why waste the money? I'm out, the computer program is in. I have a couple options, bitch and whine about poor me, or get up off my ass and do something about not being able to find a job. Like, oh, working a job I never would have considered four years ago for 40% of what I was earning and going back to school, again, for the third time. Oh, and to make up that 40% loss, I'm looking for a second job, maybe I'll find one, especially with the bloody season coming up.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 18:47:11 [Permalink]
|
It's good to see some actual soldiers (ex or otherwise) responding. I was feeling like the lone voice here.
Didn't one guy call me 'dangerous' in a post? Yeah, I'm for allowing anyone who wants to serve regardless of who they like to fuck, and I'm for enforcing the law for EVERYONE, no special treatment for anybody.
Sounds terrible. Nothing more dangerous than equality, huh?
I do disagree that the military isn't a microcosm of the outside world. It is.
In fact, the military is the United States' test bed for social change and therefore has LED THE WAY for equal rights.
For example:
Desegregation of the military came years before it did in the civilian world. Blacks were still drinking in seperate fountains when the desegregated units fought in Korea.
Women certainly don't suffer from a pay disparity in the military like they do even today in the civilian world. Long before there were women CEO's there were women commanders.
It is a microcosm because it reflects society at the time, but is usually blown way out of proportion. Like when Burmeister killed those two black people in NC, there was a huge public interest in skinheads and neo-nazism at the time. It's like the sensation created by a crooked cop or priest. People are more harsh on soldiers (and hold their attention) because they expect more from them.
The military is rife with gang problems right now. So is the rest of America. I saw one dipshit (I doubt he even knew a gang member let alone joined) get booted out of Intel school for acting like a gang asshole. There are drive-bys on Ft. Campbell and Ft. Bragg pretty often. Armed robbery on Ft. Campbell exceeded that of it's host city, Clarksville, TN. Much of it linked to gang activity.
Which makes a good point about housing people in such proximity to each other. The military world is like the civilian one times ten. Civilians lose a little privacy at the gym, soldiers lose ALL of theirs daily. Civilians get a slap on the wrist for all but the worst crimes, soldiers can ruin a career in the first year of service with a minor fuck up. You can get yelled at for being late, we can be confined to our barracks room, under guard. Civilians may get an adverse review, we can get ground into quivering jelly with PT for punishment.
What you think of as a minor infringement of privacy that's acceptable (as long as it's by your particular lobby) is a major fucking deal in a barracks environment.
That's why we point out your lack of service. Not to seem superior (well I think so, but I'm an asshole from the Charlie Beckwith school of war) but to point out that you just don't comprehend what it is to live like that. I don't pretend to comprehend what it is like to live as a poor, inner city black dude. Or an Afghan woman. It's just not a world you could understand without being there for yourself.
There is simply no comparable experience you could draw upon to connect with us here.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 22:33:58 [Permalink]
|
You make some good points regarding desegregation Solly. Also, you're more likely to find interacial marriages on a military base without the discrimination than you encounter in the civilian community.
Interesting about the gang problems on base. We had a problem with a young Marine that brought a couple of gang friends onto the base and into the E Club. They must have thought they had enough of a racial advantage to start a fight. Two Marines were attacked by these individuals and badly wounded, Orange County Sherrif decided to wait until the Marines had finished with these two young men before hauling them off.
I wonder if this is currently a service wide issue or an Army issue.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2002 : 07:33:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wonder if this is currently a service wide issue or an Army issue.
I hear in some of the bigger bases, like Norfolk, the Navy has similar gang problems, but it hasn't gotten around to any of my areas yet.
-me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 03:33:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Have you ever been in the military? If not, you can not say or even begin to determine what is detrimental to the armed forces.
Okay, I may overstep my bounds here, but why in the hell is a person that has NOT served in the Armed Forces incapable of having a meaningful opinion concerning ANY policy of their/our military? Are average citizens incapable grasping some great mystical military mindset, or are those in the Armed Forces simply above all of us sheep requiring their noble protection? Are we collectively that stupid?
Trish, please, I know you know better than this. By this statement you have made our Constitution, and Government representing the people irrelevant. The question here concerns policy, not strategy. Upon posting the Bill Of Rights, you asked if our speech was censored. The answer is an emphatic, “Not yet!” However, your intent to do just that is obvious. Furthermore, you seem to wish to restrict our right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”, by removing the voice of many good men and women that want to serve their nation with honor and with excellence.
Look, we all realize that removing discrimination from the military is not a simple task. Perhaps some would like to change policy in one swift stroke of the legislative pen, but that would be foolhardy. Change within any organization takes time, and the military is no exception. Didn't you mention that that change needs to begin in society in general, and through education?
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason for this thread is to discuss whether gays, lesbians, or bisexuals should be allowed to serve in the US military, but you seem to have made half of the very people that this issue most concerns completely irrelevant.
The question should be, “Are gay, lesbian and bisexual people capable of serving in their/our nation's Armed Forces?” And, other than a few very ignorant comments made by Solly, I know of no evidence presented to support the case to the contrary. Even throughout the Clinton era ‘queer hunts', the majority, (if not all), of those ‘outed' by military prerogative had previously served with distinction.
We all should realize that the Bill of Rights was drafted to protect our citizens from the excesses of government, and to further protect a minority from the whims of the majority. We, also, realize that upon entering the Armed Forces, we sacrifice some of our Constitutional rights. But, let's not forget that at NO time is the military above the laws of the American people. Unfortunately, in this particular case, there is no specific legislation protecting Americans from discrimination due to sexual orientation, as there is for race, national origin, gender, physical handicap, and religion. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals can legally be denied such basic human needs and rights as a roof over their heads, basic employment, employer benefit packages, and serving freely in OUR Armed Forces, simply because of who they are attracted to.
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 05:07:08 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I may overstep my bounds here, but why in the hell is a person that has NOT served in the Armed Forces incapable of having a meaningful opinion concerning ANY policy of their/our military? Are average citizens incapable grasping some great mystical military mindset, or are those in the Armed Forces simply above all of us sheep requiring their noble protection? Are we collectively that stupid?
quote:
Have you ever been in the military? If not, you can not say or even begin to determine what is detrimental to the armed forces.
Tim, the above quote was in response to this:
quote:
Perhaps people who think like The SollyLama should be banned from participating in The Armed Forces because they, themselves, would each be a hazard to The Armed Forces.
It's not saying that the civilian community is 'incapable grasping some great mystical military mindset' but rather that there are things about the military that the civilian community can not understand. The military is not a pretty place of noble deeds and all the other garbage that is used to sell the military to the civilian community. It's a place where people are forced into situations that result in strong feelings and strong opinions on certain subjects. I would hope that you read further in my post where I point out that the military is responsible for taking all the crap that is brought by a bunch of individuals and forging that into a cohesive unit. That boiler room situation is not something I have ever seen in the civilian community - anywhere.
Trish, please, I know you know better than this. By this statement you have made our Constitution, and Government representing the people irrelevant.
No, I haven't. I've addressed an ad hominem against a military member made by a civilian that can not possibly begin to understand the life that is the military. Please, I hope you've read my post further than that first line.
The question here concerns policy, not strategy.
Yes, but a policy that has resulted in witchhunts. People's careers have been ruined by this policy. Before 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' the unofficial policy was 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. As long as the military member performed their duties no one really paid attention.
Upon posting the Bill Of Rights, you asked if our speech was censored. The answer is an emphatic, “Not yet!” However, your intent to do just that is obvious.
No. My intent is to say, that the military life is not something that you can necessarily understand without being in that situation. The military takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and follow the orders of the President of the United States and Senior Officers according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ supercedes the BoR for the military. This is not understood by the civilian community.
Furthermore, you seem to wish to restrict our right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”, by removing the voice of many good men and women that want to serve their nation with honor and with excellence.
No, again. I couldn't care less a persons sexual orientation. I'm begining to think you didn't read my post.
Look, we all realize that removing discrimination from the military is not a simple task. Perhaps some would like to change policy in one swift stroke of the legislative pen, but that would be foolhardy. Change within any organization takes time, and the military is no exception. Did |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 19:09:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason for this thread is to discuss whether gays, lesbians, or bisexuals should be allowed to serve in the US military
--You obviously didn't read the opening post. I picked a single example- housing - and asked what do you do when you introduce a 'third' gender into an establishment only set up for two?
Not once have I suggested that gays be banned from service. In fact I've said several times that I oppose the current policy of exclusion.
My point is that to continue to enforce the current EO policies, which civilians may or may not understand completely, you would have to address the issue of sexual harrassment and EO in housing them in barracks with the same gender. Whether you want it to be or not, it's an issue. One no different than men and women being housed together. But that is easier to deal with because of the obvious differences in the genders. How do you deal with that when allowing gays to serve openly. Key point there. I'm for that- no hiding or witchhunts.
My question is how do you house gays with straits without violating the intent of the current policy?
So far, the argument has been:
Ignore it, fuck strait soldiers rights. Anyone who would dare enforce EO regulations on THIS PARTICULAR lobby must be a homophobe and just plain evil.
So you're against equal enforcement of the law for this particular lobby? If you want to be accepted, you must accept the rules everyone else follows.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 06:13:00 [Permalink]
|
Trish, please, understand that I did read your posts completely, and I found no problems, other than your opening statement posted 9/8/2002. In the past, I have found your opinions to be well thought out, and very responsible. I have a great deal of respect for all those ideas you have previously shared. In this case however, you have left me with a very unsettled feeling. Additionally, your motives for such a statement do not change the meaning of the words, and I certainly hope the meaning of those words is something other than what I feel I have read.
“Have you ever been in the military? If not, you can not say or even begin to determine what is detrimental to the armed forces.”
I take this statement at face value, and feel it suggests that American citizens without military service are not qualified, in your opinion, to have a voice in the policy or direction of our armed forces. I hope that this is not your intent, but, if my interpretation is correct, I vehemently disagree on this point only.
I am a very strong supporter of our armed forces, and in no way intend any depredation to our military. (And no, I did not serve. I attempted to enlist, but was denied service due to minor vision problems) However, I do feel strongly that a well informed public is capable of determining “what is detrimental to the armed forces.” We just have to keep in mind that a well informed public cannot dismiss the knowledge and opinions of those men and women that are serving, and have served in our armed forces. Furthermore, the armed forces, being an element of our democratic gov't, cannot dismiss the will, the laws, or the needs of the American people.
Let's not forget that many public officials elected by the American people have no military training or experience, but yet are required by the Constitution to oversee, regulate, seek appropriations for, and, yes, even command the armed forces, (Article I, Section 8 and Article II, section 2). Do we need to discuss a few of the greatest Presidents that never served in the military? There was Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Woodrow Wilson served as Commander and Chief throughout the First World War. Franklin D. Roosevelt was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Wilson during World War I. Before Roosevelt began his outstanding service in this role, he spent not a single moment in any military position, and later went on to serve as Commander and Chief throughout World War II.
I do not intend to belittle or to unnecessarily elevate any single person or their deeds, but to try to show that the United States Armed Forces serve this nation's people, and as you inferred, is a reflection of our society consisting of “the prejudices that are brought on board by the individuals joining the military” for the better, or for the worse. No American can be unjustifiably discounted when we are discussing the policies of any arm of our gov't.
Finally, Solly, I stand corrected. The reason for this thread is “The women in uniform thread failed to draw the kind of venom I expected. So how about this one?” I never did care for assumptions. So, ‘obviously' I did read your opening salvo, at least.
Isn't the ‘housing' issue, or can I say, the ability or inability of certain people to live together the major stumbling block of this ‘gays in the military' issue?
What is a ‘third' gender?
Did I infer that you “suggested that gays be banned from service?”
Have you ever tried living in an oilfield ‘doghouse' where sexual harassment runs rampant and unchecked by ANY authority?
That seems like a very good question, worthy of open minded debate free of vitriol and divisiveness.
And finally, who said that crap about denying ANYONE their rights? (THAT I must have obviously not read, but I do regret missing it)
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 10:19:15 [Permalink]
|
Trish, please, understand that I did read your posts completely, and I found no problems, other than your opening statement posted 9/8/2002. In the past, I have found your opinions to be well thought out, and very responsible. I have a great deal of respect for all those ideas you have previously shared. In this case however, you have left me with a very unsettled feeling. Additionally, your motives for such a statement do not change the meaning of the words, and I certainly hope the meaning of those words is something other than what I feel I have read.
Tim,
I tend to get frustrated with civilians that have never served in the military and have never studied or listened to the military point of view trying to determine what the military should and should not do. There is no understanding, in that instance, of the military or the pressure under which military personnel live. I will admit to an oversimplification of the issue in that statement, but I won't retract it either. Perhaps, explain further. Let's look at the feminist push for women in the military, from the outside and the inside.
Feminists pushed to have women in the military in more than administrative support roles. Feminism resulted, unfortunately, in the Army in a dropping of the physical requirements for service. In the Marine Corps women were allowed to qualify with the M16-A2 only as recently as 1985/86. Women were in Motor-T prior to that date. That means an effective loss of personnel if a unit is deployed. This will break-down morale within a unit. Someone has to pick up the slack for the missing Marines. It was only a few years prior to Women Marines getting to qualify with rifles that the Marines stopped using a separate chain of command for WMs. In 1993 WMs were finally allowed to participate in the offensive courses in bootcamp. In 1993 WMs were finally allowed to participate in using pugil sticks during bootcamp. In 1993 WMs were finally allowed to participate in the same training received by Male Marines. In 1996/7 Women Marines were finally admitted to Infantry Training School. WMs are still not allowed in a combat MOS, there are reasons both valid and invalid for that stance.
These changes did not come through the feminist movement - but rather came through WMs fighting for acceptance by their fellow Marines. It was feminism that restricted women to running no more than 1 1/2 miles in formation, lifting no more than 60 lbs (I'm sorry, when I pack in somewhere for a week - I carry more than that), all kinds of stupid limitations on women. Every WM that has fought to remove these stupid regulations has fought a battle that I haven't honestly seen fought in the civilian community.
Yeah, feminism may have gotten women serving in the military in a different capacity, but it wasn't feminism that fought and scraped for every shred of respect that women have fought for. Even now, Equal Opportunity is inhibiting the ability of women to become a cohesive part of the military. It a nice 'yippy skippy make me feel warm and fuzzy' response that accomplishes the opposite of what it was created to do. And there in lies the inability of someone who is not intimately familiar with the situation to understand or determine what is best in that situation.
It just seems that many civilians want the military to be perfect, spotless. It's not. But everytime an individual military memeber does something wrong it's the fault of the whole military. We walk a tightrope in that respect. When one is painted with honor, we all are, when one is painted with dishonor, we all are. You give up, to an extent, your sense of self in the military. Even though I may bash the Army, (bunch of dog faces that they are), I can't let an attack go unaddressed. If you even understand what I'm saying, an attack against one is an attack against all. Ask yourself, is Solly a product of the military asking him to do things that most civilians don't want to know about? I'm no |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 11:11:58 [Permalink]
|
I'm still wondering what is being really asked for here? Gays do serve in the military, gays have always been in the military. If they don't disobey the UCMJ there is no problem.
What is it that you want for them? Certainly not camouflage tutu's.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 18:12:40 [Permalink]
|
My question "what do you do with them?" may have been a bit broad. What I was doing was pointing out that to fully accept gays in the military you would have to make some policy changes. Not the least of which the current BAN on homosexuals. My example was housing, which falls into EO.
The current housing policy is only made for two groups, male/female, and totally ignores gays because they cannot be soldiers. The reason men and women are seperated in housing and not the chow line is because of issues of sexual attraction and the potential harrassment that may result. It is a pre-empitve measure. It's based on the paradigm of boy likes girl, wants to check out her naughty bits.
But the real world isn't that simple. So to house gays with strait folks would be violating the intent of the policy. How do you fix that policy to include openly gay people, in essence a third gender since they do not fit into the above paradigm, and not violate the intent of the gender based policy?
We don't house men with women because we suppose a sexual attraction. Gays, for all intents and purposes could simply be considered the other gender for simplicity. That leaves a clear violation of the policy.
People's rights come into it because the policy is based on the precept that a woman has a basic right not to be forced to shower with someone that might her sexually attractive (and vice versa). Do I really need to spell this point out? Ignoring the issue says that strait people do not share the same rights, as a group, that you are afforded by gender.
If gays want to be accepted as a group, then they should be held to the same standard as any other group. Equal enforcement of the EO policy demands that gays not live with straits for the same reasons men don't live with women now.
Rights are also an issue because you are talking about military life, which several people have tried to explain so far. There is just no real civilian comparison.
When I say policy, I mean UCMJ, which is the law. Law that can be summarily enforced with no presumption of innocence before guilt. Rolling your eyes at a superior is a criminal offense.
If a civilian pinches a secretary's ass, he might get fired. Probably a warning and maybe a transfer. Maybe nothing if it's he said/she said. But in the military....
Within 3 hours of my arrival at basic training (still in civilian clothes) I received a briefing that included:
"If a female accuses you of rape, you WILL sit in jail until you prove you didn't do it." Verbatim quote - it certainly sticks with ya.
A smile or wink is grounds for sexual harrassment. EO is strictly enforced (as well it should be) in the military. There are no second chances and usually one man as judge and jury. So it is a major deal in the military. Maybe civilians just don't grasp the seriousness of EO in the military.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 20:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm still wondering what is being really asked for here? Gays do serve in the military, gays have always been in the military. If they don't disobey the UCMJ there is no problem.
I could not agree more.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 20:44:43 [Permalink]
|
Try reading my posts. Look for the little ? looking thing. Those denote when a question is being asked. I found several after sentences in my posts.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 21:02:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So rather than proclaim that they should simply not be allowed in, I ask how you people think the issue SHOULD be handled?
--last line of the opening post. Try answering instead of avoiding questions.
The majority of the responses were to simply ignore the issue (mine used housing as a vehicle and assumed full acceptance of gays as being open). I pointed out that to ignore it would violate the intent of current policy concerning who showers with whom. My question was a request for suggestions as to how to modify the policy so that it incorporates gays as legitimate members while not violating the intent of current policy, and providing equal protection under the EO laws to everyone.
I asked because I hear alot of people pushing for letting gays serve (which I'm not at all opposed to) but have no useful input on just how to make that work. The vast majority of these people have no experience whatsoever with military life. I have and I can see some definite red flags. Not with a gay person's ability to excel as a soldier, but with the current EO and housing system.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
