User Tag List

First 18262728293038 Last

Results 271 to 280 of 387

  1. #271
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    And still, there's absolutely no case been made which results in the military itself being better off after this policy is ended. Arguments to the contrary though, are myriad. The only benefit I see, in all my brutal honesty, is that gay civilians will get to feel better.
    What about the benefits that come with gays and lesbians being able to turn to the military when they have nowhere else to go and the simple fact that it is more fair? Is a fair military not a better military?

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27114.html
    The military is the nation's largest employer, offering job training and job security to its members.

    For many young gays who want to or are forced to leave home when they come out, the military would provide a refuge, a social structure and surrogate family much as it currently does for young heterosexuals who want to escape a stultifying home life or community.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvis/gop-platform-no-gays-in-t_b_123292.html
    "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is not an issue of one party versus another. It's a matter of military readiness and what's best for the country. The armed forces need all the qualified men and women they can get. It's a matter of fairness. Bigotry is bipartisan, but so are civil rights. It comes down finally to military readiness and fairness. What's fair for me is fair for you. Most of us, Republicans as well as Democrats, gays as well as straights, see that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #272
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    What about the benefits that come with gays and lesbians being able to turn to the military when they have nowhere else to go and the simple fact that it is more fair? Is a fair military not a better military?
    If they're in a position where they think the military is their only way out of a desperate situation, I think it's the least of their worries.

    And I don't think it would increase the effectiveness of the military to encourage such troubled people to join in greater numbers.

    And no, a fair military is not a better military. Even if you repeal don't ask don't tell, it's one of the least fair organizations you can find, for good reason.

  3. #273
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    If they're in a position where they think the military is their only way out of a desperate situation, I think it's the least of their worries.

    And I don't think it would increase the effectiveness of the military to encourage such troubled people to join in greater numbers.
    What are you talking about? Most of the young people who join the military do so because it is the best option available to them given their circumstances. That is true straight or gay.

    What about this...

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-may-end-militarys-ban-on-gays.html
    Even a group of some 100 retired generals and admirals recently appealed for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be scrapped.
    Don't you think it is possible they might know what is beneficial to the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    And no, a fair military is not a better military. Even if you repeal don't ask don't tell, it's one of the least fair organizations you can find, for good reason.
    What are you talking about? How is the military unfair? Truman integrated the army in 1948, a good 20 years or so before the Civil Rights movement. The military has a history of fairness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #274
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    What are you talking about? Most of the young people who join the military do so because it is the best option available to them given their circumstances. That is true straight or gay.
    The reason everyone does anything is because it was the best option available to them at the time.

    This doesn't mean it's a good idea to encourage hopeless outcasts to join a fighting force.


    Don't you think it is possible they might know what is beneficial to the military?
    There are those in the military who disagree, so let's not have a link war.

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    What are you talking about? How is the military unfair? Truman integrated the army in 1948, a good 20 years or so before the Civil Rights movement. The military has a history of fairness.
    Question the motivation. Do you think it was done out of

    a. Fairness
    b. Advantage to the military as a whole.

    The day I perceive it as an advantage for the military as a whole to allow homosexuals to freely disclose their preference is the day I'll be behind the policy.

  6. #276
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Question the motivation. Do you think it was done out of

    a. Fairness
    b. Advantage to the military as a whole.

    The day I perceive it as an advantage for the military as a whole to allow homosexuals to freely disclose their preference is the day I'll be behind the policy.
    I think it was done out of both. And this isn't just about allowing gays to disclose their sexuality but to make sure they aren't fired simply for being gay.

    If you want an argument for why it would be beneficial for the military to appeal this policy now, then consider this. First there is no evidence to support keeping the policy. Second, the polls show that most Americans are in favor in doing away with the policy. With those two facts in mind, how many American's do you know who are jumping to work for an organization that openly discriminates against a certain group? The number of Americans who are against this policy are increasing every year. If the military keeps it, there is a good chance it will come to actually hurt future recruitment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I think it was done out of both. And this isn't just about allowing gays to disclose their sexuality but to make sure they aren't fired simply for being gay.
    Oh, idealists and their obsession with intent, and ignorance of reality. I've heard no mention of policing the gays to make sure they aren't loud and proud. Would you support an anti-flamboyance clause?

    If you want an argument for why it would be beneficial for the military to appeal this policy now, then consider this. First there is no evidence to support keeping the policy. Second, the polls show that most Americans are in favor in doing away with the policy. With those two facts in mind, how many American's do you know who are jumping to work for an organization that openly discriminates against a certain group? The number of Americans who are against this policy are increasing every year. If the military keeps it, there is a good chance it will come to actually hurt future recruitment.
    I've been over this in this thread. Firstly, an abstract poll to the general population is not asking Redneck Jim USMC if he'd like Poofter McKenzie to be his bunkmate. Secondly, there's a counterpoint, as someone else pointed out--You can't deny that some country rough boys will refuse to join if gays are allowed to openly serve, and country rough boys are exactly the guys I'd like to see on the front lines.

  8. #278
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Oh, idealists and their obsession with intent, and ignorance of reality. I've heard no mention of policing the gays to make sure they aren't loud and proud. Would you support an anti-flamboyance clause?
    You are quite the cognitive miser. I support the policies for policing misconduct that are already in place. And those policies would cover "flamboyance".

    I've been over this in this thread. Firstly, an abstract poll to the general population is not asking Redneck Jim USMC if he'd like Poofter McKenzie to be his bunkmate. Secondly, there's a counterpoint, as someone else pointed out--You can't deny that some country rough boys will refuse to join if gays are allowed to openly serve, and country rough boys are exactly the guys I'd like to see on the front lines.
    The recruitment argument has long been a draw since there is little evidence on either side of exactly how recruitment would be affected. However, you have stated the point I actually wanted to get to. Who do you want serving our country, the guy who is professional enough to work alongside gay people or Redneck Jim?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    You are quite the cognitive miser. I support the policies for policing misconduct that are already in place. And those policies would cover "flamboyance".



    The recruitment argument has long been a draw since there is little evidence on either side of exactly how recruitment would be affected. However, you have stated the point I actually wanted to get to. Who do you want serving our country, the guy who is professional enough to work alongside gay people or Redneck Jim?
    Redneck Jim. I read the book Black Hawk Down years before the silly movie was made, and something struck me (I'm not the only one). There are two kinds of soldiers, those who joined the military because it's the military, and those who joined because they had nothing better to do and/or wanted "money for college."

    Most importantly: One soldier from group A could take on ten from group B without breaking a sweat.

  10. #280
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I think it was done out of both. And this isn't just about allowing gays to disclose their sexuality but to make sure they aren't fired simply for being gay.

    If you want an argument for why it would be beneficial for the military to appeal this policy now, then consider this. First there is no evidence to support keeping the policy. Second, the polls show that most Americans are in favor in doing away with the policy. With those two facts in mind, how many American's do you know who are jumping to work for an organization that openly discriminates against a certain group? The number of Americans who are against this policy are increasing every year. If the military keeps it, there is a good chance it will come to actually hurt future recruitment.
    You can't poll a general population for instruction on creating policy for a specific group, and expect it to give you the correct course of action. Just look at Prop 8. And you also can't poll individuals on questions of bias, because nobody wants to admit they're biased or a bigot.

    I guarantee you, if the military had to vote on keeping DADT, and it actually counted, I think it would be upheld because of what I perceive of the military culture and who comprise it. Is repealing DADT the right thing to do from an idealistic and equality standpoint? Yeah I think it is. But is it feasible at this time, is it practical, is it worth the risks at this point in time, when in a decade or so the culture may be different and more tolerant? I'm not so sure. And the military isn't the institution I'd like to see take that risk.



Similar Threads

  1. Deafies to Hearies: "We don't need no stinking implants!!!!"
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 06:02 PM
  2. Dont Ask Don't Tell--Homophobia or Sexual Repression?
    By kyuuei in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 12:28 AM
  3. I don't want to end up with a guy who's just like my dad...
    By Queen Kat in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:49 PM
  5. What they don't tell you about eating boogers...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 10:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO