Military recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants

#77
#77
droski said:
ok then why do you think this will be a problem then?
Click to expand...

You just don't get it. I and others have tried to explain to you the issues. I guess until you serve in the military you will never get it. Opinions are like.... well you know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#78
#78
MontereyVol said:
Lawsuits, spill over, Joevols, political action groups being able to control how the military conducts business, Judges who think their rulings mean squat to the military.
Click to expand...

agreed, but to me that are relatively short term issues (joevols will either have to deal with it or quit eventually). if this was a time of peace i'd be lunacy to keep this policy IMO, but due to the current situation i can understand not wanting to do it right now.
 
#79
#79
7thgroupvolfan said:
You just don't get it. I and others have tried to explain to you the issues. I guess until you serve in the military you will never get it. Opinions are like.... well you know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i suppose i can't critisize any of obama's policies because i've never been president?

i've witnessed plenty of things in my life and i'm well aware how stupid 18 year old men are. that doesn't mean we can't expect more out of people.
 
#80
#80
droski said:
agreed, but to me that are relatively short term issues (joevols will either have to deal with it or quit eventually). if this was a time of peace i'd be lunacy to keep this policy IMO, but due to the current situation i can understand not wanting to do it right now.
Click to expand...

If we have to budget out money to accommodate, what other area do we sacrifice? Keep in mind everything is already being cut currently.

You're right though the timing is awful for the military. Honestly DADT should have just applied to everyone I have to admit I don't want to hear about hetero Joe's exploits in Thailand anymore than I want to hear about homo bill's exploits at the Blue Oyster.
 
#82
#82
MontereyVol said:
If we have to budget out money to accommodate, what other area do we sacrifice? Keep in mind everything is already being cut currently.

You're right though the timing is awful for the military. Honestly DADT should have just applied to everyone I have to admit I don't want to hear about hetero Joe's exploits in Thailand anymore than I want to hear about homo bill's exploits at the Blue Oyster.
Click to expand...

This is fair. DADT was a mistake from the start and kicked the can down the road, though. It can't go on forever, and there is no sense in just continuing to pass it down the line, making it potentially stickier and stickier.
 
#83
#83
IPorange said:
This is fair. DADT was a mistake from the start and kicked the can down the road, though. It can't go on forever, and there is no sense in just continuing to pass it down the line, making it potentially stickier and stickier.
Click to expand...

But this is the issue now. The Pentagon, having those wishing to overturn in charge, has asked for a slower implementation of this - to account for wartime conditions, adjustments in UCMJ, living quarters, and all other factors involved. The Pentagon was moving in this direction to have an orderly process to implement pretty soon. But those clearly with no concern over the consequences of rapid fire action could not wait. The Pentagon was not asking for a hold off for years. Unfortunately people put political agendas ahead of the sustainability of the military.
 
#84
#84
Let the military deal with it. I can say with complete confidence that most people in the military don't want openly gay people in the military.
 
#85
#85
Vol_4_Life said:
Let the military deal with it. I can say with complete confidence that most people in the military don't want openly gay people in the military.
Click to expand...

That isn't relevant. Discrimination is unconstitutional.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#86
#86
I still haven't heard a legitimate complaint outside of "someone might look at my wiener in the shower."
 
#87
#87
VolBurgers said:
I still haven't heard a legitimate complaint outside of "someone might look at my wiener in the shower."
Click to expand...

why do you need to be given anything. The only legit argument here is the fact that military senior brass continues to point to the fact that this will become a soldier morale issue. For those, like you, who have no idea that senior military brass types are generally very political, you need to understand that those proffering this defense understand fully well the implication here.

For my money, you do the right thing to the extent that you can, but telling a bunch of 35 year veterans, capable and bright ones, that they simply don't understand how this social issue is more important than battlefield morale seems arrogant and stupid.
 
#88
#88
IPorange said:
That isn't relevant. Discrimination is unconstitutional.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I am not as learned as most.

Could you point out that portion of the Constitution (or a binding decision thereof) which shows discrimination in any form to be unconstitutional? More pertinently, which section (or decision) offers similiar protections to homosexuals as have been afforded to other groups (i.e. minorities, women, etc.)?

I am certain that there are millions of felons who would love to cast their vote on a constiutional amendment to add such a provision. Wait a minute...
 
#89
#89
BigPapaVol said:
why do you need to be given anything. The only legit argument here is the fact that military senior brass continues to point to the fact that this will become a soldier morale issue. For those, like you, who have no idea that senior military brass types are generally very political, you need to understand that those proffering this defense understand fully well the implication here.

For my money, you do the right thing to the extent that you can, but telling a bunch of 35 year veterans, capable and bright ones, that they simply don't understand how this social issue is more important than battlefield morale seems arrogant and stupid.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

These are the same arguments which were proposed - and overran - in desegregating the military some 60 years ago.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be afforded the same protections which were bestowed upon African-Americans?

Seeing as how both groups are genetically predispositioned with their respective traits (race and sexual preference), shouldn't they be treated the same, as well?

P.S. - Please don't verify the scientific authenticity of my argument. That gets messy.
 
#90
#90
Tenacious D said:
Admittedly, I am not as learned as most.

Could you point out that portion of the Constitution (or a binding decision thereof) which shows discrimination in any form to be unconstitutional? More pertinently, which section (or decision) offers similiar protections to homosexuals as have been afforded to other groups (i.e. minorities, women, etc.)?

I am certain that there are millions of felons who would love to cast their vote on a constiutional amendment to add such a provision. Wait a minute...
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment, and there have been numerous rulings to back that up.

Of course, you KNEW that I would say that given your remark about felons.
 
#91
#91
Tenacious D said:
I disagree.

These are the same arguments which were proposed - and overran - in desegregating the military some 60 years ago.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be afforded the same protections which were bestowed upon African-Americans?

Seeing as how both groups are genetically predispositioned with their respective traits (race and sexual preference), shouldn't they be treated the same, as well?

P.S. - Please don't verify the scientific authenticity of my argument. That gets messy.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with all of this commentary, because I do believe the issue is somehow genetic. I'm personally for inclusion, but those at the top coming with the morale argument keep bringing it for a reason. I'm reasonably certain that all are aware of the integration history of the military as well.

I think they lean more heavily on the impact of women and their integration than they do African American integration for insight here. Frankly, if they'd bite the bullet and get it moving, this would be over fairly quickly. They all know that, but many stick to their guns so I'm left with deferring to their knowledge over everyone else's.
 
#92
#92
BigPapaVol said:
I actually agree with all of this commentary, because I do believe the issue is somehow genetic. I'm personally for inclusion, but those at the top coming with the morale argument keep bringing it for a reason. I'm reasonably certain that all are aware of the integration history of the military as well.

I think they lean more heavily on the impact of women and their integration than they do African American integration for insight here. Frankly, if they'd bite the bullet and get it moving, this would be over fairly quickly. They all know that, but many stick to their guns so I'm left with deferring to their knowledge over everyone else's.
Click to expand...

Leaving the decision / implementation to the best judgment of those military leaders whom we've trained, entrusted and tasked with the execution of our military strategy, huh?

That's just crazy enough to work.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top