Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but what is gonna happen the first time a gay guy/gal brings his boyfriend/girlfriend into the room that the share with a, lets say, "Christian" soldier? Are they just supposed to suck it up and get over it?
"Well, if you want to go that route...the same logic could be applied to gays. Maybe they should just get over it as well. "Who cares if they complain? Let them complain." Heck, that argument could work both ways. Oh wait...but me saying that would make ME a bigot..right? And what exactly does that make you? "
read my previous posts....I have made valid points. Just because they dont coincide with what you think doesnt make them meaningless and pointless.
One issue you keep bringing up is Tricare, and how the domestic partners and spouses of gay service members will be covered. I mentioned this before - I believe that the federal government has already addressed this with DOMA. Until DOMA is repealed, I'm pretty sure they won't be covered.
People probably think you're a homophobe because of the nonsense you wrote about how it isn't fair for "Christian" soldiers to be forced to be around gay soldiers.
I was using that as an example, you are misrepresenting what I am stating and twisting it to support your own unsupported idea that I am anit-gay. And why would that not be a valid concern? Maybe some of you are anti-family, anti-heterosexuals, anti-Christians that have no respect for the rights and beliefs of others. Funny how those who are so unsympethetic to others expect those same people to be sympethetic to them.
And you are right, nothing will change as far as tricare is concerned until DOMA is repealed...and what a perfect reason to repeal it also.
Also, someone mentioned about fat people being allowed in the military...umm, no...if you are fat and cant pass a PT test you get reprimanded.
"Well, if you want to go that route...the same logic could be applied to gays. Maybe they should just get over it as well. "Who cares if they complain? Let them complain." Heck, that argument could work both ways. Oh wait...but me saying that would make ME a bigot..right? And what exactly does that make you? "
read my previous posts....I have made valid points. Just because they dont coincide with what you think doesnt make them meaningless and pointless.
If a Christian gets offended by the presence of gays, then they need to get over it and suck it up. The same is true in reverse, as well.
There is no reason to enforce negative penalties for DADT, it's pure bigotry to keep it in place anymore. I understand the reasonings of "We don't care about your sexuality" and "Military is not the place to discuss one's sex life", but that doesn't mean that we should bar gays from serving openly in the military. It's about the person, not the sexuality. If we start banning based upon sexuality, it has to be equal across the board.
And before anyone responds to this with the "well gays are already living in close quarters"...I would just like to say that..yes, that may be the case..but what is gonna happen the first time a gay guy/gal brings his boyfriend/girlfriend into the room that the share with a, lets say, "Christian" soldier? Are they just supposed to suck it up and get over it? .
Yes, that is exactly what they are supposed to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthnbell
How "fair" is that?
It is precisely as fair as it is to tell someone who has a sincere religious opposition to interracial marriage, or to serving under a person of another race, to suck it up because the law does not permit the kind of discrimination that their religious beliefs would call for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthnbell
How is going to be handled if that soldier complains? And when other soldiers complain? Are they going to be told to just accept it? What about their rights? And it will happen, right or wrong, it is gonna happen. How will that be handled? Those are real issues. They may be difficult issues to discuss considering the sensitivity of the matter, but they will have to be addressed, fairly..on all sides. Steps need to be put in place ahead of time to deal with issues such as that before they happen.
Yes, and those steps will need to mandate an absolute prohibition on harassment and discrimination.
You asked in a post this morning that we reread your previous posts on this topic. So I came all the way back to this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthnbell
Exactly!
You will find that alot soldiers support "dadt" simply because...they dont care. They dont want to know and dont care to know. When the guys are deployed they are living in very close quarters...living together, open showers, etc...most just would rather not know whether the guy showering next to them is gay or not. It isnt anything against gays personally, they just dont want to know. What is wrong with that? Ever heard of "tmi"?
No one is suggesting that gays will be any freer to run around talking about their sex lives than the guy in the next bunk. As, someone pointed out earlier, most gays have gotten pretty good at "sizing up the audience" and would understand when to discuss their boyfriend and when to keep their mouths shut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthnbell
Also, you have to think about the ramifications. We lived in family housing on post, what kind of issues are going to brought up there, if a gay couple is allowed to live on post (unmarried) why cant a straight unmarried couple...
I think you're making an awfully big assumption here. If unmarried straight couples aren't allowed to share base housing, what makes you think a gay or lesbian couple would be allowed to? As long as DOMA is still in effect, no gay or lesbian couple can be considered married by any branch of our military, even if their home state is Massachusetts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthnbell
not to mention Tricare, and how is all of that gonna work in states that dont recognize gay marriage?? And if they are going to accomodate gays, why not transgenders as well? And will they be housed with the females or the males?
Look, dont ask, dont tell means "we dont care, dont know, & dont want to know". It doesnt mean that they cant serve, it just means that noone wants to know which way their door swings.
But you seem to ignore that it also means that if their sexual orientation is found out by any means, they will be ejected from whatever branch of the military they are in. THAT is what this is all about. It also means that the gay soldier, sailor or airman must live a lie, spend inordinate amounts of time and energy to make sure that lie is never discovered and, in too many cases, live a very lonely life, never having someone with whom to spend his or her life away from the stresses of the job.
But you seem to ignore that it also means that if their sexual orientation is found out by any means, they will be ejected from whatever branch of the military they are in. THAT is what this is all about. It also means that the gay soldier, sailor or airman must live a lie, spend inordinate amounts of time and energy to make sure that lie is never discovered and, in too many cases, live a very lonely life, never having someone with whom to spend his or her life away from the stresses of the job.
This. By God, this. This is what it's all about. I don't really have a problem with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" part, as it's really nobody's business what goes on in someone's bedroom. What I have a problem with, is that if someone IS found out to be gay, they're forcibly ejected from the military. That is wrong, and there is pretty much no defense for it.
You asked in a post this morning that we reread your previous posts on this topic. So I came all the way back to this one.
Did you read all the ones that came after that as well?
If you did, then you would see that I have no problem with them repealing dadt, I said just do it responsibly. That is what is so frustrating about it. People are quick to just repeal it without first putting in place guidelines that will protect gay families. They should be covered by insurance. If that means working out something with the states that each base is in or if it means supplimenting the soldiers pay to allow them to take out additional coverage (outside of tricare) to cover their families, then they need to do that. Put it in with the repeal, cover all areas. What is sad is that people are using this under the banner of gay rights when they obviously dont care too much about their rights if it isnt going to include the rights of their families as well.
Well, if you want to go that route...the same logic could be applied to gays. Maybe they should just get over it as well. "Who cares if they complain? Let them complain." Heck, that argument could work both ways. Oh wait...but me saying that would make ME a bigot..right? And what exactly does that make you?
There is no "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" for heterosexuals. Gays already must tolerate serving alongisde openly heterosexual soldiers. If this were not the case you would have a point, but as it isn't you don't.
Did you read all the ones that came after that as well?
If you did, then you would see that I have no problem with them repealing dadt, I said just do it responsibly. That is what is so frustrating about it. People are quick to just repeal it without first putting in place guidelines that will protect gay families. They should be covered by insurance. If that means working out something with the states that each base is in or if it means supplimenting the soldiers pay to allow them to take out additional coverage (outside of tricare) to cover their families, then they need to do that. Put it in with the repeal, cover all areas. What is sad is that people are using this under the banner of gay rights when they obviously dont care too much about their rights if it isnt going to include the rights of their families as well.
Thing is, you seem to be "over thinking' this. Gays are not asking for their partners to be covered under any insurance. Why would they, when the unmarried heteros aren't covered? If a hetero soldier has a girlfriend who happens to be pregnant with his child, is that girlfriend covered under military medical insurance? No. So why would the gay soldier expect his partner to be covered, when under current federal law they must be considered unmarried? The gay or lesbian soldier, marine, AF pilot or navy seaman is only asking that they no longer have to live a lie; that they no longer have to live in fear of being outed; that they simply be allowed to do the jobs that they enlisted to do without the worry that they will be ejected simply because someone saw them entering a gay bar, for pete sake!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh wait...but me saying that would make ME a bigot..right? And what exactly does that make you? 
"
