Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-18-2010, 1:47 PM Reply   
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/...pt=T1&iref=BN1
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-18-2010, 3:17 PM Reply   
As soon as John McCain opened his stupid mouth on this, I suddenly became twice as interested in seeing it repealed.
Old    Wellman (scwellman)      Join Date: Nov 2006       12-19-2010, 3:35 PM Reply   
About time. Now we can all move on.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       12-20-2010, 5:40 AM Reply   
WHO CARES!!!
Why is this even being brought up at this time?
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-20-2010, 6:17 AM Reply   
Any social legislation that governs the morality of the people who protect our country should be a concern to us all, especially since the law was repealed by people with such extensive military experience, such as Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, and Nancy Pelosi.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-20-2010, 11:38 AM Reply   
Seriously, why make time for civil rights? How mind-numbingly pointless. Think of all the things that could have been accomplished in the 60s if they hadn't wasted all that time. And don't get me started on women's suffrage - seriously what's the point?

Ron I think your list is a bit incomplete.
Old    SamIngram            12-20-2010, 12:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
Seriously, why make time for civil rights? How mind-numbingly pointless. Think of all the things that could have been accomplished in the 60s if they hadn't wasted all that time. And don't get me started on women's suffrage - seriously what's the point?

Ron I think your list is a bit incomplete.
In the military you give up many of your civil rights through contract law... for example, your right to free speech is suspended...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-20-2010, 1:24 PM Reply   
I doubt your free speech would be protected if you started speaking publically about your employer/company in a negative way as well. So supression of speech under contract isn't something limited to the military. Many companies have written policy that superceeds your right to specific types of speech. NPR being a good recent example.
Old    SamIngram            12-20-2010, 2:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I doubt your free speech would be protected if you started speaking publically about your employer/company in a negative way as well. So supression of speech under contract isn't something limited to the military. Many companies have written policy that superceeds your right to specific types of speech. NPR being a good recent example.
Yes, that is why the civil rights discussion is TOTAL BS when it comes to the military....

and BTW, your right to free speech would be protected if you spoke about your company in public. The company could fire you, and that is their right... You can not be sent to prison for speaking bad about your company, you can be sent to prison for doing so while in the military... two entirely different concepts...
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-20-2010, 2:36 PM Reply   
and it doesn't matter if you're black white green christian muslim pastafarian etc...

to say nothing of the hurt DADT put on the military wrt highly trained officers/translators/etc
Old    SamIngram            12-20-2010, 3:32 PM Reply   
What is DADT about? What does it cover? Until someone changes the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 125 I don't really think it matters, it is STILL illegal!
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-20-2010, 3:36 PM Reply   
DADT has nothing to do with sex acts. And Article 125 has nothing to do with homosexuality. It might pose a problem for some folks from Tennessee however... Or anyone into BJs for that matter.
Old    SamIngram            12-20-2010, 3:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
DADT has nothing to do with sex acts. And Article 125 has nothing to do with homosexuality. It might pose a problem for some folks from Tennessee however... Or anyone into BJs for that matter.
Ya, sure it doesn't...
Old    Hammer (97sunsetter)      Join Date: Nov 2006       12-20-2010, 6:20 PM Reply   
How about "Don't Ask, Don't Care".... Just my personal opinion.
Old    Benjamin (bendow)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-21-2010, 4:35 AM Reply   
I don't know what to think of this being repealed. I guess we'll have to see how it goes. I spent 4 years Active Duty Air Force, and an addition 5 in the Air National Guard. I knew people who are gay in the military...it was never an issue.

I don't mind gays at all, but I can't stand the gay guys that prance around all flamboyant and limp wristed waving a flag in your face to let you know they're gay...I just hope that doesn't happen in the military.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2010, 10:21 AM Reply   
It shouldn't be an issue, it's just all the "Holy Rollers" that think it is their place on earth to tell the rest of us what is acceptable and what is not. I would much rather serve along aside a homosexual than someone that was convicted of theft and offered leniency by the judge in return for enlisting. Theft destroys morale much more than someone's sexuality.

Sam, that Article is not specific to homosexuality. It applies equally to a heterosexual couple having intercourse in any position other than the missionary.
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2010, 10:54 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
It shouldn't be an issue, it's just all the "Holy Rollers" that think it is their place on earth to tell the rest of us what is acceptable and what is not. I would much rather serve along aside a homosexual than someone that was convicted of theft and offered leniency by the judge in return for enlisting. Theft destroys morale much more than someone's sexuality.

Sam, that Article is not specific to homosexuality. It applies equally to a heterosexual couple having intercourse in any position other than the missionary.
Yup I can read.... but since a homosexual couple is generally of the same sex it directly applies to homosexuals... You see two men can't have sex and not break that law, unless one of them gets a sex change and then you would no longer have two men...

Do I need to draw you a picture?

I'm not a "Holy Roller" and I think the idea is bad. Have you ever been in the military?
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       12-21-2010, 11:04 AM Reply   
I was in the military. There were many gays & lesbians - way more lesbians. Everybody knew who they were and didn't give a $h!t. They did their jobs just like everybody else. Why should they be treated like criminals for their sexuality? They're not hurting anybody. Sam's argument was the same one they used to keep blacks segregated - the argument doesn't hold up.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2010, 11:07 AM Reply   
Yes, I have. 4 years active in the USN, 3.5 years of that onboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), with two, 6 month Med cruises during that time frame. 2.5 years in the USNR. Are you wanting to swap war stories?

My brother-in-law is a major in the USA and just returned Dec 18th to Germany after a one-year stay in Iraq and he doesn't see the big deal.

You know before civil rights were passed, many people thought African Americans serving in the military was a "bad idea".
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2010, 11:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Yes, I have. 4 years active in the USN, 3.5 years of that onboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), with two, 6 month Med cruises during that time frame. 2.5 years in the USNR. Are you wanting to swap war stories?

My brother-in-law is a major in the USA and just returned Dec 18th to Germany after a one-year stay in Iraq and he doesn't see the big deal.

You know before civil rights were passed, many people thought African Americans serving in the military was a "bad idea".
Are guys now calling me a racist?

The reason why there were not problems was because no one talked about it and you didn't have any flamers running around... You know DADT...

I do know that four guys were CM'ed for beating two guys up that were violating 125... they almost killed them.

The last time I checked no one is being treated like a criminal for their sexuality... if they are violating a standing order then they are criminal. I couldn't even hug my wife on base while active...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-21-2010, 11:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
What is DADT about? What does it cover? Until someone changes the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 125 I don't really think it matters, it is STILL illegal!
That's hilarious. I didn't know that no one in the armed services ever got a BJ. Learn something new every day.
Old    Danny (rubin)      Join Date: May 2006       12-21-2010, 11:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Any social legislation that governs the morality of the people who protect our country should be a concern to us all, especially since the law was repealed by people with such extensive military experience, such as Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, and Nancy Pelosi.
What does morality have to do with being gay? just curious.
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2010, 12:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubin View Post
What does morality have to do with being gay? just curious.
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really want to know?

Many people believe that morality without religion is impossible. (See Divine Command Theory)

If you believe that morals are based on religious practices/beliefs then taking part in gay sexual acts is probably immoral based on most religious doctrines and texts... I'm not sure if just being gay is considered immoral in most religions. I guess you could be gay and not take part in any acts.

The Bible:
Genisis 19 5-8

Jude 1 7-9

Leviticus 18 22-23

Leviticus 20 13

1 Timothy 1 9-10

I can go on and on...

The Torah:
see Leviticus 18:22 above... it's in the Torah too...

The Quran:
Qur'an 7:80-82
Qur'an 26:165-175
Qur'an 27:55-58

and on and on...

Since all the major religions condemn those who practice gay sexual acts, and if you believe that morals are based on religion, as many do, then that is your answer...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-21-2010, 2:06 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really want to know?

Many people believe that morality without religion is impossible. (See Divine Command Theory)
The following quoted statement from your link basically supports one of two possibilities... Either the idea that morality can only come from religion is wrong, or all religions are valid religions. If you can't understand why, then you probably subscribe to the notion that morality can only come from religion .

Quote:
Some philosophers have asked whether morality without religion is possible. Even though societal norms of morality and virtue are universal elements of all religions, acceptable moral behavior may differ from religion to religion. Religious traditions by themselves are also generally diverse, with different sects or forms of heterodoxy, and will disagree over various topics. However moral behavior is subjective.
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       12-21-2010, 2:12 PM Reply   
I love it.
The very first set of verses you cite (The Bible: Genesis 19 5-8) is basically a passage where a guy refuses to let a mob of townsfolk have sex with two male angels that are staying with him... and instead, offers up his two virgin daughters to appease the crowd.
and THIS is where you're suggesting people go to learn morals.
Genius.
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       12-21-2010, 2:16 PM Reply   
Thankfully, the US is not a christian theocracy... yet.
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       12-21-2010, 2:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I do know that four guys were CM'ed for beating two guys up that were violating 125... they almost killed them.
I don't get how this is an argument? Soldiers have murdered their wives, so by this line of thinking, (straight) marriage shouldn't be allowed?

People who believe morality is impossible without religion basically think that everyone else also needs to believe there is an unseen, omnipotent presence looking over their shoulder at all times.

Last edited by trace; 12-21-2010 at 2:24 PM.
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2010, 2:26 PM Reply   
I didn't suggest anything...You are the genius. I merely pointed out what some people believe regarding how being gay could have to do with morality... I do not have a problem with reading comprehension...

The guy asked a question and I tried to put the guy on track to where he could find his answer. Maybe you should take a class in reading comprehension.

THANKS! You guys are so damn smart!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2010, 2:31 PM Reply   
"I couldn't even hug my wife on base while active..."

I don't know what branch you were in, or what base you were on, but it is not a punishable offense to hug your wife, on base, in or out of uniform. I honestly don't think this guy received any NJP
Name:  783517706_tGeiJ-M-1.jpg
Views: 435
Size:  44.9 KB

And no one is calling you a racist, we are simply implying that history has shown in that particular instance that it was ignorant to not allow a person to serve simply because of their skin color. And I am looking into my crystal ball and seeing that people will be saying the same thing in 50 years with regards to one's sexuality.
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2010, 3:03 PM Reply   
I was referring to two active people in uniform while on duty...
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       12-21-2010, 3:12 PM Reply   
Sam - go back into your hole or church or wherever and spew your hate there.
We get it - you're ant-gay. We also don't care.
Go away.
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2010, 3:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdtx View Post
Sam - go back into your hole or church or wherever and spew your hate there.
We get it - you're ant-gay. We also don't care.
Go away.
LOL - Merry Christmas to you too!

You seem a little butt hurt to me...

Another genius!
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-22-2010, 6:15 AM Reply   
DADT does not forbid service. It was created at a time when alternative lifestyles were still very taboo. It was a morale concern. They did not want concern for the unknown to affect the performance of a group of soldiers. It was simply not to be discussed.

Today the alternative lifestyle is no longer taboo, is easily recognizable, and is no longer the unknown. Modern soldiers have grown up with it all around them, so it really is no big deal to them. Alternative lifestyles have also gained an identity, and have matured past the need to be "activists" in every facet of life.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-22-2010, 8:20 AM Reply   
I got to thinking about this a little more last evening. When I was in the Navy (95-99), not long after I reported to the Roosevelt in early 96, our ship was the first aircraft carrier to allow women to serve onboard (prior to that, women were not allowed to serve on combat vessels). We had to go through a couple of days of sensitivity training shortly before the first female reporting, but I remember the grumblings of older servicemen, calling it a bad idea and saying morale was going to be bad. 3 years after that, we had almost zero incidents other than the occasional "hook-up" (maybe a total of 10 in three years), but no woman was raped or anything like that. Before I was discharged, we had close to 1,000 women personnel on the TR and women serve every type of combat vessel (carriers, destroyers, cruisers, and frigates), except for submarines (but I anticipate they will soon be able to be bubbleheads).
Old    Benjamin (bendow)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-22-2010, 8:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by digg311 View Post
I love it.
The very first set of verses you cite (The Bible: Genesis 19 5-8) is basically a passage where a guy refuses to let a mob of townsfolk have sex with two male angels that are staying with him... and instead, offers up his two virgin daughters to appease the crowd.
and THIS is where you're suggesting people go to learn morals.
Genius.
Off topic, but wow. According to the Bible there was a mob of townsfolk trying to have sex with angels? I wonder what sex with an angel would be like? Female angel of course.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-22-2010, 9:58 AM Reply   
Bendow, google Genesis Total Insanity and check out the Professor Brothers vid - classic lol.

Footbaths.... YES!!
Old    SamIngram            12-22-2010, 10:24 AM Reply   
Since we are off topic I thought I would share this...

I am currently enrolled in this class. I have taken one other course from Mr. Gordon and thought it was pretty good.

How to Think: An Introduction to Logic
Old    dennis engle (deneng)      Join Date: Feb 2005       12-22-2010, 10:52 AM Reply   
Seamen Jeremy those are some intresting claims...
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       12-22-2010, 11:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
go back into your hole or church or wherever and spew your hate there.
*shaking head* Wow! Seriously? Because having a different opinion on something makes it hate? Why can't someone respectfully disagree with what is becoming a societal norm without being accussed of being racist, a bigot or hateful?
Old    Danny (rubin)      Join Date: May 2006       12-22-2010, 12:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really want to know?

Many people believe that morality without religion is impossible. (See Divine Command Theory)

If you believe that morals are based on religious practices/beliefs then taking part in gay sexual acts is probably immoral based on most religious doctrines and texts... I'm not sure if just being gay is considered immoral in most religions. I guess you could be gay and not take part in any acts.

The Bible:
Genisis 19 5-8

Jude 1 7-9

Leviticus 18 22-23

Leviticus 20 13

1 Timothy 1 9-10

I can go on and on...

The Torah:
see Leviticus 18:22 above... it's in the Torah too...

The Quran:
Qur'an 7:80-82
Qur'an 26:165-175
Qur'an 27:55-58

and on and on...

Since all the major religions condemn those who practice gay sexual acts, and if you believe that morals are based on religion, as many do, then that is your answer...
I'm going out on a limb here(not really), but i would say religion has been far more detrimental to the human race than two dudes having sex with each other...
Old    SamIngram            12-22-2010, 12:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubin View Post
I'm going out on a limb here(not really), but i would say religion has been far more detrimental to the human race than two dudes having sex with each other...
As my uncle says, "That's what makes a horserace!", everyone is different, but are also the same.

The way that you phrased it is interesting though, you used the singular, not the plural form of the argument. If all dudes had sex with one another and only with one another it would probably be a huge detriment to the human race.

It can also be argued that religion is the sole reason why man is where he is and not out running around with a club, living in a cave, rubbing doo-doo in his hair, and grunting at each other.

Based on your statement, ever so profound as it is, one could argue that the world would be far better off without the United States of American coming ever existing. The USA, as we know it today, is the direct result of religion on many, many levels. I would venture to guess that you haven't thought about it that way.

I am beginning to understand something that my grandmother once told me; it went something like this:

When we are young we think we know it all, and then as we get older and older we realize that we really knew nothing.
Old    David (colombiansurfer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       12-22-2010, 1:00 PM Reply   
Since I am in the military still, I do not care if my brother/sister in arms packs the fudge or munches on a carpet as long as he/she has my back in combat so I can go home to my wife and kids.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-22-2010, 3:03 PM Reply   
It could be argued that anything could be argued, and probably is.
Old    SamIngram            12-22-2010, 3:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
It could be argued that anything could be argued, and probably is.
Gee... Thanks!

My point is that many people believe that their opinion is fact or correct, when it is not, i.e. "I'm going out on a limb here(not really)". I have learned more by considering my opponents view than I could anywhere else.

Love thy enemy...
Old    Sparky Jay (wake_upppp)      Join Date: Nov 2003       12-22-2010, 6:37 PM Reply   
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer"
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       12-23-2010, 8:31 AM Reply   
I think David said all that needs to be said. The most important thing is when the crap goes south, does your boy got your back?

The fears that benjamin have don't seem too likely. Are the limp-wrist gays really the ones joining the service? My prediction is that nothing changes, those that wish to tell their crew, will. And everyone will move on. There will be some bumps in the road but in the long run, a military with equality is best for everyone.
Old    Steve - O (misteve)      Join Date: Aug 2007       12-23-2010, 11:34 AM Reply   
When I was in the Army, in the Infantry, the "gay card" was a ticket straight out of the Army. If you decided you didn't want to fulfill your contract and do your job you could go to the M.P.'s and say, "I'm gay and I'm scared for my life". And boom, next day your gone. A lazy douche in my company (not gay) did that was we saw him one day, and the next he was gone, was crazy.

I guess that was kinda off the subject, but I though that was B.S. if someone can get out that easy.

I'm with David, there's much more important things I want to be sure my comrades are than straight....
Old    SamIngram            12-23-2010, 1:02 PM Reply   
What about this scenario?

A gay guy that has come out to his superior is ordered to do something, like dig or clean out the latrine... the gay guy says that he is being punished, singled out, or otherwise harassed for being gay and complains. Maybe the orders were legitimate and maybe he is being singled out, who knows... What happens when is ordered to a dangerous position and doesn't want to go, can he take the gay card again?

The only problem that I have with getting rid of DADT is the fact that people are equating it to the fight for civil rights by blacks and women. Comparing the two is BS in my opinion. You can't choose to be a woman or black, it has nothing to do what they do or their actions, nothing is immoral about being a woman or black. Being gay on the other hand can easily be argued as a choice, or the result of one's surroundings, and is directly related to a persons actions. It's what they do, not what they are.

IMO, the other part of this problem is that it won't change anything. When I was active we had standing orders not to talk about being gay or gay acts in an official capacity while on duty. Everyone knew, but it was never brought up. This was the point I was trying to make when I gave the example of not being able to kiss my wife, we were ordered not to show any signs of affection while serving in official capacity.

And finally, why are we doing this? For equality? Not! We are doing this for diversity, so some people can brag about our military being diverse and fair... we have woman on the front lines now, why not gays and transgendered too? Are any of the physical requirements for men and women the same? No, the woman had it much, much easier in almost every classification. Are we going to have separate physical requirements for gays or can a gay guy say that he only wants to meet the woman's requirements? When I was in the military it wasn't about being diverse or an individual, it was all about breaking you down, making you a number, taking our identity away, and then rebuilding you.

As much as I hate Anne Coulter, I think she has a point here.
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       12-23-2010, 3:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram
I guess you could be gay and not take part in any acts.
and then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram
Being gay on the other hand can easily be argued as a choice, or the result of one's surroundings, and is directly related to a persons actions. It's what they do, not what they are.
Which is it? Just curious.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-23-2010, 3:54 PM Reply   
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-23-2010, 4:35 PM Reply   
"Are any of the physical requirements for men and women the same? No, the woman had it much, much easier in almost every classification."

And aren't the requirements for a 35 year old man different than a 25 year old man? Let me answer that for you, YES!!! What exactly is your point?

"Are we going to have separate physical requirements for gays or can a gay guy say that he only wants to meet the woman's requirements?"

This is retarded, I guess you would expect a "butchy" woman to be held to the men's requirements.
Old    SamIngram            12-27-2010, 11:15 AM Reply   
I saw this today and wanted to share. I've been trying to align or reconcile my thoughts and beliefs on this subject and am fascinated with the theory behind it.

First we have this article:

Ron Paul's anti-Constitution vote by Dr. Alan Keyes

Ron Paul voted for the repeal of DADT. He is a conservative Libertarian, very similar to what I would equate myself to.

Here is an exchange between a "Ron Pauler" and Keyes. I found it very interesting.

Dr. Alan Keyes - Ron Paul's Anti- Constitution Vote ** FINAL UPDATE **


Anyhow, I'm studying this and trying to figure out "my answer" and thought I would share.

I am currently taking a Constitutional Law and Theory class and have asked the Professor and class for their thoughts and will post them later.

Last edited by SamIngram; 12-27-2010 at 11:23 AM.
Old    Carl (SugarFree)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-27-2010, 1:34 PM Reply   
Sam long time no talk. Hope your Christmas was good

Being a veteran also, having served with gays and lesbians under DADT, I can say that regardless what the law is there needs to be a level of profesionalism maintained. 90% of the gays I served with acted profesional, kept their lifestyle seperated from work. meaning they weren't hitting on guys/gals at work. but then there was that 10% who were flamboyantly gay and pranced/dyked around everywhere and hit on people they worked with and some got the crap beat out of them for it. Which I dont agree with. With those Marines it was like military discipline didn't apply to them in their mind.

What scares me about the repeal of DADT is not that we're letting gays serve (DADT didnt exclude gays anyway). I could care less what your lifestyle choices are as long as your checking the bs at the door (that applies to straight people too). So now that gays are allowed to be openly gay in the military whats happens when too many start flaming, you can't do anything to correct that... what do you say? "stop acting that way!"... now you are in the wrong as a leader/commander bc you're discriminating.
Old    SamIngram            12-27-2010, 1:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SugarFree View Post
Sam long time no talk. Hope your Christmas was good

Being a veteran also, having served with gays and lesbians under DADT, I can say that regardless what the law is there needs to be a level of profesionalism maintained. 90% of the gays I served with acted profesional, kept their lifestyle seperated from work. meaning they weren't hitting on guys/gals at work. but then there was that 10% who were flamboyantly gay and pranced/dyked around everywhere and hit on people they worked with and some got the crap beat out of them for it. Which I dont agree with. With those Marines it was like military discipline didn't apply to them in their mind.

What scares me about the repeal of DADT is not that we're letting gays serve (DADT didnt exclude gays anyway). I could care less what your lifestyle choices are as long as your checking the bs at the door (that applies to straight people too). So now that gays are allowed to be openly gay in the military whats happens when too many start flaming, you can't do anything to correct that... what do you say? "stop acting that way!"... now you are in the wrong as a leader/commander bc you're discriminating.
Very good write up sir, that is basically what I was trying to say.

The other part of my arguement was that it didn't equate to either suffrage or racial discrimination.

BTW, the Golden Calf isn't scheduled to be back until March. I am lobbying for its return sooner, but I have no negotiating power...
Old    Carl (SugarFree)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-27-2010, 3:29 PM Reply   
ohh the people who try and equate gays in the military with the civils rights struggles of the black community and women's suffrage are full of crap. not even close. serving in the military is a priviledge not a right. thats why people with disabilities are normally not allowed to join. with this mentality we'll start letting the mentally handicapped in the military bc its the "right thing to do." not saying that i havn't served with some people who were questionable in that regard... lol jk

I guess i'm a big believer in if it aint broke dont fix it. being a military member under DADT i saw how it worked. if you were gay u just didnt do anything that would be unbecoming of a service member and people let you be.. whether they knew you were gay or not... and it worked. plus being in the military isnt about being an individual its about being a cohesive unit that accomplishes the mission.

those bastards... no negotiating power?... boat lemon law? or did that go out the window at about the 950th engine hour? lol... good luck with that tho... March is a good ways off and i need to justify the purchase of this new drysuit... haha... we'll go out with zack sometime b/c we need to be hitting solid tantrums by the time summer gets here.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-27-2010, 3:33 PM Reply   
"So now that gays are allowed to be openly gay in the military whats happens when too many start flaming, you can't do anything to correct that"

I don't necessarily agree with that. If I am not mistaken, the US military can legally discriminate (on certain grounds). You have to be a certain weight/height, you cannot be physically or mentally handicapped to join, women cannot serve in certain roles; just about everything except race, but affirmative action does not apply in the military (in that, they do not have a lower score for a minority on advancement exams).

So, IMO, the military will say we expect homosexuals to maintain a professionalism that any straight servicemen/women are expected to adhere. To expect to see a gay pride rally or something to break out during formation is absurd.
Old    Carl (SugarFree)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-27-2010, 4:01 PM Reply   
Jeremy,

please don't take my opinions to the extreme with the gay pride rally during formation example. Couldn't agree more... as long as that profesionalism is maintained. But i can see allot of discrimination fingers getting pointed when you try and uphold that discipline, and C.O.'s caught up in legal battles doesn't really win wars. Like i said i see no moral problem with homosexuality, if thats your thing thats your thing. live and let live, but at the end of the day if this new law takes away from our military's ability to accomplish the mission in any way then its a step backwards.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-28-2010, 7:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SugarFree View Post
serving in the military is a priviledge not a right. thats why people with disabilities are normally not allowed to join.
Wow, I would have thought it was because they aren't fit for duty. Just goes to show with that kind of reasoning our miltary leaders may not be fit for leading. Unless that's just something completely stupid that you made up.
Old    SamIngram            12-28-2010, 7:25 AM Reply   
Here is what my teacher said,

"Everything Keyes says about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is absolutely correct.

Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 14, empowers Congress "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So Congress has the constitutional power to repeal "don't ask, don't tell". However, as one of our Founders said, "Our Constitution was made for a just and moral people". Only a corrupt Congress would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" for the reasons set forth by Dr. Keyes. And only a corrupt People elects such a Congress. We are in deep trouble. Our Country is collapsing, and the libertarians are helping bring us down: they insist that we "respect" their immorality and vice: drugs, group sex, etc.; and they sneer & malign our most brilliant defender of our Founding Documents."

I was interested in where that quote came from, so I looked it up. It was President John Adams that said them.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”

With these sober words, President John Adams warned that the U.S. Constitution will not be able to sustain our liberties if the American people abandon virtue and religion. Adams stated:


Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.61

It looks like we might be following a certain group of people down a forbidden black hole...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-28-2010, 8:19 AM Reply   
So you can't be moral and gay, is that what you are implying Sam? Not everyone subscribes to your religious beliefs, and that is what is truly beautiful about America, our freedom to believe (or not believe) in whatever God we choose (for the record, I am Catholic). Do you honestly think that the "forefathers" wanted us all to conform to one set of beliefs? GW and TJ were not devout Christians. You know there are people that force citizens to believe in the state-sponsored religious figurehead, Communists.

Criminals are allowed to serve in the US military, but I don't hear you speaking out against that. I just don't understand that reasoning.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-28-2010, 8:40 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Here is what my teacher said,

"Everything Keyes says about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is absolutely correct.

Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 14, empowers Congress "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So Congress has the constitutional power to repeal "don't ask, don't tell". However, as one of our Founders said, "Our Constitution was made for a just and moral people". Only a corrupt Congress would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" for the reasons set forth by Dr. Keyes. And only a corrupt People elects such a Congress. We are in deep trouble. Our Country is collapsing, and the libertarians are helping bring us down: they insist that we "respect" their immorality and vice: drugs, group sex, etc.; and they sneer & malign our most brilliant defender of our Founding Documents."
Except Keyes is wrong or at least vague enough to be deceptive. He stated...

Every time we assert a right, we are making a statement about what is right.

This is clearly incorrect. Asserting the right to free speech is not making a statement that any protected speech is "right". Asserting the right to free speech only asserts that it's right to protect free speech. Asserting the right to privacy doesn't imply that what everyone does in private is "right".
Old    Justin Ward (JDubs)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-01-2011, 7:57 AM Reply   
I think you guys are missing the boat here. Earlier someone mentioned that being gay used to be taboo and now it isn't. I agree. I'm not sure about the military but in society in general, sure some bad things may be said or happen to a homosexual because of someone that has hate for that lifestyle. Just like anyone that is different from someone else. In this day and age, as a whole, I really don't think people really care anymore about it.

With that being said, the ONLY reason this is being discussed is for VOTES! Homosexuals are a minority. If you can pick up every vote of a minority that becomes a lot of votes. The democrats will forever do things like this to make the minority group feel like they really care about them.

The squeaky wheel always gets the grease. A number of gays really wanted to be able to tell everyone else in the military that they were gay and be proud about it. They squeaked the loudest because no one else really cared and the Dems in power gave them the grease. And now they will forever have the homosexual vote. It wouldn't matter if they were running this country straight into the ground. They will always have their vote.

Also, this is my opinion. If you don't agree, I'm okay with that. You should be to.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-01-2011, 10:11 PM Reply   
Why does this even matter? So effing what? There are gay people all around us. They're in the gyms where a lot of gay bashers have no problem stripping down naked to shower in open stalls. They're in your workplace, and for a lot even in your home. Why does it matter that they repealed don't ask don't tell when there are much more important things that the government is doing that we should be paying attention too? Like Congress and it's food safety bill?

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2010/12...ore-dangerous/

Seriously? We're being overlegislated to the point of losing rights (an example of lost rights is how the TSA can do whatever the hell they want when it comes to airports, even if it doesn't make sense or violates basic human rights.. you hear about the lady who was arrested because she refused to let a screener grope her breasts in the exam?) without even realizing it, and yet we argue about gays serving in the military. What the hell?
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2011, 3:06 PM Reply   
Is this related to DADT? The ever increasing PC military???

Navy officer Owen Honors to be 'relieved of command' over sexually-explicit video
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2011, 3:57 PM Reply   
^Sam, that guy should at least been reprimanded for conduct unbecoming. Is that the kind of guy you want in charge of a multi-billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier?
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2011, 4:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Sam, that guy should at least been reprimanded for conduct unbecoming. Is that the kind of guy you want in charge of a multi-billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier?
I don't give a crap how he does it, if he gets the desired results. Others care how he does it and not the results.

As much as I dislike Herbert Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George S. Patton I think they all acted in a far greater egregious manner but had good results none the less.

It's about results!

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:54 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us