Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2290340/

Topic: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-15 16:43:16 and read 5736 times.

...Again.

So a quick update for those of you who haven't been able to closely follow all the drama.

Back in May, the US House voted 234 to 194 to repeal the US Military policy on gay servicemembers, Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). The ban then stalled before the Senate and no action was taken until late September. Majority Leader Reed attempted to attach the repeal of DADT to the National Defense Authorization Act, along with some other non relevant legislation pieces such as the Dream Act.

Republicans objected to the way in which DADT was attached to a bill that should have been left alone and was not relevant to the policy. So with a 56-44 vote, the bill failed to garner the required 60 and failed. Senator Reed attempted to basically do the same thing again on Dec 9, but once again failed. Republicans still rejected the repeal of DADT being linked to the NDAA.

So, the only recourse was to vote on a stand alone bill in the Senate. However, since the stand alone bill that was passed in May by the House failed, any vote that the Senate held would have to be approved by the House.

So today with a vote of 250-175 -- a larger margin than the vote in May -- the House voted again to repeal DADT. The next step will be for the Senate to vote on the stand alone bill that Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Colins (R-ME) has introduced. This may happen as early as two days from now.

As it stands, the Senate still needs 60 votes. However, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe has announced that she is on board, and will vote in favor. Additionally Alaskan Republican Senator Murkowski and Massachusetts Republican Senator Brown have indicated their support for repealing DADT.

...This is it folks. We could possibly be a few days away from the end of this ugly policy. If looks as though there are the votes to support repeal. Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games (Senator McCain).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...ouse_votes_to_repeal_dont_ask.html

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-15 16:57:51 and read 5720 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):

...This is it folks. We could possibly be a few days away from the end of this ugly policy. If looks as though there are the votes to support repeal. Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games (Senator McCain).

I certainly hope so. It must be pretty frosty in the McCain house these days, with both daughter and wife being vocal proponents of the DADT repeal. This could finally be it.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-15 17:06:01 and read 5713 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games

We all know that the so called leaders are known for following their Principles. We shall see. Nothing will surprise me.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: moose135
Posted 2010-12-15 17:21:44 and read 5702 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
...This is it folks. We could possibly be a few days away from the end of this ugly policy. If looks as though there are the votes to support repeal. Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games (Senator McCain).

I certainly hope so, as well. We are long past the time when this should have been repealed.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-15 17:24:54 and read 5702 times.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):

We all know that the so called leaders are known for following their Principles. We shall see. Nothing will surprise me.

I'm just worried that some of these Senators will not have the integrity to vote on their true principles.

...If Scott Brown - my Senator - does not support gays in the military, then he ought to just say so! But if he votes against this bill because of the excuse, "We need to focus on the tax bill before we focus on this issue", it will be such a bullsh*t cop out.

I'm really getting tired of the fact that our government seemingly cannot work on more than one issue at a time! And the stonewalling tactic of saying that we cannot deal with subject Y, until subject X is dealt with, is pure obstructionism.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-15 17:31:20 and read 5689 times.

[quote=UH60FtRucker,reply=4]I'm just worried that some of these Senators will not have the integrity to vote on their true principles.

...If Scott Brown - my Senator - does not support gays in the military, then he ought to just say so! But if he votes against this bill because of the excuse, "We need to focus on the tax bill before we focus on this issue", it will be such a bullsh*t cop out.

I'm really getting tired of the fact that our government seemingly cannot work on more than one issue at a time! And the stonewalling tactic of saying that we cannot deal with subject Y, until subject X is dealt with, is pure obstructionism.



I certainly agree with that. Obstructionism is now a fine art in Washington, although it seems like a bulldozer to me.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-18 13:19:13 and read 5584 times.

The Senate did the right thing this morning - and shame on the 31 ignoramuses who voted against it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46576.html

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-18 17:23:00 and read 5508 times.

UH60FtRucker,

You're hot, you're smart, and you're fair-minded. Pity DADT doesn't apply to you.  

No, in all seriousness, there's a reason you're on my RU list. And it's not just because of what you look like without a shirt on.  

So my question is: the DOD says that the new policy will take "a few months" to implement. Why does it take so long? What time-consuming steps are involved in this? It's not like this involves any new equipment or highly-specialized technical training.

Now, I would be in favor of allowing troops who are horribly opposed to this leave the Service (there'd have to be some plan to repay student loans and stuff). But it seems to me that the number who would actually quit the Service over this would be quite small... and they would probably be the people you don't want in the Service, anyway.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Zentraedi
Posted 2010-12-18 19:43:46 and read 5439 times.

The comments on Scott Brown's Facebook page are golden:

Quoting facebook poster:
"Dear Senator Brown....now that you have voted down DADT...can you please help me with my cause of allowing blind people to serve in the military? I see no difference between them and gay members.....they can't help the way they are born....thanks!"
Quoting facebook poster:
"I suppose now you are going to rewrite the Uniform Code of Military Justice to remove sodomy and unwanted sexual assault from the code. I am glad that I now longer have to serve in a homosexual dominated Army. When we quickly turn from the best Armed Forces in the history of mankind into second rate organizations you will be sorry you voted for political correctness. I am ashamed of your vote. You will no longer have my support on your agendas. At least we knew Teddy and Barney would screw us all along. What's next - coming out of the closet and joining Barney?"
Quoting facebook poster:
"Another nail in America's coffin...you sir, have been busy with your hammer lately. Frankly, you disgust me, you are a sheep in wolf's clothing. If I were a soldier hunkered down in some God-forsaken country like Afghanistan and needed to relieve myself, the last thing I want to be worried about is some pervert looking at my junk...what in God's name are you thinking?"
Quoting facebook poster:
"Such a sad sad day for our brave troops. Sure don't understand you Senator Brown. I'm baffled and bewildered and fear for our nation's morality. Ancient Rome's immorality comes to mind. Their end was not good. Fell like a sack of bricks and I'm afraid you've dropped a ton of them."
Quoting facebook poster:
"As far as I am concerned your nothing more than a RINO and a trader to our nation. you can forget any tea party support. You just burned your last bridge."

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: cargolex
Posted 2010-12-18 19:45:31 and read 5435 times.

Quote:
Republicans objected to the way in which DADT was attached to a bill that should have been left alone and was not relevant to the policy.

In the interest of full disclosure, it's worthy of note that the DADT amendment that established the policy was enacted as an attachment to the exact same Defense Appropriations bill - ergo, the Republicans did not have a leg to stand on with this complaint.

Glad to see that this bad policy will finally be ended.

Quote:
"As far as I am concerned your nothing more than a RINO and a trader to our nation."

A trader, huh? Does he trade illegal rhinoceri? Why is it that you can't please the conservative base without being a homophobe?

[Edited 2010-12-18 19:47:53]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2010-12-18 20:20:22 and read 5409 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
So my question is: the DOD says that the new policy will take "a few months" to implement. Why does it take so long? What time-consuming steps are involved in this? It's not like this involves any new equipment or highly-specialized technical training.

According to the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...-dont-ask-20101219,0,2953777.story

But Gates also cautioned Saturday that although Obama is expected to sign the measure next week, repeal will not happen immediately. Under the legislation, the policy may be altered only once new guidelines are put in place that are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," he said.

So it's just a matter of new guidelines being drafted and approved.

Glad to see there were some Repubs voting to repeal DADT today.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: comorin
Posted 2010-12-18 20:23:36 and read 5406 times.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
Quote:
"As far as I am concerned your nothing more than a RINO and a trader to our nation."

A trader, huh? Does he trade illegal rhinoceri? Why is it that you can't please the conservative base without being a homophobe?

I believe 'rhinoceri' has two i's - you know like in 'Airbii'.  

The conservative base is not necessarily homophobic - they are merely against recognizing and legitimizing its existence. A key issue is 'family values' which is viewed as threatened by Gay Marriage. A lot of Americans look to their Church for guidance, and that is the source of the sentiment.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: cargolex
Posted 2010-12-18 20:57:32 and read 5386 times.

Quote:
The conservative base is not necessarily homophobic - they are merely against recognizing and legitimizing its existence.

Respectfully, I would say that these two things are one and the same - that seeking to prevent the recognition of people's existence is a fundamental form of prejudice regardless of who they are.

Quote:
A key issue is 'family values' which is viewed as threatened by Gay Marriage.

I've heard that but I really don't understand that. The same people seem to have no problem with "The Bachelor" or "Who wants to marry a millionaire" or the people who get drunk and get married on a lark in Vegas (I've actually witnessed this happen in person). Heterosexual marriages in the U.S. have a divorce rate of over 50%.

Somehow, I fail to see the logical leap here as to how gay people have anything to do with this.

Are gay people running around with Uzis forcing straight people to get divorced?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: BAKJet
Posted 2010-12-18 20:57:33 and read 5386 times.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 8):
Quoting facebook poster:
"Another nail in America's coffin...you sir, have been busy with your hammer lately. Frankly, you disgust me, you are a sheep in wolf's clothing. If I were a soldier hunkered down in some God-forsaken country like Afghanistan and needed to relieve myself, the last thing I want to be worried about is some pervert looking at my junk...what in God's name are you thinking?"

and this argument is so ridiculous..HELLO, wake up people. There are already gays serving in the military, the only difference is that now they can be open about it. In fact, I would think this guy would be happy since now the soldier "hunkered down in some God-forsaken country like Afghanistan" can make sure there are no "gay perverts looking at his junk"...just saying. Xenophobic, homophobic idiots. Sheesh. I wish they would at least TRY to think before they speak/post.Thank god DADT got repealed.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: comorin
Posted 2010-12-18 21:36:05 and read 5365 times.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 12):
Respectfully, I would say that these two things are one and the same - that seeking to prevent the recognition of people's existence is a fundamental form of prejudice regardless of who they are.

Agreed. I was just pointing out the semantic difference - does 'the word homophobe' imply hate or does it imply rejection? Either way, it is prejudice, it's hurtful and cannot be condoned.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 12):
Somehow, I fail to see the logical leap here as to how gay people have anything to do with this.

Agreed again - there is no logical connection, but people have been threatened over the ages by others who aren't like them or even just look different. I wonder if it is just hard wired into our DNA as a defense mechanism.

Cargolex, its easy for me to ponder these questions but the gay community deals with the pain of prejudice everyday. I am glad today's vote brings us all a little closer together.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: moose135
Posted 2010-12-18 21:56:57 and read 5353 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 11):
A key issue is 'family values' which is viewed as threatened by Gay Marriage.

One thing I don't understand is how they want to "defend" and "preserve" marriage by making it illegal for some people to get married...

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: kiwiandrew
Posted 2010-12-19 00:28:38 and read 5307 times.

Glad to see that the US will finally join the growing list of countries where gay/lesbian personnel can serve in the military without having to hide themselves . I am sure that Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg­, the Netherland­s, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerlan­d, the United Kingdom and Uruguay will be happy to welcome the US aboard .   

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2010-12-19 05:08:53 and read 5251 times.

This is a small but critical social change in the USA. This repeal has ended, as one politician noted yesterday, the last legal segregation in the USA.

It will take anywhere from at least 60 days to a full year to fully implement the repeal of DADT. New rules have to be put in, reviews of procedures and applications have to take place. There could be continuing issues in combat areas or in some highly specialized groups. I am quite sure some officers will find loopholes and show their prejudices although other established rules as to gender and sexual harassment should be a deterrent.

Nothing in this change of policy will mean that certain sexual or personal behaviors covered by other reasonable military law and rules that apply, not only for gay or heterosexuals, will end. Most importantly it means that for many in military service they will have far less worrying about being discharged for just being gay or lesbian by those outing members for their own selfish gains or religious prejudices. Some are supporting this law due to the need to retain soldiers in the military at a time of great stress to retain due to 2 wars and other demands and not have to resort to a return of drafting/conscription with it's many problems.

Many 100's of thousands of GLTB's have served honorably for over 200 years in USA military service with no real problems and contributing their lives and skills. Now we are making law to protect those that serve.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-19 08:06:40 and read 5197 times.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):
We all know that the so called leaders are known for following their Principles.

I'd be concerned if our leaders (or more properly, the custodians of the power we, The People grant them) didn't try to follow their principles. They were elected because their principles most closely matched those of the population they represent.

Glad to see this backward, exclusionary policy is about to be overturned.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: AGM100
Posted 2010-12-19 09:18:57 and read 5151 times.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 17):
the last legal segregation in the USA.



Oh no no .... there will be plenty more . All they have to do is create a in justice , group it ..package it and protest ..standby for more fun.

If UH-60 is good with it then I will trust his judgement. If a person of any type is willing to join ... endure the rigors of military training achieve rank and become a good soldier then it is a good thing. I am thankful for our soldiers ... I don't care who they are ..I trust our command and our code of honor to produce fighting men and women to protect us.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-19 10:01:00 and read 5121 times.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19):
All they have to do is create a in justice , group it ..package it and protest ..standby for more fun.

Certainly that hasn't been the case with gays as they have clearly been pushed into second class citizenry until very recently. Sexual orientation should have no bearing on anything whatsoever provided an individual can do their job as well as you or I.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19):
If UH-60 is good with it then I will trust his judgement

It shouldn't require the opinion of an active duty military servicemember or the Pentagon survey to convince you. People who want to serve should be able to do so, period, without having to lie about any aspect of who they are. It's called using logic.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-19 11:01:37 and read 5100 times.

So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: AGM100
Posted 2010-12-19 11:16:27 and read 5092 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
It shouldn't require the opinion of an active duty military servicemember or the Pentagon survey to convince you



Well.. UH is far better in tune to the issue of moral , cohesion etc ...than am I and that is what I care about . The Military is not the place to champion social reforms in my opinion .... but hey uncle Harry needed to bring it home for the Pres and that is all they care about.

Now for the Army's new camo scheme!... http://762precision.files.wordpress....gital-ar-15-springfield-1911-a.jpg

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-19 11:28:34 and read 5082 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?

Right, because that's the agenda here   

So "soldier" can only mean "macho and straight"?? What a joke. Poke fun at the semantics all you want - it's meaningless. I have a couple of gay friends who are so ripped you'd certainly not wonder if they could handle themselves in combat, much less some retired guy who hates them. You guys are somethin else.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 22):

Well.. UH is far better in tune to the issue of moral , cohesion etc ...than am I and that is what I care about

Again this is where logic proves useful. You really think the orientation of who's next to you is going to be even a passing thought when there's terror fighters lobbing RPG rounds at your position from behind nearby rock formations? For cryin' out loud...

[Edited 2010-12-19 11:30:59]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: OA412
Posted 2010-12-19 11:44:40 and read 5072 times.

It's about time! The repeal of this backward and antiquated policy is long overdue.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):

   You sir are an example for all other military folks to follow. Kudos!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
You're hot, you're smart, and you're fair-minded. Pity DADT doesn't apply to you.

Down boy!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
No, in all seriousness, there's a reason you're on my RU list. And it's not just because of what you look like without a shirt on.

Sure it isn't, sure it isn't!  
Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 8):

What a bunch of ignoramuses.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Right, because that's the agenda here  

No kidding! It really is quite offensive to suggest that gay people are going to use their sexuality as a means of blackmail.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-19 11:47:25 and read 5132 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Right, because that's the agenda here

I don't think that's the agenda, but I can certainly see that this will become a concern.

I don't pretend to know how military promotion boards work, but, since they are run by humans, they are clearly subject to human failures, are they not? I assume you don't take a test and become an instant captain. There is some review board. Therefore, questions will be asked if a gay officer or soldier is passed over while a straight one is not.

This issue will need to be addressed. How was the question handled after racial integration? But, that question may be moot because we are a much more litigious society now than in the '40's, '50's & '60's.

[Edited 2010-12-19 12:04:51]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Doona
Posted 2010-12-19 11:56:59 and read 5111 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it)

Why does that sound stupid?

Cheers
Mats

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-19 12:04:21 and read 5156 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
I don't think that's the agenda, but I can certainly see that this will become a concern.

I don't see how. If there is someone in there, gay or otherwise, looking for an excuse to sue they should be kicked out. Are Latinos and blacks getting promoted? Of course they are. Nothing will change. Trust the chain of command to do its job because they do. Now they have one less impediment toward doing so.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-19 12:08:07 and read 5156 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 27):
I don't see how. If there is someone in there, gay or otherwise, looking for an excuse to sue they should be kicked out. Are Latinos and blacks getting promoted? Of course they are. Nothing will change. Trust the chain of command to do its job because they do. Now they have one less impediment toward doing so.

Really? You don't think questions will be asked if a gay is passed over? I believe there will be. It's human nature to question the motives of those around you when you don't get what you want because of those around (or in this case, above) you.

We'll have to wait and see.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-19 12:41:21 and read 5130 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):
We all know that the so called leaders are known for following their Principles.

I was joking of course, do they have any now?



I'd be concerned if our leaders (or more properly, the custodians of the power we, The People grant them) didn't try to follow their principles. They were elected because their principles most closely matched those of the population they represent.



I am more than concerned.




Glad to see this backward, exclusionary policy is about to be overturned.

As I am.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-19 12:45:37 and read 5121 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28):
Really? You don't think questions will be asked if a gay is passed over? I believe there will be. It's human nature to question the motives of those around you when you don't get what you want because of those around (or in this case, above) you.

If a gay person is passed over because their service is unfit based on reports, then they deserve what they get. If there's some homophobe officer who targets a gay person, then sure - they'll have a case and the military will deal with it appropriately. I have every confidence in that - no difference than a black hearing officer targeting a white guy or a white guy targeting a Latino or otherwise. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. But that's not the status quo, so as I say, nothing actually changes.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-12-19 13:17:43 and read 5101 times.

I was suprised to see 8 Republicans actually vote for this....I only expected 3 or 4.

It was nice to see McCain lose....what a bitter old man he has become.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-19 14:42:52 and read 5050 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 30):
If a gay person is passed over because their service is unfit based on reports, then they deserve what they get. If there's some homophobe officer who targets a gay person, then sure - they'll have a case and the military will deal with it appropriately. I have every confidence in that - no difference than a black hearing officer targeting a white guy or a white guy targeting a Latino or otherwise. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. But that's not the status quo, so as I say, nothing actually changes.

If all works the way it should.

But, to whom will the burden of proof fall?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-19 16:04:50 and read 5054 times.

Sorry for the late reply. But we went and celebrated our twin sons' 3rd birthday at my in-laws. Basically my own personal version of hell.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
No, in all seriousness, there's a reason you're on my RU list. And it's not just because of what you look like without a shirt on.  

So my question is: the DOD says that the new policy will take "a few months" to implement. Why does it take so long? What time-consuming steps are involved in this? It's not like this involves any new equipment or highly-specialized technical training.

Well first, thanks for the kind words... but the truth is, if you go back and look through the archives, you'll see that a few years ago I didn't feel the same way. I actually bought into the argument that DADT was flawed, but necessary. I also believed it shouldn't be repealed during a time of war. And it took one of my best friends - a guy who saved my life - to come out to me. He opened my eyes to the discrimination, the loneliness and the fear. It was him, who deserves the credit. 12 years, multiple tours, numerous awards, and all the while he quietly and professionally carried his secret burden.

As for why it will take a few months... basically the bureaucracy moves slow. All of the DoD policies will need to be rewritten. The DoD will also have to release official guidance for how it wants lower leadership to address the transition. The DoD will establish guidelines for unit leaders, explaining how they should deal with those service members who do decide to "come out", not to mention how to deal with those service members who vehemently oppose it. Also DoD Equal Opportunity regulations will have to be molded to include protection for gay service members.

...But actually a few months ago SecDef Gates mandated that the kicking out of any service member for violating DADT, would have to be personally approved by the service branch secretary. And since then, no one has been kicked out! So basically with this latest news, soldiers are able to come out now, without fear of discharge, but they may face minor punishments.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?

Huh? Why would the ACLU be involved?

Everyone's acting like this is this all some huge uncharted territory, when it's not! We already have a well established frame work to deal with these issues. We already have a system in place that deals with investigating discrimination based on race and gender. And the truth is, while we may never be able to truly stamp out unequal treatment of minorities or females... the military has a pretty damn good track record on promoting individuals based on their performance rather than the color of the skin, or their lack of twig and berries.

Not to mention... I think a lot of people have absolutely no idea how promotions work in the military. A lot of people seem to think it's like how the civilian world works: the boss picks. But that's wrong.

In fact, the military promotes via three main ways: time in service (which means all you have to do is serve until X period and your promotion is automatic), points (you earn promotion points through various requirements and once you reach your points, you are promoted), and lastly via promotion boards (a group of strangers evaluate your promotion packet and vote. However, gender, age, race, etc. are all blind and the board only has access to your performance reports).

...So why do people think that all of a sudden this huge up swell of anti-gay promotions will occur???


Quoting fr8mech (Reply 32):
If all works the way it should.

But, to whom will the burden of proof fall?

See above.

...If a service member is discriminated against because of their orientation, it's wrong. And while yes,

[Edited 2010-12-19 16:07:03]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: kiwiandrew
Posted 2010-12-19 18:17:38 and read 4976 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 33):
Well first, thanks for the kind words... but the truth is, if you go back and look through the archives, you'll see that a few years ago I didn't feel the same way. I actually bought into the argument that DADT was flawed, but necessary. I also believed it shouldn't be repealed during a time of war. And it took one of my best friends - a guy who saved my life - to come out to me. He opened my eyes to the discrimination, the loneliness and the fear. It was him, who deserves the credit. 12 years, multiple tours, numerous awards, and all the while he quietly and professionally carried his secret burden.

Actually , in a way , I find this more impressive than if you had been pro-repeal all along . I admire you for being open enough to take another look at your beliefs about DADT , and for being honest here on the forum about having changed your mind .

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: ZANL188
Posted 2010-12-19 18:35:05 and read 4965 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 33):
In fact, the military promotes via three main ways: time in service (which means all you have to do is serve until X period and your promotion is automatic), points (you earn promotion points through various requirements and once you reach your points, you are promoted), and lastly via promotion boards (a group of strangers evaluate your promotion packet and vote.

Picking a nit here... that's how the ARMY promotes people... not necessarily the military in general...

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-19 21:43:07 and read 4920 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 33):

Well first, thanks for the kind words... but the truth is, if you go back and look through the archives, you'll see that a few years ago I didn't feel the same way.

Yeah, that's what's admirable. Someone willing to admit he was wrong.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: N1120A
Posted 2010-12-19 23:50:05 and read 4877 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28):
Really? You don't think questions will be asked if a gay is passed over? I believe there will be.

The ACLU has already been involved and a strong force in repealing this disgusting, un-American policy.

Further, I think there will and should be significant litigation if gay soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines are passed over. Then again, I find it ironic that Title VII will provide less civil rights protection than the military after DADT is fully repealed.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2010-12-19 23:56:41 and read 4876 times.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 35):

Picking a nit here... that's how the ARMY promotes people... not necessarily the military in general...

All branches promote the same exact way, with the only differences being in how you get promotion points and such. What he described was the same way I've seen friends and family get promoted in the Air Force, Army, and Marines. Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in the Navy, so I can't speak for them. But I'd be willing to bet they do it the same way.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: ZANL188
Posted 2010-12-20 16:48:18 and read 4728 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 38):
All branches promote the same exact way, with the only differences being in how you get promotion points and such.

I'm 23 years retired Air Force and nobody in that time ever got promoted by reaching a certain level of "promotion points" as UH60 described it.

There are numerous differences in how the services promote people and in fact the rank structures themselves vary. For example the AF has no promotion boards for E-7 and below.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-20 19:25:12 and read 4697 times.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 35):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 38):
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 39):

Well hey... the truth of the matter is this: the entire point of my post wasn't to give an in depth education on how the military promotion system works. It was a broad and general overview. Were there gaps and broad strokes? Of course. But... come'on... who really cares?

The entire point, was to show that the overall system is very much unlike what most civilians are accustomed too. And to show them that race, sex, age, and orientation are not factors.

So lets move on.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: tugger
Posted 2010-12-22 08:22:42 and read 4529 times.

Well congratulations USA! The President signed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell today!

Though I wish it had been done sooner and without as much hand-wringing (we have an excellent and professional military), I am glad that it is now done and we can move on.

Tugg

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-22 08:25:57 and read 4533 times.

So it's official. President Obama signed the repeal into law.

Quote:
People will look back at this moment, and wonder, "Why was there ever a source of controversy?"
Quote:
For we are not a nation that says "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", we are a nation that says that out of many, we are one. We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. Those are the ideals that generations have fought, those are the ideals that we up hold today.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...-repeal-dont-law/story?id=12457296

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Venus6971
Posted 2010-12-22 08:39:31 and read 4511 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42):
So it's official. President Obama signed the repeal into law.

But article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: garnetpalmetto
Posted 2010-12-22 09:43:18 and read 4467 times.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 43):

But article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books.

But is it A) Actually enforced? How many straight service members get arrested for having consensual oral/anal sex with their partners and B) Is it enforceable given Lawrence v. Texas? I'm legitimately asking here - not sure how stare decisis effects the UCMJ.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: AGM100
Posted 2010-12-22 10:49:48 and read 4434 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23):
Again this is where logic proves useful. You really think the orientation of who's next to you is going to be even a passing thought when there's terror fighters lobbing RPG rounds at your position from behind nearby rock formations? For cryin' out loud...



No I am not concerned about that at all... not at all. Soldiers will react and act according to there training in times of fire. Human will , bravery and selflessness are natural elements that I believe are common to most humans. Sexual orientation is irrelevant when in those extreme conditions in my opinion. However ... combat troops spend 80-90% of there career out of those extreme conditions. Long hours of training, patrolling , bivouacking and garrison duty is more of a concern to me. I understand that many many gay's serve now and do so bravely and patriotically... I am less worried about them than I am the average Army / Marine boneheaded dog foot. Sorry ..but what is going to happen when some boot head slams a openly gay fellow trooper ?

I had the pleasure of spending some time with my brothers Platoon attached to (1st MD / 3 AAB) in Diego a few years ago ... man .. I am not sure I would want to be a openly gay man trying to fit in with those freaking jar heads. Every derogatory verbal slam on ones sexual preference was levied at anyone who could not pull a triple shot of tequila or slam a entire 24 oz Dos Equis. So if the average gay soldier does not mind being referred to as a certain part of the female anatomy from time to time ... then join up and have fun. The jar heads are fool of piss and vinegar and ready too "eat our own guts"... and they run into a enemy positions because they don't want there buddy to call them a name... that's it , and that cohesion is what it is. These are not PC Metro men ...they are frighteningly coarse and vile and ready to kill . I think that spirit ( right or wrong ) will go away.. and only time will tell if that is a good thing.

I just don't see Gunny Hartmen screaming " Are you a intolerant homophobe ?"!!! to a boot at Paris Island.... ya see ?

All that said ... I also heard the story of the US Navy female officer pilot who was discharged for kissing her girlfriend off base. That is wrong !! and so I will trust military command to implement this regulation change and make our military better.

Move on ....

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Venus6971
Posted 2010-12-22 10:56:03 and read 4429 times.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 46):

Well lets say if a gay serviceman reports to sick call with problems due to having consensual sex and as to have a operation that takes him out of action. They give us artical 15's for getting severely sunburned or getting hurt when we are drunk. Gays can be gay all they want but if you are a GI, Uncle Sam owns you.God has your soul,your lover has your heart, and Uncle Sam has your ass. Any damage you do to that ass and or any other part that you do willfully is considered damage to government property. G.I.s around bases that have brothels which under human trafficking laws are forbidden for us to visit, think Clark and Subic Bay for those who remember or aware of we had many a guy showing up to the clinic with a STD, the second offense or dose was usally followed up by some Non-Judical punishment.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: PSA53
Posted 2010-12-22 11:13:52 and read 4399 times.

It's about time! This is the only part of gay politics that I'm 100% in favor of .How could you deny anyone from entering the arm forces to defend our nation.It's also about time that some in the media are fessing up to the fact Bill Clinton wrote DADT in first place.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-22 11:20:56 and read 4398 times.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 44):

I would completely disagree. But I would welcome any supporting arguments you may have.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 43):
But article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books.

The DoD implementation plan for the integration of gay service members, includes the repeal of this article. Problem solved.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Venus6971
Posted 2010-12-22 11:35:23 and read 4378 times.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 46):

To follow up, if said gay serviceman is healed and back on duty with a lighter wallet and one less pay grade with instructions from his commander to abstain from anal sex. The serviceman goes ahead an does it again and ends up in sick call again and out action again . Besides being stupid he is now again in violation of the UCMJ with the further offense of willfully disobeying a lawful order. This is the time the commander starts the paper work for seperation from the service with less than a honorable discharge. When we can no longer trust him to take care of himself how can we trust him with critical duties.
Another point, gay servicemember has his annual flight physical, they draw blood to test for everything then they find out he is HIV positive, they look in records and find no procedure that required a blood transfusion and the only time he was sticked with a needle was for immunizations from the clinic whic they use a clean/new needle for each innaculation and his last flight physical. He is immediatley removed from flight status, not deployable, no longer a blood donor, he is a danger to everybody around him in a combat situation with mass casualties with his infected blood mixing with other wounded servicemembers. I'm not a Doctor but I am more than certain they haven't found a cure yet for HIV.
He most likely will be put into administrative duties awaiting a medical evaluation board or a discharge from service.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-22 11:53:42 and read 4356 times.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 51):

Honestly, I think you're venturing into the inappropriate zone. Drawing parallels between gays and HIV is rather tasteless.

Especially when there are a few thousand active duty service members - gay and straight - who are HIV+. The military already has a structure in place to deal with infected service members. And to dispel the lame rumors... no they are not thrown to the curb when they test positive. As long as they stay healthy, they are free to serve their full career.

But none of that is the point... since sexual orientation is irrelevant. And just as there are countless straight service members having oral and anal sex, there are many straight service members who are HIV positive. So you're teetering on the verge of being insulting.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: PSA53
Posted 2010-12-22 12:05:54 and read 4336 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 52):
Drawing parallels between gays and HIV is rather tasteless.


But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise.Stop putting a bag over our heads.Sex is you're "religion."This why so many people object to gay politics.But this might be served in another thread.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: OA412
Posted 2010-12-22 12:19:03 and read 4333 times.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 34):
Actually , in a way , I find this more impressive than if you had been pro-repeal all along . I admire you for being open enough to take another look at your beliefs about DADT , and for being honest here on the forum about having changed your mind .
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
Yeah, that's what's admirable. Someone willing to admit he was wrong.

       It takes balls to go back and reevaluate your belief system. It takes even bigger balls to admit that you're wrong.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42):
So it's official. President Obama signed the repeal into law.

  

Quoting fxramper (Reply 44):

Care to expand upon your implication that we are opening a can of worms by repealing DADT?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 52):
Honestly, I think you're venturing into the inappropriate zone. Drawing parallels between gays and HIV is rather tasteless.

Agreed. It really is tasteless to imply that gays are automatically HIV-positive or that only gays are infected with the virus. While it is still true that the largest single group of HIV/AIDS patients is gay men (at least in the West), that does not mean that all gay men are HIV-positive, or that all straight people are HIV-negative.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 52):
And just as there are countless straight service members having oral and anal sex,

Is that correct? Listen, I'm conducting research for a college term paper on the sex lives of US service members. Do you happen to be one of those straight service members who engages in oral and anal sex?

Signed,

DocLightning

  

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 53):
But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise.Stop putting a bag over our heads.Sex is you're "religion."This why so many people object to gay politics.But this might be served in another thread.

First of all, UH60 is straight. Second, your entire post is remarkably offensive and is best thrown out with the garbage, not discussed in another thread. Sex is our religion? Is that correct? Is that all there is to any of us?

You do have a bag over your head, but not because any of us put it there. You clearly know nothing about gay politics or about gay people if you actually believe what you've written.

[Edited 2010-12-22 12:25:23]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2010-12-22 13:16:05 and read 4281 times.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 43):

But article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books.

Last I checked, civilians controlled the military, not the other way around.

Article 125 is as good as gone (and has been for a few months, the SecDef has refused to discharge any service member with a case brought to him).

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-22 13:54:26 and read 4249 times.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 51):
But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise.Stop putting a bag over our heads.Sex is you're "religion."This why so many people object to gay politics.But this might be served in another thread.

What in the world are you talking about?? There are no parallels. In both homo and heterosexual populations, there are people who are careless and people who aren't. Any further comment or "parallel" is just illogical.

I'm straight, have had a fairly generous number of sex partners, have engaged in various things, and do not have a single VD. It's called not being careless. I know of people who have had only one or two partners and still ended up with something. Dispense with this "sex is your religion" bunk - it's intellectually bankrupt.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: tugger
Posted 2010-12-22 14:01:18 and read 4245 times.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 47):
Sorry ..but what is going to happen when some boot head slams a openly gay fellow trooper ?

If he "slams" an "openly gay" fellow soldier he will most likely get slammed back in equal measure. You are talking about a soldier and a Marine at that. It is not about being gay, their "identity" is "Soldier" and "Defender" and "Fighter", in the case you propose it is Marine! I think many seem to miss that, that someone sexual orientation is not their identity, it is merely an aspect of them. The problem has been that this sigular aspect has been focused and based on it people have been discriminated against.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 47):
Move on ....

   Exactly!

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 51):
But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise.Stop putting a bag over our heads.Sex is you're "religion."This why so many people object to gay politics.But this might be served in another thread.

No, "sex" is not the issue or the "religion", it simply part of who they are. The entire problem is that it is used as a reason by some people to discriminate against homosexuals, and that is wrong.

Homosexuals want nothing more than to get rid of sexual preference as a determining factor on how people are treated. But some people cannot let it go. The only "politics" involved are: Don't deny someone a right or a service or access to something based on a person sexual preference.

Sex has very little to do with a homosexuals life, just like sex has very little to do with a heterosexuals life. We all do it, some really enjoy it a lot and pursue it a lot, and some are very mild about it. It does not define a persons life (generally, there are exceptions on both sides). Sex is just a normal part of someones life, what kind of sex it is is really no ones business besides their partners.

Tugg

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Cargolex
Posted 2010-12-22 14:19:43 and read 4227 times.

Quote:
This why so many people object to gay politics.

The real reason "people" object to Gays being treated equally, which is pretty much what 100% of Gay political issues are about, is that they are bigots. They may couch it in more friendly terms, but that's what their motivation is. They don't like Gay people and they do not believe they deserve equality - and they find many justifications for their beliefs, but at the heart of it, it's bigotry, pure and simple.

[Edited 2010-12-22 14:20:55]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-22 14:22:26 and read 4223 times.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 52):

Is that correct? Listen, I'm conducting research for a college term paper on the sex lives of US service members. Do you happen to be one of those straight service members who engages in oral and anal sex?

Signed,

DocLightning

This is a wholly inaccurate representation of me.

(I would have used "medical research" as a motive... I've been out of college a depressingly long time.   )

Quoting OA412 (Reply 52):

It takes balls to go back and reevaluate your belief system. It takes even bigger balls to admit that you're wrong.

Can we stop talking about UH60's balls? (It's making me all hot and bothered.    )

As for the discussion about HIV, believe it or not, the majority of HIV cases in the United States are heterosexual. While it is overrepresented in the gay community, the risks are still there. There is a reason why an HIV test is part of the standard pre-service labs they draw.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: OA412
Posted 2010-12-22 19:00:27 and read 4152 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57):
Is that correct? Listen, I'm conducting "medical" research pertaining to the sex lives of US service members. Do you happen to be one of those straight service members who engages in oral and anal sex?

Signed,

DocLightning


This is a wholly inaccurate representation of me.

(I would have used "medical research" as a motive... I've been out of college a depressingly long time.

My humblest apologies. It's been fixed.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57):
Can we stop talking about UH60's balls? (It's making me all hot and bothered.

Oh for the love of God... 

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-22 21:46:36 and read 4111 times.

We're incorrigible.  

Ahem... I believe we were discussing a serious topic in here?   

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2010-12-23 00:34:29 and read 4077 times.

Good, now Doc can join up. I think he has a think for military men lol

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: N1120A
Posted 2010-12-23 14:11:53 and read 3976 times.

Man UH60, you have certainly evolved into someone I like a lot more than a few years ago.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 50):

Especially when there are a few thousand active duty service members - gay and straight - who are HIV+. The military already has a structure in place to deal with infected service members. And to dispel the lame rumors... no they are not thrown to the curb when they test positive. As long as they stay healthy, they are free to serve their full career.

This actually surprised me a bit. I would have thought kicking them to the curb would be the go to, but this is a good policy.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 50):
So you're teetering on the verge of being insulting.

Teetering? I think person you quoted dove head long off the edge there.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 51):

But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise

What in the world?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-23 17:04:15 and read 3945 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 50):

Especially when there are a few thousand active duty service members - gay and straight - who are HIV+. The military already has a structure in place to deal with infected service members. And to dispel the lame rumors... no they are not thrown to the curb when they test positive. As long as they stay healthy, they are free to serve their full career.

I'm surprised. I guess they would have to serve non-combat roles.

I suppose it makes sense. At some point in his career, a career officer is going to get high cholesterol and blood pressure and all that stuff. They don't get retired when that happens, but they probably aren't allowed into active combat, either.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-23 21:02:43 and read 3897 times.

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 56):
The real reason "people" object to Gays being treated equally, which is pretty much what 100% of Gay political issues are about, is that they are bigots. They may couch it in more friendly terms, but that's what their motivation is. They don't like Gay people and they do not believe they deserve equality - and they find many justifications for their beliefs, but at the heart of it, it's bigotry, pure and simple.


I disagree. Many people just object to the lifestyle. I object to the 'gangsta' lifestyle; does that make me a bigot? I can't stand Country-Western music (and the NASCAR lifestyle it embraces)...bigot? Just because some people disagree with another's position or lifestyle does not make them a bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe or whatever other term you want to use to castigate him. It means he (or she) has preferences and those preferences may not coincide with someone else's (or the majority).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 59):


Boy, this has really become a UH lovefest, hasn't it?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Mir
Posted 2010-12-23 21:33:40 and read 3893 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
Many people just object to the lifestyle.

The issue, however, is that being gay is not a lifestyle.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
I object to the 'gangsta' lifestyle; does that make me a bigot?

No, unless you project that dislike onto all black people. Which is exactly what you do when you confuse the stereotypical flamboyant gay lifestyle with all gays. You can dislike that all you want, and I'll bet that the military would have similar views, but it's worth it to remember that you've probably seen thousands of gay people in your life who you didn't realize were gay, because they looked just like everyone else. If you're going to lump them in with the stereotypical gay crowd, and discriminate against them because of it, then yes, you are a bigot.

-Mir

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-23 22:03:53 and read 3880 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
The issue, however, is that being gay is not a lifestyle.

Yeah, I knew that would come up.

It is a lifestyle...one they do not choose. But being gay is as much a lifestyle as being straight.

I don't like the gay lifestyle. I don't want to see it or partake in it. Does that make me a bigot? No, it makes me someone that disagrees with a lifestyle, plain and simple.

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
Which is exactly what you do when you confuse the stereotypical flamboyant gay lifestyle with all gays.

There is more to the lifestyle than the flamboyance, as you point out. There are aspects of the non-flamboyant parts that I disagree with. Am I a bigot?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: kiwiandrew
Posted 2010-12-23 22:07:37 and read 3886 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
I don't like the gay lifestyle.

What exactly is "the gay lifestyle" ? I am gay myself and I have absolutely no idea what it is any more than I know what "the straight lifestyle "is . Perhaps you would care to educate me since you seem so well informed about it ?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Mir
Posted 2010-12-23 22:13:23 and read 3883 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
It is a lifestyle...one they do not choose.

Then why are you trying to justify your beliefs by comparing it to the gangsta lifestyle, or the country-western lifestyle, both of which are entirely by choice?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
I don't like the gay lifestyle. I don't want to see it or partake in it. Does that make me a bigot? No, it makes me someone that disagrees with a lifestyle, plain and simple.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "the gay lifestyle". Because if you're going to discriminate against someone based on something they have no control over, then yes, that is bigotry.

-Mir

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-23 22:24:17 and read 3884 times.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 66):
What exactly is "the gay lifestyle" ? I am gay myself and I have absolutely no idea what it is any more than I know what "the straight lifestyle "is . Perhaps you would care to educate me since you seem so well informed about it ?
OK, I was trying to be a little sensitive, but that apparently isn't going to work. What I don't like or approve of (not that gays need my, or anyone else's approval) is sex between men. It's that simple. Does that make me a bigot? No. I makes me someone who does not like to see or hear about sex between men.

I am allowed to have my preferences, much like everyone is allowed to have their's without being called a bigot.

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):
Because if you're going to discriminate against

Who said anything about discrimination. I said I don't like certain aspects. There is a difference.

[Edited 2010-12-23 22:26:03]

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-23 22:29:44 and read 3883 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Does that make me a bigot? No.

You disapprove of ME as a person because I have sex with a man in the privacy of my own home and because I have no desire now or ever to have sex with a woman?

Yes, that makes you a bigot. At least have the stones to OWN it, man.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-23 22:39:06 and read 3884 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
You disapprove of ME as a person because I have sex with a man in the privacy of my own home and because I have no desire now or ever to have sex with a woman?

No Doc, I do not disapprove of you. I disapprove of certain aspects of the lifestyle you lead, actually, a very narrow aspect of it, that's all. A little earlier in the thread someone said that sex is your (gay's) religion and you all correctly indicated that it is not.

Do you identify yourself solely with gay sex? No, you don't. Then why do you hold my distaste for gay sex against me and call me a bigot?

Again, just because I don't like a practice, does not mean I'm bigoted against the practitioners of that practice.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2010-12-23 23:58:33 and read 3867 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 61):
Man UH60, you have certainly evolved into someone I like a lot more than a few years ago.

Likewise, man.  
Quoting N1120A (Reply 61):
This actually surprised me a bit. I would have thought kicking them to the curb would be the go to, but this is a good policy.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
I suppose it makes sense. At some point in his career, a career officer is going to get high cholesterol and blood pressure and all that stuff. They don't get retired when that happens, but they probably aren't allowed into active combat, either.

I agree that it's rather surprising. Because lets be honest, the military has a knack for treating personnel in the same manner they treat a simple piece of equipment. If it's defective, toss it.

But just because someone has HIV, does not make them suddenly worthless. And it certainly does not invalidate a career of hard work and dedicated service. As long as they remain healthy and meet military physical standards, and as long as they take appropriate precautions, I am okay with them serving.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
Boy, this has really become a UH lovefest, hasn't it?

lol jealous?

But seriously, here's the thing. I just happen to be one of the more vocal proponents of the repeal of DADT. But the truth is that many in the military feel the same way, and are ready to move on from this silly debate. I really haven't said anything profound, or anything that many others are not saying themselves.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 51):
But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise.Stop putting a bag over our heads.Sex is you're "religion."This why so many people object to gay politics.
MY religion?

You're talking out of your posterior. You ought to educate yourself before you spout off.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
I disagree. Many people just object to the lifestyle. I object to the 'gangsta' lifestyle; does that make me a bigot? I can't stand Country-Western music (and the NASCAR lifestyle it embraces)...bigot? Just because some people disagree with another's position or lifestyle does not make them a bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe or whatever other term you want to use to castigate him.

To me, this is where you jump the shark.

It's a ridiculous comparison to make. Being gay is not akin to liking NASCAR or some other hobby. Disliking people who live the gangsta lifetyle, is basically passing judgment on them because you disagree with their poor life choices. So building off that argument, you're suggesting that homosexuality is a choice.

And more importantly, while you have every right to not want to hear/see men having sex with men (although I noticed you specifically mentioned only men, does your disgust extend to women, as well?)... that right doesn't mean you have the ability to subjugate gays into the shadows.

Because let us not forget that the entire point of this thread is the repeal of DADT. There are going to be service members who share your same distaste for gay "lifestyle." But I'm sorry... but too freakin' bad. What we are talking about, is tens of thousands of honorable service members being forced to live a secret life, to lie about who they are, and live under the constant threat of being booted because of who they are.

It's unconscionable that we demand they compromise their integrity, just because you and a minority of others finds it distasteful.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2010-12-24 01:09:29 and read 3842 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Does that make me a bigot?

By strict definition, yes, it does. And that, in and of itself, is not an evil thing. I'm not going to bite your head off just because you feel a certain way. That would be extremely hypocritical.

I particularly like your analogy to C&W and NASCAR, as they are things I really don't care for either. But I don't go around advocating that NASCAR fans can't be in the military.

Just because one finds certain sex acts distasteful doesn't give them the right to regulate the lives of those who partake in it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
No. I makes me someone who does not like to see or hear about sex between men.

And that has nothing to do with whether or not gay people should have equal rights. And there's not a debate in there: they should. Period. End of story. It's no different than telling someone they can't do something because they're black. Or because they wear a #3 hat.

It harms absolutely nobody when a guy bangs another guy, or a girl goes down on another girl. In fact, allowing somebody to openly love another is a good thing. We should be encouraging love, not hating on it.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: OA412
Posted 2010-12-24 01:18:31 and read 3838 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
Many people just object to the lifestyle.

What lifestyle is that? What you're suggesting here is that there is a single gay "lifestyle". Is there a single straight "lifestyle".

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
Just because some people disagree with another's position or lifestyle does not make them a bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe or whatever other term you want to use to castigate him.

It all depends upon why they disagree with blacks or gays or immigrants or Muslims or whomever.

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
The issue, however, is that being gay is not a lifestyle.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
If you're going to lump them in with the stereotypical gay crowd, and discriminate against them because of it, then yes, you are a bigot.

  

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
It is a lifestyle

No it's not.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
I don't like the gay lifestyle.

I don't like the bigot lifestyle.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
What I don't like or approve of (not that gays need my, or anyone else's approval) is sex between men. It's that simple. Does that make me a bigot? No. I makes me someone who does not like to see or hear about sex between men.

Does that make you a bigot? Yes, because unless you want to believe that we are all celibate, you hate us for who we are. Gay men have sex with gay men, that is a fact of life, just like straight men having sex with straight women is a fact of life. You cannot separate one from the other, thus your objection to the fact that we have sex with other men makes you a bigot.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
I am allowed to have my preferences, much like everyone is allowed to have their's without being called a bigot.

Except that pretty much everything you've posted points to the fact that you are, in fact, a bigot.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
I said I don't like certain aspects. There is a difference.

No, not really. You said you don't like the fact that gay men have sex with other gay men. As I said above, that is an integral part of our being. You can't just try and pick and choose and, in the process, pretend that you're not a bigot.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
You disapprove of ME as a person because I have sex with a man in the privacy of my own home and because I have no desire now or ever to have sex with a woman?

Yes, that makes you a bigot. At least have the stones to OWN it, man.

  

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 70):

Seriously, take Doc's advice and just man up. When it comes to gays (at least gay men), you're a bigot.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-24 01:32:35 and read 3835 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
What I don't like or approve of (not that gays need my, or anyone else's approval) is sex between men. It's that simple

Then don't have sex with men or watch men have sex with men. It's that simple. Why do you care if other men do or want to watch others do same? What's it to you?? Live and let live man...much less stress that way.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
No. I makes me someone who does not like to see or hear about sex between men.

Mmmmkay, so sex between women is fine then? Guess what - that still qualifies as gay sex, whether you derive pleasure, curiosity, or interest from watching it or not.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 73):
I don't like the bigot lifestyle.

  

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-24 03:41:42 and read 3819 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 71):
that right doesn't mean you have the ability to subjugate gays into the shadows.

WHo said anything about subjugation. I said I find it distastful, that's all.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 73):
Does that make you a bigot? Yes, because unless you want to believe that we are all celibate, you hate us for who we are. Gay men have sex with gay men, that is a fact of life, just like straight men having sex with straight women is a fact of life. You cannot separate one from the other, thus your objection to the fact that we have sex with other men makes you a bigot.

Do you define yourself by your sexuality? I don't define gay people by their sexuality. I really could care less about it. You say "hate", I say the act is distastful, too me. Where do you get "hate"?

Maybe I'm not making myself clear; I have no problem with gays (or lesbians)... the act is, too me, distastful. That's all.

You know...let's not go any further. I'm not gay and I have clearly given some offense, not intended, that I don't understand. Let's celebrate the end of DADT and move on.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Mir
Posted 2010-12-24 10:05:14 and read 3783 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
OK, I was trying to be a little sensitive, but that apparently isn't going to work. What I don't like or approve of (not that gays need my, or anyone else's approval) is sex between men. It's that simple.

Fine. I too have no desire to have sex with other men (I find the thought of it very off-putting), nor do I care to see such sex (or heterosexual sex, for that matter - what people do in private should remain private). That doesn't mean I dislike gay people, since I can separate their private lives from their public lives, just as they can (and do). If someone is unable to do that, then I would definitely consider them to be a bigot.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Who said anything about discrimination. I said I don't like certain aspects. There is a difference.

Let's go back to the post you replied to, in which it was said:

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 56):
The real reason "people" object to Gays being treated equally, which is pretty much what 100% of Gay political issues are about, is that they are bigots. They may couch it in more friendly terms, but that's what their motivation is. They don't like Gay people and they do not believe they deserve equality - and they find many justifications for their beliefs, but at the heart of it, it's bigotry, pure and simple.

Basically, his point was that people object to gays being treated equally because they don't like them. Your response was this:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
I disagree. Many people just object to the lifestyle.

Basically, you said that people don't want gays to be treated equally, not because they dislike them, but because they don't like that they have sex with other men. That is still discrimination, and bigotry. If, on the other hand, you meant that you just don't like the idea of gay sex but don't see grounds for denying gay couples the same rights as straight couples (including the right to marry or serve openly in the military), then that's something else entirely, and that's a viewpoint that's perfectly fine.

You can dislike gay people all you want and not be a bigot, so long as you don't support the restriction of their rights because of it. But if you do support such restrictions, then it is bigotry, plain and simple, and no amount of justification will change that.

-Mir

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2010-12-24 13:47:55 and read 3766 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
Maybe I'm not making myself clear; I have no problem with gays (or lesbians)... the act is, too me, distastful. That's all.

I've no problem with that statement at all, and I don't believe it makes you a bigot, unless you make choices about people in regards to your beliefs. If you would choose one person over another for a promotion, etc., depending upon their sexual identification, then it would make you a bigot. But you've not said that you do/have/would. Until then, I think people are labeling you with the bigot tag unfairly.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Quokka
Posted 2010-12-24 18:06:03 and read 3731 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
Glad to see this backward, exclusionary policy is about to be overturned.


How does the above square with all the shrill denunciations of Fr8mech as a bigot?

A bigot is one who constantly and steadfastly holds to his or her opinions and who is intolerant of those who hold different opinions. While Fr8mech may not relish the idea of jumping into bed with another man, the above quote does not suggest that he is a bigot. He may find sex between men "distasteful" but he hasn't demanded that other men desist; threatened anyone with hellfire; or advocated discrimination. Quite the reverse: he welcomes the fact that a discriminatory Act is being repealed. How does that make him a bigot?

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-24 22:01:52 and read 3696 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 76):
Let's go back to the post you replied to, in which it was said:

Mir, I appreciate you going back (therefore, sending me back). I mis-read his post. I don't object to equal treatment of gays, whether I find certain aspects of the lifestyle distasteful. I guess my reading this at O'Dark-Thirty during the busiest day of the year screwed me up and got a bunch of panties (mine included) in a wad.

My apologies.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 78):
A bigot is one who constantly and steadfastly holds to his or her opinions and who is intolerant of those who hold different opinions. While Fr8mech may not relish the idea of jumping into bed with another man, the above quote does not suggest that he is a bigot. He may find sex between men "distasteful" but he hasn't demanded that other men desist; threatened anyone with hellfire; or advocated discrimination. Quite the reverse: he welcomes the fact that a discriminatory Act is being repealed. How does that make him a bigot?

Thank you for the defense.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: Mir
Posted 2010-12-25 04:34:53 and read 3670 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 79):
I don't object to equal treatment of gays, whether I find certain aspects of the lifestyle distasteful.

Okay, that's fine. No problems there. I still disagree with calling it a lifestyle, since that really does imply choice in the matter, but your main point is sound.

-Mir

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2010-12-25 07:06:34 and read 3643 times.

Saying the "gay" lifestyle is like saying I lead the "black car" lifestyle for driving a black car. Gays and straights are mostly alike on 99% of things. Why do you pick sexual orientation for their label? I think you can only call someone living a "gay lifestyle" only if they live, eat, and breathe gay, like paint their house rainbow and make out with random men on the street and eating only rainbow ice cream. Living a life exactly like yours except going home to a guy is not a lifestyle.

One more thing...

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
What I don't like or approve of (not that gays need my, or anyone else's approval) is sex between men

well what if a gay person disagreed with your straightness?



(and please see the rainbow ice cream thing as a joke lol)

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-25 23:29:53 and read 3570 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 70):
I disapprove of certain aspects of the lifestyle you lead, actually, a very narrow aspect of it, that's all.

Wonderful. I disapprove of yours.

I think that you should not have the same rights that I do because of it. You should not be able to serve in the military. Ideally, you'd not have the right to vote. And so back in the closet with bigots like you.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: mariner
Posted 2010-12-26 02:21:00 and read 3555 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
Maybe I'm not making myself clear; I have no problem with gays (or lesbians)... the act is, too me, distastful. That's all.

Fair enough. I don't particularly like to watch couples screwing, gay or straight, unless I'm involved.

I don't ask or expect anyone to approve of what I do as long as they don't try to stop me doing it.

Which is really the point of this splendid news of repeal in the US.

What is fascinating to me is how little reaction there has been, other than the headlines when it first happened. For the rest, there's been no great outcry against the repeal, except among the usual suspects in the Christian/right wing press. American Thinker and World Net Daily are frothing, but Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard has been quite temperate.

I'm sure there'll be some hoo-haa in the days ahead, it won't all be plain sailing, but like all the great civil rights advances, eventually it will be difficult to remember what all the fuss was about.

mariner

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-26 06:57:50 and read 3539 times.

quote=DeltaMD90,reply=81]well what if a gay person disagreed with your straightness?[/quote]
And...that would be his problem, not mine.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 82):
Wonderful. I disapprove of yours.

Doc, please see above. I mis-read the part where Cargolex talked about being equal. Just because I find gay sex distastful, in no way implies that I want to deny gays any rights that a straight person has.

My main point is: that if someone finds gay sex distastful, it does not automatically make him a bigot.

Question for all those that attack my point: if you find straight sex distastful, does that make you a bigot?

Of course not, it makes you a person with preferences.


Quoting mariner (Reply 83):
What is fascinating to me is how little reaction there has been, other than the headlines when it first happened. For the rest, there's been no great outcry against the repeal, except among the usual suspects in the Christian/right wing press. American Thinker and World Net Daily are frothing, but Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard has been quite temperate

I'm not surprised. Because, except in the extreme, this is really not a big issue for the polictical Right. Most of us are happy it's gone.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-27 13:17:13 and read 3458 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):

Doc, please see above. I mis-read the part where Cargolex talked about being equal. Just because I find gay sex distastful, in no way implies that I want to deny gays any rights that a straight person has.

My main point is: that if someone finds gay sex distastful, it does not automatically make him a bigot.

Then that's different and I apologize.

Yes, I find heterosexual sex distasteful. Believe me, I'm quite familiar with female anatomy and there ain't nothing pretty about it, IMO.

What defines a free and enlightened society is that you can like your plumbing and I can like mine, but we still have the same rights and responsibilities.

As it stands right now, I *STILL* do not have the same rights as straight people do, all on account of my preference for plumbing.

Topic: RE: US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2010-12-28 13:14:08 and read 3389 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 85):
As it stands right now, I *STILL* do not have the same rights as straight people do, all on account of my preference for plumbing

Getting closer Doc, getting closer.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/