Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Argentina Lifts Ban On Gays In Military  
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4302 posts, RR: 12
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

Argentina to Repeal Its Ban On Gays In The Military
08.31.06


The government of Argentina announced that it plans to repeal its ban on gay military personnel, according to recent news reports, making it the second country in South America, following Colombia, to prohibit discrimination in its armed forces.

Argentina's government plans to modernize its code of military justice which, among other changes, will no longer prohibit same-sex relationships among personnel in its armed forces.

"The ban was nonsense," said Colonel Judge Advocate Manual Lozano, in a media statement issued by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Thursday. "It's a matter of people's private lives."

According to C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Argentina’s move toward nondiscrimination makes the United States increasingly isolated in its prohibition on gays in the military.

"From Israel to South Africa to Argentina, countries are recognizing that banning qualified service members only hurts their readiness,” said Osburn in a media statement.

“Eva Peron once observed that 'shadows cannot see themselves in the mirror of the sun.' Today, in her country, gay patriots are emerging from the shadows and being recognized for their dedication and service," Osburn’s statement continued.

Argentina joins a growing list of at least 25 nations that no longer exclude openly gay service personnel. American military allies, including Great Britain, Canada and Australia, have lifted their bans on open service.

Membership in the European Union requires nations to abolish any prohibitions on service by gays. Openly gay personnel from allied nations are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside American troops.

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=10454

--------------------------------

In related issues, there are proposal to grant gays and lesbians full civil rights in other provinces beyond the three that have already done so.


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

We are still behind in civil rights. Amazing that gay rights exist in the world, but not here. The so-called land of the free.

Bush keeps promoting this land of freedom and liberty abroad yet wants to legislate a limitiation of civil rights here.

Way to go Argentina!!!



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

I personally see nothing wrong with gays, lesbians, etc. serving in the military. If someone wants to serve, and can PHYSICALLY serve, who really cares what their sexual preference is?

Marc


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Haven't we beaten this subject to a bloody pulp a few times already on A.net??

The vast majority of the "military a.netters" will say that being openly gay is inappropriate and at odds with military life.

And the vast majority of the "social advocacy a.netters" will say we're being discriminatory and living in the past.

See: RE: Dont Ask Dont Tell? (by Kiwiandrew Dec 6 2005 in Non Aviation)#ID1026103

-UH60


User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21418 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
The vast majority of the "military a.netters" will say that being openly gay is inappropriate and at odds with military life.

And the vast majority of the "social advocacy a.netters" will say we're being discriminatory and living in the past.

Your fellow servicemen and -women in the other western forces are grown up enough to deal with it without getting all hysterical. That would pretty much obliterate your claim #1 above and confirm statement #2 - if many of your own colleagues weren't already past that. One has to wonder what you're imagining would happen...!  eyebrow 


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
Haven't we beaten this subject to a bloody pulp a few times already on A.net??

Jeez, I say this and post it and I get flamed to death. You do and you get nothing.

But isn't this an open forum, to talk things to death and/or oblivion, discuss, debate and converse?

Even if it is to death?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
that being openly gay is inappropriate

As opposed to openly straight? I am openly gay, nor would you ever know it and I am highly appropriate in my surroundings.



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
I personally see nothing wrong with gays, lesbians, etc. serving in the military.

Me neither. Being gay, bisexual or straight doesn't mean you're better or worse in life.

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
"The ban was nonsense,"

 checkmark 

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
"It's a matter of people's private lives."

 checkmark 

I feel appaled about how gays lose their rights more and more in the US while they're getting more and more rights in Europe and how sometimes Muslims get discriminated worldwide. I'm also someone who is in favour of equal rights to everyone (regardless of skin colour, religion or where you come from) and especially of ending gender discrimination (like for example remove the gender barrier in sports where men and women are mostly segregated). And this is why I say: regardless of whether you're homosexual, bisexual, straight, etc. and regardless of where you come from, in whom you believe or whether you're a man or a woman, you all have a right to be treated equal and with dignity. This right is embedded in many constitutions around the world, yet we continue to act unconstitutionally when it comes to certain people who "don't fit a certain requirement or profile".


User currently offlineAfay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

As an aside, Poland and now Latvia both are in violation of their EU responsibilities in regard to this provision and gay rights in general; a nothing will probably ever be done as punishment. In any case, bravo for Argentina; hopefully it works in practice too!

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

Congrats to Argentina!

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
Haven't we beaten this subject to a bloody pulp a few times already on A.net??

I saw this as an announcement of a policy change, not as a call to arms.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4302 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Sexuality pressures in the military both from the heterosexual and homosexual crowd is a seperate issue I think. There is plenty of sexual harrassment in military circles, but I don't think no one at this point suggests banning women.

The core issue is the harrassers, not the sexual preference.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6075 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Having gay persons in the service is not really that big of a deal. I am not gay and have never been in the service, but they will always be there even if people don't like it. Back in the 90s when this was a huge issue I remember my father and grandfather talking about serving with openly gay men in WWII and Vietnam. Wasn't the ban fairly recent? I want to say 1982 or 84. If a able bodied person wants to serve their country let them. I was deemed unfit for service in the military so I never could be part of it. Let someone else have my spot. One of my former students is in the Army right now and he is gay. He just didn't say anything about it to anyone official. He doesn't serve because he wants to cause trouble or flaunt his gayness he just wants to be "part of the action and kick ass". No matter what people say they will always be there. Sure it might cause some trouble with some people, but I doubt anymore than some other groups of people.


My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
Haven't we beaten this subject to a bloody pulp a few times already on A.net??

Here's making it official, UH60:


 biggrin 

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
The vast majority of the "military a.netters" will say that being openly gay is inappropriate and at odds with military life

At one time, same thing was said about blacks, my friend; same thing was said about women. It isn't any more inappropriate than the losers who fondled and accosted women at Tailhook, 'lo so many years ago, and other transgressions by straights, is it?

If someone wants to serve their country, and is willing and able to do so-as long as they don't make overt and unwanted advances to anyone, why should anyone care what their orientation is? I mean, we hear about problems women have had at Annapolis and the Air Force Academy on on off for how long? And that's semi-tolerated. Why isn't a gay person tolerated? Especially in a time when the military needs people to fill their ranks?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
And the vast majority of the "social advocacy a.netters" will say we're being discriminatory and living in the past.

I don't even care about that, man. I just think it's stupid, backward and totally out-of-date, if you will, in today's society. There are many gays and lesbians who just want to serve their country! Why don't we let them? Isn't it bad enough that we're making them feel like second-class citizens everwhere else? Let them distinguish themselves as members of the armed forces!

Congrats to Argentina, for stepping out of the dark ages on this one. I hope the U.S. will follow suit, when the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania and his party lose their dominance in Washington.


User currently offlineAfay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

To be fair, and this is off-topic, Clinton enacted the current Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and Colin Powell, a benefitee of integration if there ever were one, was the prime instigator and champion. Even without the Iraq lying thing, his involvement with My Lai and the hypocrisy of 92's don't ask don't tell taint him...

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2269 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
The vast majority of the "military a.netters" will say that being openly gay is inappropriate and at odds with military life.

NOT this A-Netter. Like it or not UH60, it's the ignorance of the "straight" military that makes you THINK the majority will say . . . . .

Personally, I don't give a hoot in hell . . . if you can move, shoot and communicate I don't care who you sleep with.

In fact, and I've said this before, I had two people on my Personal Staff, both military, and both gay/lesbian . . . and I protected them - at my own peril I realize but dismiss . . . because they are great soldiers and great people and great friends. They will stay nameless as they are both still serving on Active Duty.

The policy is antiquated, as antiquated as the Sodomy Law that was recently written out of the UCMJ. Ignorance by the "straight" military is the cause of the furor over the issue, NOT the fact some great soldiers are gay/lesbian.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
when the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania and his party lose their dominance in Washington.

The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is NOT to blame for the issue of gays in the military. Speaking of beating a dead fuckin' horse there Falcon . . . . you need to look way back beyond PotUS . . . although he hasn 't caused any advancement in this arena, he is NOT to blame. So you can back off that  redflag  right now. You can also stow the bullshit about the Republicans being at fault regarding the issue of gays/lesbians in the military. It took both parties to keep it dicked up. So you can back off that as well.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Speaking of beating a dead fuckin' horse there Falcon . . . .

Hey, go find your own dead fucking horse, dude! I got the horse in there first.  Big grin


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

I'm not going into the full blown argument - because I already linked to a previous thread where everything was already argued out.

But look... this policy has been around for going on 10yrs now, every person currently in the military signed a form swearing they would abide by it. Everyone has come into the military knowing this policy existed and they were asked to put the military above their personal life.

And that's the issue isn't? The military is not centered around the individual, it's centered around the overall collective group. There are MANY instances where soldiers are asked to place the needs of the group of their own personal needs. And that's what it boils down to: you're going to be asked to place the needs of the military before your own needs.

And if you feel your sexual preference is a defining part of who you are - and that you can't live happily without being "out" - then maybe the military isn't your cup of tea. And it's not just homosexuals. I know a couple of guys who are very "family orientated" and they've had a very difficult time being separated.

You're going to have to make sacrifices. It's part of the deal. But you know, the military is coming around to gays/lesbians serving openly, and it's happening quietly. The last thing the cause needs is large media attention. The religous nuts will come out of the woodworks and only negate any advances made. Give it 10yrs and things will be different.

-UH60


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
But you know, the military is coming around to gays/lesbians serving openly, and it's happening quietly. The last thing the cause needs is large media attention. The religous nuts will come out of the woodworks and only negate any advances made. Give it 10yrs and things will be different.

I concur with that assessment. The US Military is - to coin a phrase I'm sure you've heard UH-60 - "Slow but Trainable". It will happen. And within the next decade . . .


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

May I present the comments of Barry Goldwater;

Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable
By Barry M. Goldwater
The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"

When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that's just stupid.

Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

(Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987)

Barry was right on this one. In today's world he would be classified as a liberal Republican.


User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
The vast majority of the "military a.netters" will say that being openly gay is inappropriate and at odds with military life.

Well then maybe "military life" needs to be overhauled. Obviously if they have lifted bans in all these other nations, it really must not be getting in the way too much. Also, the "vast majority" of the 'military' a.netters are straight...and raised in a certain mindset. I highly doubt the majority of them are very liberal... so it follows that they would think that being openly gay is at odds with military life. The truth probably is that for them, they think it would be weird. But if they arent gay, why should they care? Get over it and do your job instead of worrying about who is in love with who...

-AA777


User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

I would not expect less of a politician like him. We need more patriots (Dems and Repubs) like Goldwater in the Congress.

In regard to the topic, I guess the moderately liberal Kirchner(sp?) is behind this. Kudos to him. I wonder if the Army will fully support the decision of its Commander in Chief.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Quoting AA777 (Reply 18):
Well then maybe "military life" needs to be overhauled. Obviously if they have lifted bans in all these other nations, it really must not be getting in the way too much. Also, the "vast majority" of the 'military' a.netters are straight...and raised in a certain mindset. I highly doubt the majority of them are very liberal... so it follows that they would think that being openly gay is at odds with military life. The truth probably is that for them, they think it would be weird. But if they arent gay, why should they care? Get over it and do your job instead of worrying about who is in love with who...

Yeah yeah... person in the military ---> straight ----> conservative ---> homophobic.

Give me a break.  Yeah sure

Look, if you read that thread I linked too, you'll read the same thing: we don't have issues with someone being gay! Who freakin' cares what your sexual orientation is?

And as at least two of us have already said: the military is coming around. In ten years things will be different. But the last thing the cause to abolish DADT needs is for the issue to come to center stage! Putting aside the fact that we're neck deep in a global war and that is (as it should be) our primary focus... the military can't afford to have the abolishment of DADT shoved down its throat.

-UH60


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting Afay1 (Reply 7):
As an aside, Poland and now Latvia both are in violation of their EU responsibilities in regard to this provision and gay rights in general; a nothing will probably ever be done as punishment. In any case, bravo for Argentina; hopefully it works in practice too!

You need to remember that the EU is not one nation like the US. It's up to each country to implement laws, their own and the EU's. Sweden does not comply with standards when it comes to taxes on alcohol, for example.

However, the Latvian and Polish violations are disgusting.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
The vast majority of the "military a.netters" will say that being openly gay is inappropriate and at odds with military life.

I know of at least two military a.netters, whom I greatly respect, who don't agree

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
NOT this A-Netter. Like it or not UH60, it's the ignorance of the "straight" military that makes you THINK the majority will say . . . . .

And there is one of them now.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
Give it 10yrs and things will be different.

I know you think this is a positive, and that's how you meant it, but telling someone to just not rock the boat and be patient, things will get better, has never been the best way to go about gaining equal rights. The fact of the matter is that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is being abused by some in the military. Discharges are actually up over last year, and there are plenty of documented cases of the military actually pursuing discharges against service members that hadn't violated the 'don't tell' portion.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
this policy has been around for going on 10yrs now, every person currently in the military signed a form swearing they would abide by it. Everyone has come into the military knowing this policy existed and they were asked to put the military above their personal life.

No one is talking about members of the military violating an existing law. What we're talking about is changing an outdated and outmoded law that has no real effect other than to continue discrimination.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):
the military can't afford to have the abolishment of DADT shoved down its throat.

Why not, what actual harm would it cause? I'm not talking fears, I'm talking about actual provable damage repealing the policy would cause.

BTW, back OT, kudos to Argentina for taking this step.

[Edited 2006-09-04 09:07:41]


"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):
Look, if you read that thread I linked too, you'll read the same thing: we don't have issues with someone being gay! Who freakin' cares what your sexual orientation is?

UH, I don't know why you're getting your panties in a twist over this.

Derico posted a new item about Argentina. EWR posted his remorse that it's not the same for the U.S., gave his congrats to Argentina for moving forward, then you chimed in with being upset this was posted at all.

The only person who keeps beating this dead horse is you. I don't get it. No one's trying to get a peek at your weenie in the shower, so just drop it, okay? (The subject, not the soap.)  Wink It's really getting to the point where the lady doth protesteth too much.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineCedars747 From Norway, joined Dec 2005, 2721 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

I am not surprised ! Personally i know few of them  Wink
A good move for the Argentinian government
Alex!!!



Tengo una pasion por la aviacion !لدي شغف للطيران !I have a passion for aviation !
25 AA777 : I'm not giving a certain time frame. Bottom line is that I believe it should be changed. I'll give you that changing the policy in the middle of this
26 Post contains images Pbottenb : Wow, those Argentines are making a bold step. I hope they do something about those dreadful uniforms and come up with something frilly and FABULOUS! I
27 Halls120 : Congratulations to Argentina. Boy, you just can't avoid jumping at the chance to bash Bush, can you? You might want to get your facts straight. the l
28 Post contains images JCS17 : We salute you Argentina!
29 EWRCabincrew : No, I couldn't. My post was in regards to gay marriage with that comment. It wasn't a "bash", just stating fact. My facts are correct. It had nothing
30 Halls120 : Your facts aren't correct. Bush inherited a long standing prohibition. But I agree that we should congratulate Argentina.
31 Post contains images EWRCabincrew : a tad off topic Here, here (at least we agree on something   )[Edited 2006-09-08 01:38:07]
32 Falcon84 : And why is a gay person different in that regard than a striaght person UH60? For the most part, they're not. The problem is the brass has perpetuate
33 Halls120 : Actually Falcon, you are partially wrong. The problem is partially the fault of all the gay active duty officers who won't come out of the closet. I
34 Falcon84 : Actually, you're dead wrong. Of course they remain silent! They've become honorable, outstanding soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and because o
35 Halls120 : If they came out of the closet - even after retiring - how would they be "throwing away their careers?" Since you've never served, I'll give you the
36 AeroWesty : That's correct. And there's no point in any active duty homosexual to toss away their career until someone at the top has the balls to do so.
37 UH60FtRucker : Like I said - a lot of the argument is already laid out in the thread mentioned above. But look - the idea doesn't necessary make me uncomfortable pe
38 AeroWesty : Would you ask the same of Jewish or black soldiers?
39 EWRCabincrew : Maybe more people would be willing to serve their country if they knew it was a place they could serve and not have to look over their shoulders to s
40 Post contains images Searpqx : Thats just the point - if its abolished, there is no showdown - it's just gone. Or are you saying that while its ok to ask the gay military members t
41 UH60FtRucker : Again - it's really tough and I honestly feel shitty when I so strongly oppose it. Because no matter how much I try and rationalize it - I know that
42 AeroWesty : I don't see why you'd ask another soldier to make a sacrifice you yourself wouldn't be willing to make. Isn't that what placing the greater good befo
43 UH60FtRucker : I know this is totally off topic... but that's not true. We've actually had record amounts of re-enlistments for the past 3 years. And all 4 branches
44 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : I don't disagree with that... it's the truth. Sad - but true. I think that had President Clinton rejected DADT, and said to the military, "You WILL a
45 AeroWesty : Let me ask you something honestly. Do you believe that if DADT was abolished at noon tomorrow that every gay in the military would leap out of their
46 Post contains images Halls120 : x 3!
47 Post contains links UH60FtRucker : I hate to do this (because god knows I am one of A.Net's biggest military cheerleaders) But these two immediately came to mind: http://www.temenos.ne
48 AeroWesty : LOL, you know I hate to say this, because I do respect a lot of people within the military, and my family has a long list of military heroes going ba
49 Falcon84 : I don't think you're wrong, per se. What is wrong is the mentality that the brass (now backed by this administration) continues to send down the pipe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Gays In The Military, UK Style posted Sun Aug 28 2005 03:30:07 by WhiteHatter
Ban On B O In Tennessee posted Tue Aug 26 2003 13:39:43 by Airlinelover
British Take On The US Military In Iraq posted Sat Apr 5 2003 14:08:24 by ADG
Gays In The Military. posted Tue Jan 9 2001 10:05:37 by Mx5_boy
Michael "Kramer" Richards Blows Up On Stage In LA posted Mon Nov 20 2006 18:23:02 by AAFLT1871
BBE Dates On Products In The UK posted Thu Nov 16 2006 14:57:30 by 53Sqdn
GOP Group Wants To Bash Gays In Ohio-Again posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:17:25 by Falcon84
Overpass Collapses On Bridge In Montreal posted Sun Oct 1 2006 06:43:46 by Okees
NYC Might Ban Trans Fats In Restaurants posted Wed Sep 27 2006 12:43:22 by LHMARK
Nazi/Skinhead Killings On Rise In Russia posted Tue Sep 12 2006 23:37:29 by Superfly