Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
There's guys prancing around, twitching and shaking their hips etc. and "butch" looking females walking around with their "pretty" friends. Matter of fact, I ran into one of my obviously gay lesbian soldier dressed up like a total dude next to her "friend" that obviously took the woman role.
Even better, a Lieutenant Colonel in one of my units was a commander and she was obviously a lesbian. If I can find a good picture on her on the net tomorrow, I'll post a link and let you decide for yourself.
It's awesome that so many people in the military are fine with homosexuals. So let's get rid of DADT so that the people who are still homophobic don't have an excuse to punish someone for their sexual orientation, and nothing will change.
ALmalieque for like the Kajillionth time plus 2 wrote:
No, your argument is complete BS. If you believe that we must attack one rule, then the most logical way is to attack Sodomy and the laws that affect everyone that would lead into changing the laws like DADT. YOu wouldn't change a law that probably effects less than 5% of the population that would result in hypocrisy in the hopes that it would change the bigger picture.
The BS is coming from everyone else in this thread. This is nothing about the freedoms and rights that you all seem to think the military should grant, but forcing people to accept homosexuality and that's all there is to it.
i.e.: They're not doing it the way I want, so I'm going to staunchly oppose it just because I'm immature.
Almalieque wrote:
This isn't "catering to me", but catering to logic. If you were running late to an appointment and your co-worker said, "you might not want to take the short route, there's an accident slowing up traffic, you're better off taking the longer route because you'll end up getting there quicker", which route would you take?
Answer the question...
Arip wrote:
Yes, DADT was and is a compromise. It's now time for the military to let go, and accept that homosexuals exist with the same civilian social rights as African Americans, non-caucasians generally, and women. By all means, keep your military rules and fitness entry levels for every-one who wants to enter. Just don't have a separate military rule for the gays to grudgingly enter and remain in the military as absolute and always second-class military citizens.
I'm puzzled on why you all some how think discriminating against a physical trait is the same thing as discriminating against a personality trait.
That's besides the point.. You say "Keep your military rules and fitness entry levels for every-one who wants to enter", but I'm sure you have no idea what they are. I mentioned earlier in this thread that many (not all) women (mainly the ones with some hips or junk in the trunk) can never pass height/weight because of the military's unrealistic standards. I've yet heard anyone say anything on that.
I know you're saying "we're talking about DADT, that's why", my point is, if we want change in the military, we have to logically evaluate it as a whole, not just randomly changing things because YOU think its bad. I keep bringing up sodomy, because you all keep ignoring it. It makes no sense to allow open homosexuality but to ban sodomy. That's like banning sodomy but allowing physical contact of another person's genitalia. If you're doing the latter, you inherently contradicting the former. SO WHY JUST NOT CHANGE THE FORMER!!
Arip wrote:
Ah hah. Yes, I am asking you, or rather I'm asking the military, to accept that homosexuality exists, and that homosexuals should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. I am not asking you, or anyone in the military to like or approve of any homosexuals, or to like or approve of any homosexual behaviour. You can accept something without approving of it, and this is what I'm asking. Accept homosexuality without approving of it. Accept homosexuality in the military, without approving of it.
DADT does just that. It accepts that homosexuality exists and allows them the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals in reference to work. What you're complaining about is personal expression, something that the military or any military like organization doesn't cares too much for in the first place. Just like Jophiel said earlier, we just follow orders. There was no internal vote on rather or not we should go to war.
That war went against many people's personal beliefs that are fundamental to them as a person. You know what they do, they shut up and do their job.