28 May 10
1 edit
I remain ashamed that this paragraph is part of my nation's law:
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
And disgusted that anywhere near 40 Senators would insist on retaining it.
29 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue. In fact, I think it a good idea if all the soldiers engaged in sexual relations in a time of war or preparing for it. In fact, lets bring in the babes and have coed barraks!! 😵
I remain ashamed that this paragraph is part of my nation's law:
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
And disgusted that anywhere near 40 Senators would insist on retaining it.
29 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyDo you propose not allowing women in the military? Only heterosexual men? With blonde hair and blue eyes, too?
True. In fact, I think it a good idea if all the soldiers engaged in sexual relations in a time of war or preparing for it. In fact, lets bring in the babes and have coed barraks!! 😵
29 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy only point here is that sexual relations is not allowed in most companies, so why should it be allowed on the battle field? There should be zero tolerance for any sexual relations on the battle fied.
Do you propose not allowing women in the military? Only heterosexual men? With blonde hair and blue eyes, too?
Having said that, sexual relations do occur in the corporate world even though it may not be allowed by company policy. The same can be said of the military. However, one way to reduce the likelyhood of this happening is to remove temptation. That would mean not intermingling the opposite sexes or those who were attracted to the same sex. Perhaps the "gays" could mingle with those of the opposite sex?
29 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyDADT is not about sexual relations - at all.
My only point here is that sexual relations is not allowed in most companies, so why should it be allowed on the battle field? There should be zero tolerance for any sexual relations on the battle fied.
Having said that, sexual relations do occur in the corporate world even though it may not be allowed by company policy. The same can be said of the mil ...[text shortened]... re attracted to the same sex. Perhaps the "gays" could mingle with those of the opposite sex?
29 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour right, it is about allowing gays in the military, no?
DADT is not about sexual relations - at all.
The question here is, what is the best approach to allow gays in the military if they are allowed in the military? Should they be coed with those who they are sexually attracted to? If so, then why not allow women to be coed with the men?
29 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyThe end of DADT would probably have no effect on fraternization rules in the military. There is no rule requiring celibacy in the military. The present DADT claims homosexuals are unfit for duty based solely on their sexual preferences. This is nothing more than invidious discrimination without a rational basis.
My only point here is that sexual relations is not allowed in most companies, so why should it be allowed on the battle field? There should be zero tolerance for any sexual relations on the battle fied.
Having said that, sexual relations do occur in the corporate world even though it may not be allowed by company policy. The same can be said of the mil ...[text shortened]... re attracted to the same sex. Perhaps the "gays" could mingle with those of the opposite sex?
29 May 10
Originally posted by sh76Most polls show very large support for the repeal, so I suspect it's going to happen. From an anecdotal perspective... in my little corner of the military most service members are against it. I fully support it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/politics/28tell.html?hp
The President will sign this bill if it comes to him, his equivocations on this issue notwithstanding. I am not sure it will get through the Senate, however. It's possible the Dems could peel off a Snowe or Collins or Brown to beat a filibuster, but in such a precarious election cycle for the Dems, ...[text shortened]... redict that if DADT falls, in 10 years, people will be wondering what all the fuss was about.
29 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySexual relation are only forbid among seniors and subordinates under the same chain of command, or if adultry is involved.
My only point here is that sexual relations is not allowed in most companies, so why should it be allowed on the battle field? There should be zero tolerance for any sexual relations on the battle fied.
Having said that, sexual relations do occur in the corporate world even though it may not be allowed by company policy. The same can be said of the mil ...[text shortened]... re attracted to the same sex. Perhaps the "gays" could mingle with those of the opposite sex?
29 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSo do you feel as though gays should be coed or treated like women in the military? Then again, what if the gays are coed together?
Sexual relation are only forbid among seniors and subordinates under the same chain of command, or if adultry is involved.
For the record, if men and women are allowed to have sexual relations in the military I would think that this would involve conflicts of interests and, therefore, am opposed to it. I am in no way suggesting that they should remain celebate, however, just that those who work together on the battle field should not have such distractions.