I don't know how many have heard this ,but I think the city officials of Berkeley should get a ton of e-mails. they city has requested the Marines get out of the city read story here www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327466,00.html
The military discriminates? Since when?Well, the city does have a law barring discrimination which the Marines (and military in general) don't abide by. Seems reasonable that the city wouldn't welcome their presence there.
I'd be all for it if they walled off the city and didn't let anyone out that could utilize other resources. Maybe it would be a good place to stash the insane, they have a good head start already.I'm not generally a fan of the "federal funding bat," either. If you want to take away federal money from the city for given projects, that's absolutely dandy...but then stop taxing that city's citizens for those services and allow the city/state (since it's not like the City of Berkeley runs UC Berkeley) to tax its own citizens for them.
The military discriminates? Since when?
I'd be all for it if they walled off the city and didn't let anyone out that could utilize other resources. Maybe it would be a good place to stash the insane, they have a good head start already.
that statement is so full of crapWell, the city does have a law barring discrimination which the Marines (and military in general) don't abide by. Seems reasonable that the city wouldn't welcome their presence there.
Nuh uh!that statement is so full of crapWell, the city does have a law barring discrimination which the Marines (and military in general) don't abide by. Seems reasonable that the city wouldn't welcome their presence there.
I see, so if you are going to use the term discrimination that loosely then yes, they do discriminate. The military also discriminates against officers having sex with noncoms, anyone having relations with a sibling or parent. Is that fair? Sure it is, discrimination (in the wide definition you use) is more often than not a good thing. I was in the Coast Guard, I thank God there was discrimination then. Boats don't provide much room or privacy, any gays that may have been there kept it to themselves. The military is a unique institution, troops often in close proximity to one another without the ability to choose where and when.EDIT: Note that the law in Berkeley specifically bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Even without going into the gory details of DADT, and whether allowing single gays to serve so long as they don't go into their personal lives is discriminatory, it's pretty easy to show that the military discriminates based on sexual orientation. Gays can legally marry in Massachusetts, yet legally married homosexuals are not treated equally to legally married heterosexuals. Hence, discriminatory based on sexual orientation. Period.
I see, so if you are going to use the term discrimination that loosely then yes, they do discriminate. The military also discriminates against officers having sex with noncoms, anyone having relations with a sibling or parent. Is that fair? Sure it is, discrimination (in the wide definition you use) is more often than not a good thing. I was in the Coast Guard, I thank God there was discrimination then. Boats don't provide much room or privacy, any gays that may have been there kept it to themselves. The military is a unique institution, troops often in close proximity to one another without the ability to choose where and when.
It's voluntary too.
If you don't like the rules, don't join.
Berkley can slip off into the ocean for all I care.
And the judges in Mass. don't dictate military protocol.
I mean, I know I've participated in a few discussions regarding Texas on this forum and others without feeling the need to state my desire to see the entire state nuked from orbit.
Yes, I understand they are using the term loosely as well, many people use the term to invoke an emotion response.It's not exactly a "wide" definition. It's the definition that the City of Berkeley uses. The military has policies that specifically affect people based solely on sexual orientation. So, if an officer has a homosexual relationship with an enlisted member, not only are they violating fraternization policies but also policies against homosexuality.
So? How does a pair of guys sodomizing each other in the bunk next to you add to unit cohesion?Also, homosexuality is a status that has nothing to do with the miitary; officer/enlisted relationships are established within the military, hold very definite meaning within the military, and relationships (particularly within chain of command) will generally involve superior/subordinate relationships. A homosexual relationship between two enlisted members, or a servicemember and a civilian, does not have this issue.
Are you saying it's the same? A gay can keep his personal life personal and not act on his impulses. Are you saying that the various races can't help acting on their impulses? And it doesn't matter if a jurisdiction considers it legal. That isn't how it works. What if a jurisdiction considers sex with minors legal? Is the entire military compelled to honor it? Or even the one there? The UCMJ is 'uniform'.Though I suppose we could get into the whole "homosexuality is a choice, unlike race" thing. That might be loads of fun.
Actually, I would be. As well as visa versa. But it's besides the point, the federal government isn't a private company, it operates from taxes paid by all. If the military paid blacks less, you'd have a point.If an employer had a policy that blacks will be paid less than whites, that would be discriminatory as well; but working there is voluntary, so I guess you'd be alright with that.
I already mentioned a few discriminatory acts based on sex I agree with, I could go on but I also said why it isn't a good idea in the military. So far you've avoided the point.Would this apply for other forms of discrimination, or are you only okay with it in regards to homosexuals?
Who's bitter? It sounds like you are. No, the military doesn't discriminate on orientation. They have no idea if you are gay or not, it isn't like race. They do discriminate against having same sex relations for the reasons I've given.I don't expect on this forum that something so simple and obvious as the fact that the military does discriminate based on sexual orientation (not whether they should, mind you) to be accepted without bitter protest.
I don't agree that it's an unfair practice so I can't agree that it's a legitimate beef. Just more nonsense from people who are led by their animal nature.Who knows, maybe an interesting or multifaceted discussion could occur on the subject. But really, I think this can only begin if the participants accept that the city (and the residents of the area) might have at least some legitimate issue with an organization that discriminates openly against a significant number of their own. Otherwise it'd just be nothing but the standard "stupid hippies" circle-jerk. Though some of you seem really anxious to get to the jerking, so I guess I won't keep you.
Bring it, sissy.
So? How does a pair of guys sodomizing each other in the bunk next to you add to unit cohesion?
A gay can keep his personal life personal and not act on his impulses.
I already mentioned a few discriminatory acts based on sex I agree with, I could go on but I also said why it isn't a good idea in the military. So far you've avoided the point.
the MAIN reason Berkeley did this was because they are anti war,has nothing to do with discrimination,gays etc. read the articles, don't make up stuff.
Rocket is right on target.
Nah...I think most of us agree that using Federal Money as a tool to enforce Federal Policy is BS.
It's all about state's rights, right?
Having said that, I just have an almost visceral aversion to Berkeley types.
Where's the logic in that? Men and women have separate sleeping quarters. At least they did when I was in. When you figure out why you'll understand my point.Out of curiosity, how does having a guy and a girl sodomizing each other (or just enjoying plain old vaginal intercourse) in the bunk next to you add to unit cohesion? I guess we need to ban heterosexuals, too.
I don't quite understand the question. If there's a good reason for the policy why should we care what they think?That's because honestly whether it's good for the military or not wasn't the point...simply whether or not they do discriminate. Whether or not they should do so is irrelevant to the matter, since we're discussing whether this policy (regardless of its justification) would further sentiment against the organization given the local population demographics of someplace like Berkeley or San Francisco.
Federal funds come from all of us and the freedoms they enjoy were bought with American blood, not just Berkeley blood....it's their city and threatening to pull their funding (which comes from their citizens) is a load of crap.
I wish there were a way that those communities in such open contempt of the protections offered by the DOD could opt out...or perhaps be forced out.
Where's the logic in that? Men and women have separate sleeping quarters. At least they did when I was in. When you figure out why you'll understand my point.
I don't quite understand the question. If there's a good reason for the policy why should we care what they think?
All in all though fair is fair. Secular-Progressive @$$#0L35 from Berkley are generally not welcome in the Corps. Don't see how the Corps can cry about it too much.