BerettaCougar
New member
JuanCarlos, you're 100% correct in this thread.
I'll add a +2 to that.JuanCarlos, you're 100% correct in this thread.
The Berkeley City Council this week voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests," according to The Associated Press.
I suppose the Pentagon can put this resolution in the same file as Berkeley's declaration as a nuclear-free zone.
If he didn't pass her around, I know what you mean. I'm certain that was against regulations too, is that discriminatory?Also, in garrison it's not like women aren't allowed in the male barracks at all...I had an issue with a roommate who thought it was really super-cool to bang his girlfriend while I was on the other side of the room (with nothing but wall lockers between us)...I dealt with it, mind you (as in, it never happened again) but it didn't exactly further unit cohesion if you know what I mean.
Certainly, that's why there were strict rules in place. What would they do with open homosexuality? Give them separate quarters?And even on FOBs in Iraq, where there are rather strict rules concerning male and female quartering areas (whether CHUs or other housing conditions) there are still...issues. Or in other words heteros have plenty of problems controlling themselves as well.
It's discriminatory only if you want to call all of the other policies discriminatory. Separating men and women is discrimination if you want to look at it that way. They may prefer to sleep together but the military regards the sexes as different (for some odd reason) and separates them in order to control their behavior.EDIT: Really, the purpose here isn't to discuss whether or not the policy is reasonable or necessary. Merely whether it is discriminatory (I still maintain that it is). It's at least possible for a discriminatory policy to be entirely necessary, but don't expect those affected or those for whom people they care about are affected to be happy about it. If you really want to discuss the actual merits of the DADT policy, I'd say start a thread. If it's still open tomorrow, I may participate. But for heaven's sake, don't act as though only homosexual sex is disruptive to unit cohesion, because as soon as handfuls of women found themselves on small forward infantry FOBs that argument went right out the window.
I don't know anyone that thinks there's no difference between a man having sex with a woman or a man. It might surprise you that most people don't see it as the same thing, which is why you don't understand the policy. I guess you should just accept the fact that most people aren't sexually ambiguous.EDIT: And seriously, if two guys are sodomizing each other in the next bunk the issue isn't that they're gay, or that sodomy is involved, but rather that anybody would be disrespectful enough to have sex with you present. I see no reason that this can't be dealt with more narrowly.
Authorities keep warning us of a big 'quake coming that will hit the eastern side of the SF bay. Some investigation shows Bezerkley will be hit very hard and with many of their older buildings it'll be ugly. I'm sure that after a "big one" they'll be more than welcoming of military assistance to recover the injured and bring in supplies.
If he didn't pass her around, I know what you mean.
It's discriminatory only if you want to call all of the other policies discriminatory. Separating men and women is discrimination if you want to look at it that way. They may prefer to sleep together but the military regards the sexes as different (for some odd reason) and separates them in order to control their behavior.
I don't know anyone that thinks there's no difference between a man having sex with a woman or a man. It might surprise you that most people don't see it as the same thing, which is why you don't understand the policy. I guess you should just accept the fact that most people aren't sexually ambiguous.
Odd that you could get this far and still not understand my point. The sexes are segregated to prevent that kind of stuff, given human nature.But of course only homosexuals have problems controlling their animal impulses.
Odd. You recognize the good reason the military segregates the genders, yet the dots are too far apart to understand why they discourage same sex attractions. Add to that the fact that my view isn't the unique one here and you think I'm biased. Yep. You're a liberal.I suppose at some point I started trying to argue that, assuming it is still necessary (which . I don't dispute), at this point it's due more to the attitudes of homophobic straight soldiers than any actual conduct that gay soldiers would engage in. A point that I think JaserST4 has proven quite handily for me to anybody without a heavy personal bias on the issue.
Well, that is a segregation, although not very effective being that close. Must have been a desk jocky's brain storm. No females got pregnant? Or no competition amongst the men? I suspect it happened, it did when I was in but at least the gals were on the other wing of the same floor. I'm not a fan of females in regular duty for those reasons but I suppose they need them and weigh the consequences. Adding gays into the mix sure isn't going to help though.I've served in units where the soldiers weren't segregated, other than being in different rooms (same floor). There was a lotta nasty going on. Didn't detract from the unit's mission, however.
Correct about what?RedneckFur said:I'll add a +2 to that.BerettaCougar said:JuanCarlos, you're 100% correct in this thread.
If youre willing to volunteer to serve your country in the military, who you love should have no affect on ability to serve. hetro couples can be just as distruptive as homosexual couples.
I dont particularly like the idea of Berkley asking the military to leave, but I will admit, that I do understand where they are coming from. There are plenty of gay and lesbian Americans who want to serve their country. I say we let them, with all the same treatement as the hetro soldiers.
I've let this go on long enough. I'd have thought we could get away from the "Gays in the military are good/bad" type of thing and discuss this on its merits: Discrimination - City Law vs. Federal Law - Using Federal funds to hammer a city by witholding those funds, etc.JuanCarlos said:A) That it should be pretty obviously that a military recruiting station might not be welcome in the city (I gave one reason, yes there are others), and
B) The withholding of federal funding, taken from a locality's taxpayers, in order to try and influence local policy is (in general) a load of crap.