| Should the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' be scrapped? |
| Yes |
|
86% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
13% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
 Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:27 pm |
|
I would add, I live in an area where if anyone says anything negative about homosexuals, you're asking to be screamed at. If you want to see a utopia for the gay population, you should visit San Francisco or Humboldt County, or Oregon... these are just places I've been where homosexuals are not treated unkindly. I suggest you take a vacation here and see what happens to your opinion. I realize there are some places in the U.S. populated by ignorant people, but not by any means all of it.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:39 pm |
|
Yeah, I say get rid of it, it's pretty stupid. To treat someone like that due to sexual prefernce, isn't that illegal?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:00 pm |
|
If it were illegal then it would have been gone a long time ago.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:21 pm |
|
How long did it take for them to integrate the military? That was definately illegal.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:33 pm |
|
It's general roots go back to 1778, the Wikipedia article on it says, and things like it were used most notably to the 1950s to 1970s, and 1980s in a different way. 1992/3 was the year this particular policy was instituted, I believe.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:51 pm |
|
Yeah, but before this, Gay's were stilled drummed out.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:57 pm |
|
I know.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:10 pm |
|
I've been thinking about this, and though I wouldn't actively campaign for it or anything, I've come to another (rare) agreement with what Michael Savage calls the "Gay Mafia" ( ), along with others as well, including pretty much everyone here.
If a person has a drive to support their country and fight and die for it, I see no reason--none--to deny them the right to do so, gay or not. Therefore, I'm no longer so much on the fence. I think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be revoked, or at the very least greatly amended. I mean, I don't want homosexual relationships to be involved in the army, and I'd be fine with restrictions on that and stuff (for heterosexual relationships as well), including punishments for partaking in sexual activities or anything, and I don't want people to leave the military because they're uncomfortable with a gay person in their regiment, but that's not enough reason to deny them the ability to serve their country, especially when we need all the servicemen we can get right now.
I have, therefore, gone on the STV record and voted "Yes," that yes, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be scrapped.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:14 pm |
|
...what kind of regulations would you have on relationships?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:20 pm |
|
No sexual relations, period. If you do such a thing you should get some sort of punishment and be removed from the military if it continues, because that really detracts from the job. Otherwise, keep the current regulations on heterosexual relationships and have them apply to homosexual relationships as well.
But the point is, all people should be allowed to serve their country, and if they say they're gay they shouldn't be denied access to do so.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:21 pm |
|
I'm praying you mean within the military. If a soldier has a lover who's a civilian, preventing that relationship--and any physical choices therin--is nuts.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:24 pm |
|
That is nuts, who has the right to tell that to people? Probably, they'd be smart to not do that when their on duty etc..., however off times? In the provacy of their own home? That should be left to the choice of the two concenting adults, not someone else.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:24 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | I'm praying you mean within the military. If a soldier has a lover who's a civilian, preventing that relationship--and any physical choices therin--is nuts. |
Oh, of course I mean intra-military activity.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:29 pm |
|
You scared me there for a minute.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:33 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | You scared me there for a minute. |
lol. No, I would never think that any government body has the right to tell someone who they can or cannot have a relationship with and what etiquet to follow in that relationship except for intra-military relationships (this doesn't include post-service relationships or anything like that; there would be some exceptions/appropriate circumstances).
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Arellia wrote: | | You scared me there for a minute. |
lol. No, I would never think that any government body has the right to tell someone who they can or cannot have a relationship with except for intra-military relationships (this doesn't include post-service relationships or anything like that; there would be some exceptions/appropriate circumstances). |
Just what does that mean? In all seriousness, the most you could possibly do is during service restrictions, outside of service or "post service" as you say, you can't really do anything about that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:40 pm |
|
It would be during service restrictions, while you're stationed somewhere and stuff. Like, if you're on leave or something and you hooked up with another member of the military from your regiment I think you should be able to do whatever while on leave.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
Thats a good idea. To be honest, your one of the few republicans I know who doesn't support don't ask, dont tell.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:22 am |
|
| Quote: | Arrests As Military Gay Ban Protests Spread
Demonstrators protesting against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gays serving openly in the military, were arrested in Spokane and Little Rock on Wednesday.
Three people were charged with trespassing at an enlistment office in Spokane, Washington when they held a sit-in.
In Little Rock, Arkansas 8 people were arrested. Two people attempted to enlist in Little Rock. They were allowed to take a "pre aptitude test" but were rejected when they said they were gay. Fifteen supporters then staged a sit-in. The eight refused to move when ordered to do so by police. Bail has been set at $250 each.
Twenty-five people held a sit-in at a recruiting office in Washington but there were no arrests. Another sit-in was held in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Tuesday five University of Wisconsin-Madison students were charged with trespassing when they staged a sit-in after one of the students was rejected for the National Guard at a recruiting center in Madison.
The demonstrators were all members of the Right to Serve campaign organized by the LGBT nondenominational group Soulforce. The group is challenging DADT at recruitment centers across the country.
Read the rest here |
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm |
|
The law prevents discrimination based on various things (including sex), but yet we still have Mens and Womens public bathrooms.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:09 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | The law prevents discrimination based on various things (including sex), but yet we still have Mens and Womens public bathrooms. |
Yeah, I'm fine with that part, it's only decent.
And rejected because theyw ere gay? I think discrimnation baised on prefernce was illegal
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:28 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | The law prevents discrimination based on various things (including sex), but yet we still have Mens and Womens public bathrooms. |
Any one arguing with that?
If I was older, I would organize a sit-in.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:32 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | The law prevents discrimination based on various things (including sex), but yet we still have Mens and Womens public bathrooms. |
Any one arguing with that?
If I was older, I would organize a sit-in. |
You don't have to be an age to do something. So what if it isn't a sit in? Find other ways. Make people aware, etc...
|
|
|
John Luck Pickard
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Location: Orange Co., NY
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:05 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | The law prevents discrimination based on various things (including sex), but yet we still have Mens and Womens public bathrooms. |
The mens and womens separation is a very good point. All of those who say that the rule should be scrapped (which is everyone here), must also agree that woman and men should no longer live in seperate buildings. What is the reason to seperate them? If it's because it's tradition, well then so is the disclusion of homosexuality. If it's because it prevents sexual relation tensions...that's the same reason that gays aren't permitted to be open. Despite what many people have said here, being gay and being in the military is not prohibited. Being openly gay while in the military is. No one's denying their right to serve their country. And don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobic in the least, I have several gay friends. I just think that the environment that's created with openly gay people in the military is deficient to productivity and is the reason why the rule still exists.
-------signature-------
"Is there a John Luck Pickard here"?, -Q, Tapestry
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:15 pm |
|
You talk about productivity, do you know how much time the military spends each year with hearings and discharges of gay soldiers. In 2005 742 members of the military were discharged due to their sexuality, In 2004 it was 668. Most western nations now allow openly gay people to serve in the military, the US is lagging behind.
As for the man and woman thing, there totally different things. Men and woman are differed anatomically, homosexuals and heterosexuals are not.
Personally i would have no problem with men and woman serving with each other. I think the sexual tension argument is over hyped and i believe the overwhelming majority of military personnel can keep their lustful feelings at bay.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
