Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2011, 05:44 PM   #41 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
Especially in Vietnam. It's like, they just found a more politically press safe way to continue the draft to me.
basically but I don't really see the negatives behind it, I mean I know you explained about people fighting that don't want to be there but at least they are in there getting benefits and better themselves as opposed to being on the street just fucking around selling drugs and robbing people.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 05:46 PM   #42 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zaqarbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
but seriously, it's rare to see gays deciding to risk their lives and contribute to the honor and protection of one's nation.
Why? Perhaps in certain contexts. But, actually, there is no intrinsic reason to think like that. There are thousands of examples of notable gay soldiers throughout History. Remember that Macedonian guy...



Didn't he have a pair of....... deadly impulses?
__________________
"Lullabies for adults / crossed by the years / carry the flower of disappointment / tattooed in their gloomy melodies."
Zaqarbal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 06:23 PM   #43 (permalink)
s_k
Music Addict
 
s_k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Pat View Post
I think you can disagree with something without hating it. Plus, I don't see how Freebase Dali serving (or having served) in the military makes him any less of a likable person. Same goes for DjChameleon.
I hate the idea of militarism. I am really disgusted by it.
But that doesn't change my 'feelings' (sounds a bit gay ) for Freebase or the DJ. Great people, both of 'em.
__________________
Click here to see my collection
s_k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 06:54 PM   #44 (permalink)
Facilitator
 
VEGANGELICA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 1,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
Was a silly law based on a bigoted paranoia. Glad it's been abolished.
Agreed, but I would add that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was more than just silly. The policy was demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful...the opposite of the Golden Rule. I DESPISED the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and the thoughts of people who conceived it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty View Post
I've always supported gays in the military. I don't see a problem with it and don't think anyone should have to hide their sexuality for fear of being fired.
I agree. I frequently see people in the workplace talking about and posting pictures of their opposite-sex significant others. No one accuses them of being "flamboyant" about publicly acknowledging their deep love for another human. Denying gay and bi people the right to acknowledge or talk about their loved-ones simply because one doesn't like the gender of the partner is a gross violation of civil rights, in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
I really don't get why civilians that aren't even in the military feel like DADT was such a bad policy. If you were actually in the service, you would see that it's pretty non-existent in this day and age. Well at least in my experience.
Phanastasio gives good examples of why I feel all people should have been appalled by the policy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio View Post
DADT also had stipulations which proved it to be a flawed system: If members of any branch of the armed services were outed through any means, or proved to have been practicing homosexual behavior, they were discharged from the service. In addition, the discharges were, naturally, not honorable discharges. As such, upon leaving the service, finding employment elsewhere became difficult because the status of their termination from any given branch of the United States military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio View Post
One of my dad's best friends got discharged under DADT when my family was stationed at Fort Bragg. The guy was airborne, did everything right, healthy...he just got caught out at a restaurant with his boyfriend, and his platoon leader made a big stink about it.
Very sad, Phanastasio. That platoon leader treated his fellow serviceman cruelly by making a stink about him being out at a restaurant with his boyfriend. What should have been a sweet moment for two people was ruined by the U.S. government's acceptance of the bigoted opinion that romantic love should only exist between opposite-sexed partners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali View Post
its implementation was originally to allow gays to serve while maintaining unit cohesion by anticipating any negative effects that biases/fears may cause, and aligning with the gender segregation that's enforced in various situations.
If this was the original rationale behind the policy, Freebase, then I hate the policy even more, if that is possible.

In elementary school, you don't tell kids to hide who they are to avoid being bullied. You STOP THE BULLIES! If "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was indeed needed to protect people who love someone of the same sex, then the policy seems to be an admission that United States servicemen and women are less mature than children. That's pretty pathetic.

I think adults can learn to do their job without attacking gay or bi people. It is sad that the U.S. government didn't have such confidence in the character of its military members. I should have thought even anti-gay people would have opposed DADT because the policy implies they can't control themselves.

I suspect the rationale that DADT was implemented to "maintain unit cohesion" was a cover-up. In my opinion, the *real* reason DADT was implemented was because some people wanted to discriminate against and be mean to those of us who are gay or bi.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"
VEGANGELICA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 07:05 PM   #45 (permalink)
I Am Become Death Metal
 
captaincaptain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stankonia
Posts: 695
Default

I took the DADT training the other week (I am in the military). The repeal is great, but if homosexual/bisexuals want equality with heterosexuals, then their needs to be a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
captaincaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 07:13 PM   #46 (permalink)
Aka Cenotaph
 
TockTockTock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
Agreed, but I would add that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was more than just silly. The policy was demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful...the opposite of the Golden Rule. I DESPISED the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and the thoughts of people who conceived it.
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.
TockTockTock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 07:21 PM   #47 (permalink)
I Am Become Death Metal
 
captaincaptain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stankonia
Posts: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Pat View Post
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.
The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.
captaincaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 07:33 PM   #48 (permalink)
Aka Cenotaph
 
TockTockTock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincaptain View Post
The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.
Reagan... not surprised.
TockTockTock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 07:58 PM   #49 (permalink)
Facilitator
 
VEGANGELICA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 1,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Pat View Post
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell originally implemented to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? It was passed during the Clinton administration, and I certainly don't think Bill Clinton had a bone to pick with gay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincaptain View Post
The DoD banned homosexuality in 1982, so yes DADT did allow homosexuals to serve.
Good points. I wasn't thinking about how DADT was an improvement on the outright banning of homosexuality that came before. So DADT must have been a (compromise) attempt at making the military more inclusive of people who are gay, lesbian or bi.

Still, I feel the policy didn't go far enough toward full equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, and so in my opinion the policy was still demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful. It treated a certain subset of people as if they were second-class citizens, and violated freedom of speech.

If the DADT policy had been fair (albeit still in violation of freedom of speech), then it would have prevented *everyone* in the military from discussing a significant other. Instead, "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

I understand that steps toward equality under the law occur step by step (obviously)...but that doesn't make me approve of or applaud bigoted laws, policies, or acts, even if they are improvements over what proceeded them. Reading Wikipedia's article, I learned that "since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT." Sad.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"

Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 04-23-2011 at 08:17 PM.
VEGANGELICA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 09:55 PM   #50 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
Good points. I wasn't thinking about how DADT was an improvement on the outright banning of homosexuality that came before. So DADT must have been a (compromise) attempt at making the military more inclusive of people who are gay, lesbian or bi.

Still, I feel the policy didn't go far enough toward full equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, and so in my opinion the policy was still demeaning, unjust, sexist, mean and spiteful. It treated a certain subset of people as if they were second-class citizens, and violated freedom of speech.

If the DADT policy had been fair (albeit still in violation of freedom of speech), then it would have prevented *everyone* in the military from discussing a significant other. Instead, "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces." Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that steps toward equality under the law occur step by step (obviously)...but that doesn't make me approve of or applaud bigoted laws, policies, or acts, even if they are improvements over what proceeded them. Reading Wikipedia's article, I learned that "since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT." Sad.
I remember one of my high school teachers telling us that the word fair should be removed from our vocabularies because in reality life just isn't fair and it will never be no matter how hard we try. He would also tell his sons the same thing to remove the word fair from their vocab because it pretty much doesn't exist.

Also, I read that article a bit earlier when JackPat was asking about it's implemention and sure it discharged 13,000 troops over the time that it was implemented but after 9/11 the number of discharges were dramatically decreased and you can see that over time it was almost as if the policy was slowly being phased out. The strongest branch that was discharging people because of it was the Army and that doesn't even surprise me one bit.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.