I’ll count those as “wins”. It’d be nice to get a “OK, I concede your point” but nobody ever does that here.

The most you can get out of it is banging your head against the wall for a few days, and then watching them run away when you shoot down their bullshit.

Fucking cowards.

SDM in reply: Not holding my breath.

Still breathing.

That arrogance comes honestly.

“I hate to break it to you, but:
Canada is NOT the United States.”

What the fuck does that mean? What’s the differences between Canada and the United States when it comes to gays serving in the military?

Is Canada more tolerant than the United States?

“I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them (it could have been anybody, but it was nobody).”

Are you fucking kidding me? We had nothing but questions for SFC B. He had no answers, outside of parroting military rules.

“Even in Canada, ‘engineering’ and ‘experimenting’ are two different words.”

I assumed you were using the talking point, ‘You can have a social experiment during a time of war!’

The alternative is much, much dumber.

“Don’t bother trying to ‘explain’ things to me, when you don’t know what I’m talking about, and you don’t seem wholly sure of what you are talking about.”

And you complain about my arrogance.

Guess what, Frank?

Scoreboard.

You side is losing, badly. And as people like you die off, your bigotry and superstitions are dying with them. In a decade gay marriage will be legal in more places in the United States than it is illegal.

And there’s not a goddamn thing you can do about it.

I DID. I pointed out that the military already has means of dealing with the issues you addressed outside of a homosexual context. I know the military code of conduct was different back when you fought for the Confederacy, but try to keep up.

Canada is NOT the United States.

So you’re saying that gays can’t serve openly in the U.S. like they can in Canada because…it’s too warm in the U.S. to openly serve? What? Why the hell should the country matter? I’m pretty sure gay people are pretty similar in both Canada and the U.S.

I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them (it could have been anybody, but it was nobody).

Why should I ask questions that I already know the answers to? Asking questions for the sake of asking them, which you seem to be a fan of, just wastes everyone’s time.

Why do liberals “run into the future”, assume everyone who objects to overthrowing tradition believes the “world is flat”, and then stand around shouting “Well? Come along, then!”

At which point we leave you to fend for yourself, alone in the woods until you get eaten by wolves.

Also, does this mean you’re “running into the past”? Where men were men, blacks were 3/5 of men, and women were kitchen appliances.

The world is not the Liberals’ Social Engineering Lab…

1. Who are “The Liberals”? Is this some sort of secret organization bent on establishing a one world government and stealing your dentures at night? If so, what’s their website?

2. How is stopping legally mandated discrimination that benefits no one “social engineering”.

I swear, it’s like you have a dyslexic Babelfish in your ear.

If you’re going to assert that DADT is a means of enforcing a high standard of recruits in the military, you need to explain to me how the enlistment of gangbangers doesn’t breach the same quality control boundaries. Because I sure as hell would prefer to have a law-abiding homosexual wearing that uniform than a murderous heterosexual thug.

What issues? I would love to address the issue if anyone could actually explain just what it was. And so far SFC B, his defender Jay Tea and now you have not yet done so. We’ve asked, repeatedly and with numerous clarifications, for SFC B to provide something other than “gays are unfit because policy says they are”, for some actual issue that is caused by gays serving openly.

In that situation, the person deserves to be excoriated.

One tradition that never changes : The arrogance of CSS.

Can’t disagree with you there. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t right at times. And here he is right.

I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them

WTF??!!
No questions?

“His orientation is about as relevant. Explain to me how, exactly, it renders him “un fit”.”

“SFC B: So far the lack of openly gay servicemen and women hasn’t exactly resulted in a less effective fighting force.
SDM: It hasn’t? How has it not?”

“I asked what, exactly, about being gay makes them incapable of carrying out their duties?”

“So, what is it that gay people are not able to do effectively? What is it the actually makes them unfit other than the circular reasoning that says “they are because we say they are”?”

“What, exactly, in their conduct creates a risk? Are gay people more likely to disobey orders? Do they display a greater tendency to act inappropriately toward others in the service?
…
So if there is poor order in the unit do we blame it on the person getting beat up, or the bully?
…
Can you just not get past “They are unfit because we say they are”?”

“But is it really the best possible military when you have to start filling positions with with less educated ex-cons and people who really would rather not be there but aren’t allowed to leave than with (horrors!) gay people who want to be there?”

And those are just from MY posts, not to mention CSS and some others.

God!

I hate to break it to you, but:

Canada is NOT the United States.

I am not complaining that you had answers. I merely pointed out that you had no questions OR answers, until I raised them (it could have been anybody, but it was nobody).

Even in Canada, “engineering” and “experimenting” are two different words.

Don’t bother trying to “explain” things to me, when you don’t know what I’m talking about, and you don’t seem wholly sure of what you are talking about.

Wait? You are complaining that we had answers to your questions? Do you want us just tell you to ‘Fuck off!’ next time? We are willing to do that. … At least I am willing to do that.

“Well, I don’t work at the White House or at the DoD…
And it would help if someone addressed the issues raised from a military perspective rather than excoriating the person who raises them…”

We did, Frank. We addressed the issues, while SFC B merely parroted the military code.

“Why do liberals ‘run into the future’, assume everyone who objects to overthrowing tradition believes the ‘world is flat’, and then stand around shouting ‘Well? Come along, then!’”

Two points…

1.) Huh? Seriously. You might want to try a re-writing that so people who can’t hear your inner voice will understand you.

2.) If you can’t justify tradition, then it is probably a good time to change it. We are not ‘running into the future’. We are looking at a rule and saying, ‘This doesn’t make sense.’

“The world is not the Liberals’ Social Engineering Lab…”

I hate to break it to you, but there’s no experimenting necessary here. Gay serve opening in the military in many countries, including Canada, which it 90% the same as the United States when it comes to social norms.

If it works in Canada without issue, then it will work in the United States. We have the same traditions in law, religion, class structure, etc.

Well, I don’t work at the White House or at the DoD…
And it would help if someone addressed the issues raised from a military perspective rather than excoriating the person who raises them…

Why do liberals “run into the future”, assume everyone who objects to overthrowing tradition believes the “world is flat”, and then stand around shouting “Well? Come along, then!”

The world is not the Liberals’ Social Engineering Lab…

Not holding my breath.

en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_military_hosts_first_gay_military_wedding”

Canada rocks.

So you think his deluge of logical fallacies is something that we should commend?

Nope, I can’t even pretend to be surprised.

Look at the substance of what he has said. Defend the substance of what he said, and don’t resort to Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which is what it is called when you say, ‘He’s in the military, therefore his opinion is fact.’

In other words, are all of you suggesting that DADT simply be done away with, and that there be no policy with regards to gay members of the Military?”

Treat them like they were straight. For instance…

“What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?”

I don’t think you are allowed to be in uniform for political rallies, but this should be fine.

“What about fraternization?”

Define fraternization? I think you mean in a sexual way, in which case, who gives a fuck? If you uniform gets you some ass, good for you.

However, fraternization has a military definition, which would be frowned upon.

“What about unwanted advances?”

It’s against the rules if you are straight, so it will still be against the rules if you are gay.

“What about (homo) sexual harassment?”

Again, it’s against the rules if you are straight, so it will still be against the rules if you are gay.

Wow. Simple answers to simple questions.

We have enlisted gangbangers and general psychotics into the armed forces to meet recruitment goals.

Unfortuately, no, it’s not.

What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?
What about fraternization?
What about unwanted advances?
What about (homo) sexual harassment?
No mention of gays at all?

I’m pretty damn sure the military has methods of handling those issues in a universal context.

Were the Army leadership’s fears about the negative effects of homosexuality in the Services groundless?

Yes.

No, his replies are being picked apart because he is not providing a single answer that isn’t a thoughtless echo of unsupported talking points. If it’s the military justification that he’s passing along then he’s showing that policy to be poorly supported.

When asked, repeatedly, what inherent quality of gay people makes them unfit to serve the only answer given is the self-justifying circular argument that “they are because policy says they are.”

Most all of the arguments put forth have this same circularity to them. Based on any support he’s put forth, we’re to believe it’s not a drain on resources because he says it isn’t. (It’s been shown to have cost upwards of half a billion dollars so far.)

We’re to believe the people lost have been no loss to the military because he says they haven’t been. (The military has been facing quota shortfalls to the extent that they’ve needed to significantly lower standards and resort to extensive stop loss.)

And so on.

I get that it is current policy and has been for some time. I would agree that anyone currently working in the military knows that it is policy and, further, knows that it is a policy that is being enforced. Nobody in the military, especially anyone who signed up after DADT was enacted, has any excuse for not expecting to be kicked out if they go on TV and announce that they are gay.

BUT, nobody is discussing what the policy is. We’re discussing whether it is a good policy and thus far the “current military justification for” it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

http://en.wikinews.

org/wiki/Canadian_military_hosts_first_gay_military_wedding

And if some soldier is unable to do that because they have a problem with someone else in the unit, because they have to work with someone who is black or gay or Jewish or female or what-have-you then who is the soldier who should be removed? The one who is doing their job well or the one who is unable to put aside their personal issue, who is unable to work with all the other members of their unit?

I am sincerely interested in SFC B’s answer to this point. Because it seems to me the entire argument the military has in keeping DADT comes down to the behavior of soldiers who can’t handle the idea of someone in their barracks being gay. Why is the problem, then, with the gay soldier and not with the bigot?

SFC B is, by his/her own representation, an active-duty member of the armed services. (Probably Army.) He (I’m going to presume it’s a he) is presenting real, valid, current opinion based on experiences and knowledge and events that most of us have absolutely no way of fully grasping.

And his opinion seems to be that he has no problem with the DADT regulation, but no real objections if it were to go away. It’s simply not a very high priority for him.

So, naturally, for passing along the current military justification for the policy, and not objecting to it, he’s to be excoriated and condemned and denounced.

As I’ve said before, I support the repeal of DADT. But I am willing to listen to those who will have to live with the consequences of that decision, and give some weight and credence and consideration to their opinions and concerns. After all, it doesn’t affect me in the least one way or another.

I guess that makes me a heretic and hatemonger, too…

And SFC B: you’ll have to give up your lifelong dream of ever being Miss California.

J.

That is so not what was said.

—

Frank DiSalle: What about participating in Gay Pride Parades in uniform?
What about fraternization?
What about unwanted advances?
What about (homo) sexual harassment?
No mention of gays at all?

Each and every one of those are already covered in military regs without any mention specifically of gays. When/where the uniform can be worn. Procedures for reporting and the consequences for anyone found guilty of unwanted advances and/or harassment. There is no need at all to have to specify sexual orientation in any regulation regarding conduct.

When a rule says “You shall not make unwanted advances” it doesn’t need to specify “we meant men shall not advance on women and now that a woman has made an advancement on a man, well, we’ll need a whole new rule to cover that situation”.