Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tarheel on September 20, 2011, 03:14:19 PM
-
Today officially ended the DADT policy in practice so I thought that I'd make mention of it since it caused such a huge debate here on the X some time ago.
This website... http://outserve.org/about/ ...is just for GarMan.
With Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' An Era Ends
by Liz Halloran
September 20, 2011
The law that for almost 18 years has banned openly gay Americans from serving in the armed forces will be officially repealed Tuesday, nine months after Congress voted to end the Clinton-era edict.
President Obama signed the repeal into law last December, but its provisions required time for the Pentagon to prepare for the policy change, and for top military officials to "certify" the law's end.
Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed off on the change in July, and set Tuesday as the end of the law that has long been known as "don't ask, don't tell," or DADT.
Repeal means that for the first time in America's military history, service members will be allowed to publicly reveal their sexual orientation without fear of reprisal.
...
Source:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140605121/with-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-an-era-ends
And here's the first wedding story of a Naval Officer...and his partner which gives new meaning to an Officer and a Gentleman.
It's complete with pictures!
As Ban Ends, Navy Officer, Partner Wed In Vt.
by The Associated Press
September 20, 2011
Just as the formal repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy took effect, Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were married before a small group of family and friends in Duxbury, Vt.
The two men, who'd been together 11 years, decided to marry in Vermont in part because the state is in the Eastern time zone.
That way, they were able to recite their vows at the stroke of midnight — at the first possible moment after the ban ended.
"I think it was a beautiful ceremony".
...
Full Story:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140620769/as-ban-ends-navy-officer-partner-wed-in-vt?ps=rs
-
Today officially ended the DADT policy in practice so I thought that I'd make mention of it since it caused such a huge debate here on the X some time ago.
This website... http://outserve.org/about/ ...is just for GarMan.
Source:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140605121/with-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-an-era-ends
And here's the first wedding story of a Naval Officer...and his partner which gives new meaning to an Officer and a Gentleman.
It's complete with pictures!
Full Story:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140620769/as-ban-ends-navy-officer-partner-wed-in-vt?ps=rs
So does this mean you and GarMan will be making an announcement today? :thumsup:
-
And so begins the downfall of the greatest fighting force in the world.
-
Because current gay guys and gay gals of the US military who are already gay will now be able to say they are gay?
Unless you feel that homosexuals have some kind of innate disability with combat, this shouldn't matter. This whole story shouldn't matter.
If they can handle a weapon and complete the necessary training, what's the big deal?
-
So does this mean you and GarMan will be making an announcement today? :thumsup:
Well, GH, I like GarMan and all but the thought of that is...well... :puke:
My parts fit better with a female "partner" quite frankly....dare I say as nature intended...
-
Because current gay guys and gay gals of the US military who are already gay will now be able to say they are gay?
Unless you feel that homosexuals have some kind of innate disability with combat, this shouldn't matter. This whole story shouldn't matter.
If they can handle a weapon and complete the necessary training, what's the big deal?
I think the answers to those questions may have been covered somewhere under this topic:
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=8630.msg119781#msg119781
Man Up Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
But, it could be healthy to stir-up that old topic again.
-
Because current gay guys and gay gals of the US military who are already gay will now be able to say they are gay?
Unless you feel that homosexuals have some kind of innate disability with combat, this shouldn't matter. This whole story shouldn't matter.
If they can handle a weapon and complete the necessary training, what's the big deal?
From the black-and-white, core, simplistic perspective, you should be correct. Unfortunately, this is far from over. As I have stated before, this introduces a mountain of social issues that the military should not have to address. These issues are distractions that our military can do without. One such issue is a challenge to extend military benefits to a homosexual service member's partner-of-the-moment. Of course, girlfriends and fiances of heterosexual service members are ineligible for such benefits. The homosexual community is not simply a race or gender. It's a social community...
-
From the black-and-white, core, simplistic perspective, you should be correct. Unfortunately, this is far from over. As I have stated before, this introduces a mountain of social issues that the military should not have to address. These issues are distractions that our military can do without. One such issue is a challenge to extend military benefits to a homosexual service member's partner-of-the-moment. Of course, girlfriends and fiances of heterosexual service members are ineligible for such benefits. The homosexual community is not simply a race or gender. It's a social community...
Well I agree with all of that.
The other situations we can discuss later. It should be cut and dry. Is gay marriage legal? No? Not yet? Fine. No marriage benefits to your partner.
But as for making them "keep it secret"? That's just silly. If they're gay, they're going to be gay. It won't stop them from pulling the trigger or saving a man's life in battle.
-
Well I agree with all of that.
The other situations we can discuss later. It should be cut and dry. Is gay marriage legal? No? Not yet? Fine. No marriage benefits to your partner.
But as for making them "keep it secret"? That's just silly. If they're gay, they're going to be gay. It won't stop them from pulling the trigger or saving a man's life in battle.
Would you let a straight guy in the women's lockerroom and have free reign to look at what he is attracted to in there? Of course you wouldn't. But this is pretty much what you are doing with the removal of DADT. Think about it.
-
Would you let a straight guy in the women's lockerroom and have free reign to look at what he is attracted to in there? Of course you wouldn't. But this is pretty much what you are doing with the removal of DADT. Think about it.
Have you seen the WM's?
But seriously, I agree with you. And that's been my biggest hang up about the repeal of DADT. Right now, we have male and female barracks. Male and female heads. Will that change?
-
Have you seen the WM's?
But seriously, I agree with you. And that's been my biggest hang up about the repeal of DADT. Right now, we have male and female barracks. Male and female heads. Will that change?
Yep, there's a morale issue there with those who aren't gay.
-
Would you let a straight guy in the women's lockerroom and have free reign to look at what he is attracted to in there? Of course you wouldn't. But this is pretty much what you are doing with the removal of DADT. Think about it.
Gay guys are already in the locker rooms with straight guys. They just can't admit they're gay.
I'm not sure what to do about it. I have my own views on homosexuality which may be deemed unacceptable by some.
But I do believe in human rights. Gays don't have any innate or inherent traits that inhibit them from functioning in society in the same manner as straight people. Therefore, I can't support discriminating against them when it comes to the military, marriage, jobs, etc.
-
Gay guys are already in the locker rooms with straight guys. They just can't admit they're gay.
I'm not sure what to do about it. I have my own views on homosexuality which may be deemed unacceptable by some.
But I do believe in human rights. Gays don't have any innate or inherent traits that inhibit them from functioning in society in the same manner as straight people. Therefore, I can't support discriminating against them when it comes to the military, marriage, jobs, etc.
Well said.
-
But seriously, I agree with you. And that's been my biggest hang up about the repeal of DADT. Right now, we have male and female barracks. Male and female heads. Will that change?
Well, the TigersX Advocates will argue with you on this, but you're actually right on that one. It's been floating around for a while now. The idea was always dismissed by the anti-DADT crowd, but even the homos have recently "come out" for the separate barracks and heads.
-
Gay guys are already in the locker rooms with straight guys. They just can't admit they're gay.
I'm not sure what to do about it. I have my own views on homosexuality which may be deemed unacceptable by some.
But I do believe in human rights. Gays don't have any innate or inherent traits that inhibit them from functioning in society in the same manner as straight people. Therefore, I can't support discriminating against them when it comes to the military, marriage, jobs, etc.
You're trying paint it as if garman and I are saying they have no human rights. Being open makes this totally different in the barracks. Like jarhead and garman said, separate barracks would solve it.
-
I think the answers to those questions may have been covered somewhere under this topic:
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=8630.msg119781#msg119781
Man Up Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
But, it could be healthy to stir-up that old topic again.
We might as well bring up the mary j legalization thread again too.
-
So today's the day that Vandy Vol hit up every recruiting office in Bham and became a real Volunteer
The Navy guy who married his beau - for one night did he bust rank and become a seaman first ass?
-
You're trying paint it as if garman and I are saying they have no human rights. Being open makes this totally different in the barracks. Like jarhead and garman said, separate barracks would solve it.
It's not a human rights issue. As far as I'm concerned, they're equal in virtually every respect, but as you guys have essentially discussed, just because we accept women as equals doesn't mean that all women should start using men's restrooms or all men should start using women's restrooms. I suppose at some level this could be characterized as discrimination, but situational discrimination is not always wrong.
-
So today's the day that Vandy Vol hit up every recruiting office in Bham and became a real Volunteer
If Vandy volunteers for anything, I'm certain that he'd be more inclined to join the Navy or Coast Gaurd. Something about all those semen in close quarters...
-
Oh what the hell. It worked in "Starship Troopers" it should work in real life.
-
Oh what the hell. It worked in "Starship Troopers" it should work in real life.
If the women in the military looked like the women in Starship Troopers, yes.
They say that in the Marine Corps the women are mighty fine
They look Phyllis Diller and walk like Frankenstein
U.A. I wanna go...
-
We might as well bring up the mary j legalization thread again too.
Yes, indeed. That could be a great topic to warm over...along with 'Gay' Marriage.
-
Yes, indeed. That could be a great topic to warm over...along with 'Gay' Marriage.
Oh and don't forget the microbrew beers, abortion, LED light bulbs, taking Confederate Flags off of tombstones, we have to talk more about those as well.
-
LED light bulbs
These are ruining Christmas.
-
These are ruining Christmas.
Exactly! Bunch o' damn commies...
-
These are ruining Christmas.
So are the damn Athiests and Agnostics.
:bc:
-
These are ruining Christmas.
You mean the "winter holiday celebration"?
-
From the black-and-white, core, simplistic perspective, you should be correct. Unfortunately, this is far from over. As I have stated before, this introduces a mountain of social issues that the military should not have to address. These issues are distractions that our military can do without. One such issue is a challenge to extend military benefits to a homosexual service member's partner-of-the-moment. Of course, girlfriends and fiances of heterosexual service members are ineligible for such benefits. The homosexual community is not simply a race or gender. It's a social community...
Oh the great injustice!!! A gay man might secretly admire my cock if he catches a glimpse at it in the shower! Pretty sure rape, both heterosexual and homosexual, is still frowned upon. Pretty sure if he catches wood and starts jerking off in the showers will deeply staring into your balls, that'll be dealt with as well. I suppose your answer is every establishment needs to start installing four separate bathrooms. Can't have a gay dude accidentally catch a glimpse while I'm pissing into the trough.
If this is your "gotcha" for denying a faction of society the right to protect our country, you're probably deeply ashamed of your cock.
-
I do wonder what kind of psychological effect is caused from being sexually aroused even if it doesn't lead and never would lead to anything physical.
If I was placed in a shower with thirty naked women and found some of them attractive, I doubt I could go out and participate in combat training at the same intensity if I had been in a shower full of dudes.
Here's a novel idea: individual stalls.
-
Here's a novel idea: individual stalls.
Well, this gets back to the core of my opposition to repealing DADT. Fundamentally, and morally, I don't really give a damn if the guy in the fighting hole is gay.
But it's the unintended consequences. If we have to go to individual stalls, what's that going to cost? What's it going to cost to build new barracks at every base in the country, so we have one for straight, one for gay?
-
Well, we have a few options:
1. Tell gay people that because they are an inconvenience, they are no longer welcome to protect their country.
2. Build new barracks.
3. Renovate current barracks to protect privacy
4. Get over the fact that a gay dude is turned on by you (refer to my previous post about how this could be a danger)
Seems like option 3 is the easiest transition. That is until they discover the gene and eradicate....wait, sorry. Got a little ahead of myself. :silence:
-
Oh the great injustice!!! A gay man might secretly admire my cock if he catches a glimpse at it in the shower! Pretty sure rape, both heterosexual and homosexual, is still frowned upon. Pretty sure if he catches wood and starts jerking off in the showers will deeply staring into your balls, that'll be dealt with as well. I suppose your answer is every establishment needs to start installing four separate bathrooms. Can't have a gay dude accidentally catch a glimpse while I'm pissing into the trough.
If this is your "gotcha" for denying a faction of society the right to protect our country, you're probably deeply ashamed of your cock.
Hey Asshole...
Take your Advocate rainbow glasses off and read my post again. I'm not focusing this to cocksuckers catching glimpses of heterosexual cocks in restrooms. As my post stated, one of many challenges coming out of this is the request to expand military benefits for homosexual members beyond traditional eligibility for heterosexual service members. Oh, and now they too want separate barracks and heads/latrines... (Wait a minute! That's not the same "head" that you're accustomed to providing.) Oh, and they also want "bunk privileges" so they can fuck their military partners-of-the-moment in the barracks...
Seem absurd? It should... Unfortunately, it's all true.
-
Well, we have a few options:
1. Tell gay people that because they are an inconvenience, they are no longer welcome to protect their country.
2. Build new barracks.
3. Renovate current barracks to protect privacy
4. Get over the fact that a gay dude is turned on by you (refer to my previous post about how this could be a danger)
Seems like option 3 is the easiest transition. That is until they discover the gene and eradicate....wait, sorry. Got a little ahead of myself. :silence:
Oh, I agree that #2 and #3 are the easiest things to do. But when our country is broke, why incur additional expenses?
-
Bunk privileges do not apply to their heterosexual counterparts.
-
I do wonder what kind of psychological effect is caused from being sexually aroused even if it doesn't lead and never would lead to anything physical.
If I was placed in a shower with thirty naked women and found some of them attractive, I doubt I could go out and participate in combat training at the same intensity if I had been in a shower full of dudes.
Here's a novel idea: individual stalls.
Clearly, you're not as enlightened as Chad. That guy knows everything, and he scoffs at your concerns... That dude stands alone...
But back to an honest and relevant discussion on this, you're exactly right. Unfortunately, there's no room for traditional common sense in this debate.
-
I do wonder what kind of psychological effect is caused from being sexually aroused even if it doesn't lead and never would lead to anything physical.
If I was placed in a shower with thirty naked women and found some of them attractive, I doubt I could go out and participate in combat training at the same intensity if I had been in a shower full of dudes.
The point is: How would THEY feel about it? This has been made all about the poor gay guy. His feelings are hurt. HE/SHE chose to go against the grain of nature, not us. Unnatural actions produce unnatural consequences And if you don't think gayness is unnatural, tell me how humans can reproduce in that manner? A dick and a dick don't go together anatomically and they sure as hell can't produce offspring. There is no getting around that. It's not what we were intended to do.
Unless you are Vandy Vol - he was born to suck a mean cock.
If you go gay, and decide you want to start screwing men and are attracted to them, straight guys should be afforded every right to NOT be subjected to those people who are "attracted" to them. The same way women are afforded the right to not have to shower, dress, etc in the same place as men. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp.
-
Bunk privileges do not apply to their heterosexual counterparts.
Bingo
-
Oh, I agree that #2 and #3 are the easiest things to do. But when our country is broke, why incur additional expenses?
Fuck 'em... I say go with number 1, at least until we have the time and resources to adequately address the social concerns. We're accommodating for a social group that only makes up approximately 3-5% of our society. I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but society and government doesn't really accommodate for me. It makes no sense to make accommodations for queens in the military.
-
Fuck 'em... I say go with number 1, at least until we have the time and resources to adequately address the social concerns. We're accommodating for a social group that only makes up approximately 3-5% of our society. I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but society and government doesn't really accommodate for me. It makes no sense to make accommodations for queens in the military.
Quite thinking with your brain GarMan. You don't have enough empathy and sorrow for the disenfranchised.
:taunt:
-
Fuck 'em... I say go with number 1, at least until we have the time and resources to adequately address the social concerns. We're accommodating for a social group that only makes up approximately 3-5% of our society. I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but society and government doesn't really accommodate for me. It makes no sense to make accommodations for queens in the military.
Last I checked, we aren't living in a true democracy but rather a democratic republic. Therefore, it's the job of the majority to make sure the "3-5%'s" are given equal rights and opportunity.
Will you be as understanding if one day you're the minority in a situation and denied something?
-
Last I checked, we aren't living in a true democracy but rather a democratic republic. Therefore, it's the job of the majority to make sure the "3-5%'s" are given equal rights and opportunity.
Will you be as understanding if one day you're the minority in a situation and denied something?
Not grasping for straws, but it's actually a Constitutional Republic. There is no kind of true democracy in our big picture framework. But I see your point. In a pure democracy, majority rules which is seriously flawed.
From teh Vandy Vol Wikiwebbs:
Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
-
Last I checked, we aren't living in a true democracy but rather a democratic republic. Therefore, it's the job of the majority to make sure the "3-5%'s" are given equal rights and opportunity.
Will you be as understanding if one day you're the minority in a situation and denied something?
Not trying to be difficult, but here are few points to consider...
1. Perhaps, you didn't catch it. I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but if I make that personal desire a predominant, defining lifestyle choice and publicly advertise my lifestyle to everyone, I would quickly join the minority ranks and deal with the same sort of "discriminatory" issues.
2. Homosexuals aren't denied equal rights and opportunity.
3. Everyone doesn't have a right to join the military.
-
Not trying to be difficult, but here are few points to consider...
1. Perhaps, you didn't catch it. I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but if I make that personal desire a predominant, defining lifestyle choice and publicly advertise my lifestyle to everyone, I would quickly join the minority ranks and deal with the same sort of "discriminatory" issues.
2. Homosexuals aren't denied equal rights and opportunity.
3. Everyone doesn't have a right to join the military.
I think you nailed it.
Getting denied something and then screaming "you are denying my right" is a total cop out. Not everything is a RIGHT. Most things in our world are a privilege. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not a guarantee of getting everything you WANT. A right only goes as far as you infriging on someone else's rights.
-
Will you be as understanding if one day you're the minority in a situation and denied something?
many business owners are denied the right to let their customers smoke.
just sayin'.
-
many business owners are denied the right to let their customers smoke.
just sayin'.
And can anyone list one basic right that a gay person doesn't have without going into a diatribe on what the definition of marriage is?
Property
Guns
Voting
Free speech
Jobs
etc
etc
-
many business owners are denied the right to let their customers smoke.
just sayin'.
But that's different. People hate smoke so they are glad that it denies people the right to smoke b/c they don't want to smell it or be around it. It's about what they want and think is right, not what the owner of the ..........oh, wait.
-
And can anyone list one basic right that a gay person doesn't have without going into a diatribe on what the definition of marriage is?
Property
Guns
Voting
Free speech
Jobs
etc
etc
You brutish homophobe... You don't get it!!! Until queers can suck cock and pack fudge openly in public on street corners rather than back alleys, you people are relegating them to the closet. Hater!!!
Signed, AUChizad...
-
But that's different. People hate smoke so they are glad that it denies people the right to smoke b/c they don't want to smell it or be around it. It's about what they want and think is right, not what the owner of the ..........oh, wait.
Well, if it isn't obvious... People hate queers, and most don't want to smell them or be around them.
-
3. Everyone doesn't have a right to join the military.
This is your best point.
However, if we're going that route, we have to define homosexuality as having an issue that denies one's admittance to the military.
Does homosexuality equal an emotional disturbance? Is it a physical disability? A lack of cognitive ability?
I'm failing to see where inconvenience or discomfort is a legal and relevant block for gays to enter the military.
-
You brutish homophobe... You don't get it!!! Until queers can suck cock and pack fudge openly in public on street corners rather than back alleys, you people are relegating them to the closet. Hater!!!
Signed, AUChizad...
So where are heterosexual couples having sex openly in public street corners? I live about 8 miles from Bourbon Street, and...well, actually yeah, I have seen a heterosexual couple going at it, but that was before I lived here.
Anyway, you nailed it.
I won't rest until I can walk into a Wal-Mart and see a dude pulling out of another dude's asshole and blowing his load all over the glass in the frozen foods section, while heterosexuals are publicly executed for admitting to once receiving a handy from a member of the opposite sex.
-
So where are heterosexual couples having sex openly in public street corners? I live about 8 miles from Bourbon Street, and...well, actually yeah, I have seen a heterosexual couple going at it, but that was before I lived here.
Anyway, you nailed it.
I won't rest until I can walk into a Wal-Mart and see a dude pulling out of another dude's asshole and blowing his load all over the glass in the frozen foods section, while heterosexuals are publicly executed for admitting to once receiving a handy from a member of the opposite sex.
I think I just popped chub
-
This is your best point.
Well, I don't believe it's my best point, but it is the most direct.
However, if we're going that route, we have to define homosexuality as having an issue that denies one's admittance to the military.
Does homosexuality equal an emotional disturbance? Is it a physical disability? A lack of cognitive ability?
I'm failing to see where inconvenience or discomfort is a legal and relevant block for gays to enter the military.
Why? Why do any of that? I don't believe the military is bound by EEOC, and I don't believe that EEOC establishes any protections for sexual proclivities, favorite past times, carnal desires or hobbies. Simply put, the homosexual lifestyle is a disruptive force to traditional military culture. This does not say that homosexuals are incapable of serving in the military. It just says that the social lifestyle does not fit within the culture of the military.
-
So where are heterosexual couples having sex openly in public street corners? I live about 8 miles from Bourbon Street, and...well, actually yeah, I have seen a heterosexual couple going at it, but that was before I lived here.
Anyway, you nailed it.
I won't rest until I can walk into a Wal-Mart and see a dude pulling out of another dude's asshole and blowing his load all over the glass in the frozen foods section, while heterosexuals are publicly executed for admitting to once receiving a handy from a member of the opposite sex.
I know, Honey. Keep up the fight! We need to put an end to back-alley gay butt sex!!!
-
So where are heterosexual couples having sex openly in public street corners? I live about 8 miles from Bourbon Street, and...well, actually yeah, I have seen a heterosexual couple going at it, but that was before I lived here.
Pics? Link?
I can walk into a Wal-Mart and see a dude pulling out of another dude's asshole and blowing his load all over the glass in the frozen foods section
Pics? Link?
-
Unless you are Vandy Vol - he was born to suck a mean cock.
True - that is the reason he's so short
So does the military now need to make accommodations ADA-style? No more denying flat-footed bedwetters, have to let into top gun training the severely myopic dude that wants to go fly-fly? Are the medical requirements now considered discriminatory and mean-spirited too?