PDA

View Full Version : New pro-gay policy



imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 08:46 AM
There has been significant misinformation put out by both the military, the government, & the media. Pres. Obama did not simply repeal DADT. If he had then the military would be required to ask about people's sexual orientation & then dismiss them from the service or not let them enlist in the first place. No, it was a whole new policy that opened the door to gays serving openly in the military.

I never refer to it as the repeal of DADT. I refer to it as the pro-gay policy.

CrustySMSgt
01-11-2013, 09:47 AM
There is NO policy, agenda, conspiracy, etc. It is a non-issue... and in case you hadn't noticed, the droves of people who were going to retire, resign, flee, go out in a blaze of glory NEVER HAPPENED... Why? Because it is a non-issue.

The only policy that matters is the, "You are qualified to serve your country" policy. :closed_2

imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 10:26 AM
I never mentioned a conspiracy or agenda. I am simply stating the facts - the CIC implemented a new pro-gay policy. Simply a repeal of DADT is only partially correct.

CrustySMSgt
01-11-2013, 10:39 AM
I never mentioned a conspiracy or agenda. I am simply stating the facts - the CIC implemented a new pro-gay policy. Simply a repeal of DADT is only partially correct.

negative... there is no more a pro-gay policy than there is a pro-hetero policy. :loco

imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 11:07 AM
So only a DADT repeal then huh? Therefore if I was a recruiter then I should be asking the sexual orientation of recruits and not signing up gays? Because a repeal of DADT would put us back at the policy prior to its implementation.

CrustySMSgt
01-11-2013, 11:14 AM
What part of it doesn't matter do you not understand? To be "pro-gay" the policy would have to reward you for being gay. DADT was recinded and being gay was removed as a military service disqualifer. That is all...

imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 11:19 AM
Ohhhhh, so there was a change other than simply a repeal. Therefore a new policy is in place. Glad you understand now.

BURAWSKI
01-11-2013, 11:24 AM
I think by being "pro-gay" it is the way the media is playing up to the gay crowd. I have no interest in reading about military gay couples getting married or participating in homecomings, but the media seems to be fixated on this. Some may even say that the gay lifestyle is being promoted in this way. That is problematic in my book.

CrustySMSgt
01-11-2013, 11:26 AM
Ohhhhh, so there was a change other than simply a repeal. Therefore a new policy is in place. Glad you understand now.

The new policy isn't "pro" anything.

Thanks for stopping by, see you in another 2 years... I'm out

71Fish
01-11-2013, 11:28 AM
Ohhhhh, so there was a change other than simply a repeal. Therefore a new policy is in place. Glad you understand now.

Your logic is flawed.

imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 11:47 AM
Your logic is flawed.

So you believe that it was simply a repeal? You actually think that is a logical explanation?

71Fish
01-11-2013, 12:14 PM
Here is a really brief synopsis of the "policy" in the Military from an old timer who saw all 3 phases.

In the "old" days, the recruiter asked if you were gay. If you said no, you were home free. If you said yes, you could not join. If at first you said no, then later said yes, and someone found out, you got kicked out.

In the mid 90's until recently, the recruiter didn't ask and you didn't volunteer information. When you got into the "real" military after training, people still didn't ask, even though secretly we knew who the gays were. As long as they didn't admit to it, no problem. The moment they admitted what everyone suspected, they were kicked out.

Now, no one asks. If the person stricken with the gay later admits it, they aren't kicked out or given shitty details because of it. The gays aren't given special treatment because of being gay. Now, they just "are".

If you don't like the new "policy", since you are stuck on the word policy, there are options for you. If it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it.

imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 12:26 PM
I'm just ensuring people know that it wasn't simply a DADT repeal.

DaveIn3D
01-11-2013, 12:59 PM
I'm just ensuring people know that it wasn't simply a DADT repeal.

since we already have piles of dead horses around here on this subject alone, I dont see how you are breaking any new ground with this post? DADT was repealed and being gay is no longer a disqualifier. That is not a change in policy. A change in policy would include "we are now treating married homosexuals the same as we treat married traditional couples." That would be a policy changer, but that hasnt happened. We got rid of two old policies and thats all.

-3D

imported_LEBS27
01-11-2013, 01:04 PM
I agree - DADT was repealed. However one also has to admit that we simply did not revert back to the policy prior to DADT. Therefore we have a new policy that is pro-gay. It allows gays into the military freely and is also cracking down on chaplains who stand for biblical morality. Plus this new policy conflicts with federal law which doesn't recognize gay marriages. So couples legally married in a state that recognizes gay marriage cannot receive the military benefits that normal couples receive.

DaveIn3D
01-11-2013, 02:27 PM
I agree - DADT was repealed. However one also has to admit that we simply did not revert back to the policy prior to DADT. Therefore we have a new policy that is pro-gay. It allows gays into the military freely and is also cracking down on chaplains who stand for biblical morality. Plus this new policy conflicts with federal law which doesn't recognize gay marriages. So couples legally married in a state that recognizes gay marriage cannot receive the military benefits that normal couples receive.

we got rid of two policies. we did not add any. the only 'new' is that we dont discriminate against homos anymore. again, not a new policy, just a removal of two old ones. Other than that, your stupid.

-3D

Pullinteeth
01-11-2013, 02:42 PM
There has been significant misinformation put out by both the military, the government, & the media. Pres. Obama did not simply repeal DADT. If he had then the military would be required to ask about people's sexual orientation & then dismiss them from the service or not let them enlist in the first place. No, it was a whole new policy that opened the door to gays serving openly in the military.

I never refer to it as the repeal of DADT. I refer to it as the pro-gay policy.

You are kinda sorta right. It wasn't JUST the repeal of DADT. It was a repeal of the policy enacted by the U.S. Army Surgeon General banning homosexuals from the military in 1941, the additional policies from the Navy and Selective Servide in '44 (they were also barred from military hospitals in '44), further Army revision in '47 and DODD 1332.14. Not sure how you can say it is a pro-gay policy...if you want to be so factually correct, you should make sure you have your facts correct. Me? I think it is just easier and takes less time to call it the repeal of DADT as opposed to repeal of DADT and USA/SG policyof '44, '47, and DODD 1332.14... Plus it is too hard to remember all those numbers.

Rizzo77
01-11-2013, 05:51 PM
I'm just ensuring people know that it wasn't simply a DADT repeal.

Why is this getting you all cranked up? You get to serve openly, now.

imported_LEBS27
01-12-2013, 03:19 AM
we got rid of two policies. we did not add any. the only 'new' is that we dont discriminate against homos anymore. again, not a new policy, just a removal of two old ones. Other than that, your stupid.

-3D

So the new policy is not to "discriminate against homos"? Great, thanks for clarifying. I know that that military standard over the years has been dropping so this is just a continuation of that decline.

imported_LEBS27
01-12-2013, 03:20 AM
Why is this getting you all cranked up? You get to serve openly, now.

Who's getting "cranked up"? I'm simply setting the record straight.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 04:07 AM
Who's getting "cranked up"? I'm simply setting the record straight.

Don't worry about being "straight". Gay, straight, no one here cares. Be "straight" all you want. It's your life, not mine.

CrustySMSgt
01-12-2013, 04:24 AM
This guy is obviously a baised, uninformed, close-minded troll... don't feed him and he'll go away. His last post before this one was 2 years ago... with any luck, it'll be 2 more years.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 04:34 AM
This guy is obviously a baised, uninformed, close-minded troll... don't feed him and he'll go away. His last post before this one was 2 years ago... with any luck, it'll be 2 more years.

No, we have to help him; he's a closeted homosexual that has difficulty with coming out.

No one here cares, dude. Come out!

imported_LEBS27
01-12-2013, 08:30 AM
Yes people really do care that standards, morals, & Army values have been lowered to accomodate a very small minority of people who choose a certain orientation. It's really a shame that America is going down this road.

imported_LEBS27
01-12-2013, 09:15 AM
So I go to post my informed opinion & all the old SGT can do is simply bash me?

Pullinteeth
01-12-2013, 01:03 PM
So I go to post my informed opinion & all the old SGT can do is simply bash me?

and therein lies the problem...the way you presented it, made it seem as if you thought what you were saying were actually fact or at least factually based... Thank you for clarifying.

DaveIn3D
01-12-2013, 05:50 PM
Yes people really do care that standards, morals, & Army values have been lowered to accomodate a very small minority of people who choose a certain orientation. It's really a shame that America is going down this road.

Wait a minute here....so you are more of a smarg than a f4.... I have been reading this wrong the entire time..

-3D

USMC0341
01-12-2013, 07:07 PM
Yes people really do care that standards, morals, & Army values have been lowered to accomodate a very small minority of people who choose a certain orientation. It's really a shame that America is going down this road.

So somewhere in the army values, standards and morals it says something about being gay is not cool and degrades the service? Or are you just able to pick and choose sets of values and due to your anti gay beliefs believe that being gay in and of itself violates those morals, values and standards?

I have been around a lot of army folks in my day, and have yet to see anything that being gay would bring a detriment to. It's not like the gays will be humping your leg while you try to work or something. Are you worried about sharing a tent out in the field with a queer? Better be careful or you could catch it too.

RS6405
01-12-2013, 11:28 PM
Yes people really do care that standards, morals, & Army values have been lowered to accomodate a very small minority of people who choose a certain orientation. It's really a shame that America is going down this road.

The only time someone chooses to be gay is when you ask them on a date .... Just saying :becky

candycane3482
01-14-2013, 02:46 PM
Why can't homosexual couples also be highlighted at homecomings or get married? It's something that hasn't been allowed before and now it is. No the homosexual lifestyle is not "being promoted." That's ridiculous.

candycane3482
01-14-2013, 02:50 PM
I can't believe there's a thread about the semantics of DADT. IF you really wanna get particular - it's not even called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." That's just what the media applied to it as a name. The actual legislation and law was titled United States federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. ยง 654).

sandsjames
01-14-2013, 02:54 PM
Why can't homosexual couples also be highlighted at homecomings or get married? It's something that hasn't been allowed before and now it is. No the homosexual lifestyle is not "being promoted." That's ridiculous.

I think the OPs initial point is ridiculous. However, I think you saying that the "lifestyle is not being promoted" is wrong. Look at the TV shows "The New Normal" and "Modern Family". Just the titles are promoting the lifestyle by the use of "normal" and "modern". Look at the reaction Jody Foster received last night when she sort of "came out". Every time it happens, it has to be a "celebration". That is promotion of the lifestyle. I'll be glad when we get to the day of "acceptance" without it having to be a big deal every time. When it doesn't have to be the focus of something, rather just part of something. That's when it will be fair to say that it's not "being promoted".

Banned
01-15-2013, 12:25 PM
I think by being "pro-gay" it is the way the media is playing up to the gay crowd. I have no interest in reading about military gay couples getting married or participating in homecomings, but the media seems to be fixated on this. Some may even say that the gay lifestyle is being promoted in this way. That is problematic in my book.

Because it SELLS dude. That's like complaining that papparazzi take photos of celebrity boobs.

Come on... I thought everyone here SUPPORTED the free market. This is what a free market media organization does.


Why is this getting you all cranked up? You get to serve openly, now.

ZING!


I think the OPs initial point is ridiculous. However, I think you saying that the "lifestyle is not being promoted" is wrong. Look at the TV shows "The New Normal" and "Modern Family". Just the titles are promoting the lifestyle by the use of "normal" and "modern". Look at the reaction Jody Foster received last night when she sort of "came out". Every time it happens, it has to be a "celebration". That is promotion of the lifestyle. I'll be glad when we get to the day of "acceptance" without it having to be a big deal every time. When it doesn't have to be the focus of something, rather just part of something. That's when it will be fair to say that it's not "being promoted".

As Adam Smith would say, this is the invisible hand at work. Free market. Capitalism. All that stuff.

Banned
01-15-2013, 12:28 PM
I think by being "pro-gay" it is the way the media is playing up to the gay crowd. I have no interest in reading about military gay couples getting married or participating in homecomings, but the media seems to be fixated on this. Some may even say that the gay lifestyle is being promoted in this way. That is problematic in my book.

Because it SELLS dude. That's like complaining that papparazzi take photos of celebrity boobs.

Come on... I thought everyone here SUPPORTED the free market. This is what a free market media organization does.


Why is this getting you all cranked up? You get to serve openly, now.

ZING!


I think the OPs initial point is ridiculous. However, I think you saying that the "lifestyle is not being promoted" is wrong. Look at the TV shows "The New Normal" and "Modern Family". Just the titles are promoting the lifestyle by the use of "normal" and "modern". Look at the reaction Jody Foster received last night when she sort of "came out". Every time it happens, it has to be a "celebration". That is promotion of the lifestyle. I'll be glad when we get to the day of "acceptance" without it having to be a big deal every time. When it doesn't have to be the focus of something, rather just part of something. That's when it will be fair to say that it's not "being promoted".

As Adam Smith would say, this is the invisible hand at work. Free market. Capitalism. All that stuff.

AJBIGJ
01-15-2013, 12:35 PM
As Adam Smith would say, this is the invisible hand at work. Free market. Capitalism. All that stuff.

Not really so much no. More just simply supplying the demand. You are correct that free market economics are in play here. The "invisible hand" would be more of companies failing because they failed to supply the demand in a fashion marketable to the consumer at a price that is profitable.

Just go with "Gay sells" and leave it at that!

sandsjames
01-15-2013, 01:36 PM
As Adam Smith would say, this is the invisible hand at work. Free market. Capitalism. All that stuff.

Absolutley right. That's why I'd never say that this type of promotion should be taken off the air. If people choose to watch (which I do) then it will stay on the air. I don't have a problem with it at all. All I'm saying is that it is a promotion of the lifestyle.

The difference between a show like "Will and Grace" and "The New Normal" is simply the title. I'd never view "Will and Grace" as a promotion of the gay lifestyle. "The New Normal" is because the title is trying to imply something. Either way, I'll continue to be one of those who supports that free market/capitalism by watching.

candycane3482
01-15-2013, 03:00 PM
I think the OPs initial point is ridiculous. However, I think you saying that the "lifestyle is not being promoted" is wrong. Look at the TV shows "The New Normal" and "Modern Family". Just the titles are promoting the lifestyle by the use of "normal" and "modern". Look at the reaction Jody Foster received last night when she sort of "came out". Every time it happens, it has to be a "celebration". That is promotion of the lifestyle. I'll be glad when we get to the day of "acceptance" without it having to be a big deal every time. When it doesn't have to be the focus of something, rather just part of something. That's when it will be fair to say that it's not "being promoted".

What's wrong with those shows? There are families like that and "modern" families are diverse. And Jodi Foster had already come out - she even said so. No one really cared that she came out - they were confused by her rambling speech. I was. Why isn't it a celebration? It's something that people generally have had to HIDE. It's a big step for someone to come out and say they are homosexual. But it's really not as big of a deal as it once was - honestly she said she was lesbian I shrugged and said "huh figured."

I said the military isn't promoting the "lifestyle." That was what someone had stated saying the military promoted it. That's what I got out of it anyway.

candycane3482
01-15-2013, 03:01 PM
Absolutley right. That's why I'd never say that this type of promotion should be taken off the air. If people choose to watch (which I do) then it will stay on the air. I don't have a problem with it at all. All I'm saying is that it is a promotion of the lifestyle.

The difference between a show like "Will and Grace" and "The New Normal" is simply the title. I'd never view "Will and Grace" as a promotion of the gay lifestyle. "The New Normal" is because the title is trying to imply something. Either way, I'll continue to be one of those who supports that free market/capitalism by watching.

How was Will and Grace not a "promotion" of the "lifestyle" but that other show is? Simply because of the title? Your logic is extremely skewed. You can't say one show about homosexuality promotes the lifestyle and another doesn't.

Banned
01-15-2013, 03:24 PM
Absolutley right. That's why I'd never say that this type of promotion should be taken off the air. If people choose to watch (which I do) then it will stay on the air. I don't have a problem with it at all. All I'm saying is that it is a promotion of the lifestyle.

The difference between a show like "Will and Grace" and "The New Normal" is simply the title. I'd never view "Will and Grace" as a promotion of the gay lifestyle. "The New Normal" is because the title is trying to imply something. Either way, I'll continue to be one of those who supports that free market/capitalism by watching.

So would you say "Leave it to Beaver" promotes the nuclear family?

AJBIGJ
01-15-2013, 03:47 PM
The direction this thread is taking could add some serious twists to the shows we loved from yesteryear.

Anyone find old Dick Van Dyke episodes to see if there are any undertones we may have missed?

sandsjames
01-15-2013, 06:43 PM
So would you say "Leave it to Beaver" promotes the nuclear family?

No, but if it was title "The nuclear family" or "The traditional family" or "A family with values" then it would be promoting that lifestyle. It would be insinuating that a certain way of living is the right, normal, traditional, etc, way of life. Again, I love the shows. I watch them, and I laugh (though if I was gay I think I'd find the stereotyping a little bit patronizing).

sandsjames
01-15-2013, 06:47 PM
What's wrong with those shows?

Please read my posts and you'll see that I said there was nothing wrong with those shows. Don't just assume that I'm gay bashing, for fucks sake.


There are families like that and "modern" families are diverse. There are also "modern" families who are "traditional". To insinuate that a "modern" family is a certain type of family is promotion of that way of life. That's my only point.


And Jodi Foster had already come out - she even said so. No one really cared that she came out - they were confused by her rambling speech. I was. Why isn't it a celebration? It's something that people generally have had to HIDE. It's a big step for someone to come out and say they are homosexual. But it's really not as big of a deal as it once was - honestly she said she was lesbian I shrugged and said "huh figured." Why should it be a celebration? Why must EVERYTHING be celebrated?

Banned
01-16-2013, 12:56 PM
No, but if it was title "The nuclear family" or "The traditional family" or "A family with values" then it would be promoting that lifestyle. It would be insinuating that a certain way of living is the right, normal, traditional, etc, way of life. Again, I love the shows. I watch them, and I laugh (though if I was gay I think I'd find the stereotyping a little bit patronizing).

So whether or not a show promotes something is entirely based on what the title is?


Please read my posts and you'll see that I said there was nothing wrong with those shows. Don't just assume that I'm gay bashing, for fucks sake.

There are also "modern" families who are "traditional". To insinuate that a "modern" family is a certain type of family is promotion of that way of life. That's my only point.

Most likely they were driving at that a "modern" family can mean a lot of different things, not just the bible-toting little wife in an apron obeying her husband who leaves in a suit and tie for some obscure business-related job every day.


Why should it be a celebration? Why must EVERYTHING be celebrated?

Because its better than being miserable and thinking the rapture is going to happen tomorrow.

Banned
01-16-2013, 12:57 PM
No, but if it was title "The nuclear family" or "The traditional family" or "A family with values" then it would be promoting that lifestyle. It would be insinuating that a certain way of living is the right, normal, traditional, etc, way of life. Again, I love the shows. I watch them, and I laugh (though if I was gay I think I'd find the stereotyping a little bit patronizing).

So whether or not a show promotes something is entirely based on what the title is?


Please read my posts and you'll see that I said there was nothing wrong with those shows. Don't just assume that I'm gay bashing, for fucks sake.

There are also "modern" families who are "traditional". To insinuate that a "modern" family is a certain type of family is promotion of that way of life. That's my only point.

Most likely they were driving at that a "modern" family can mean a lot of different things, not just the bible-toting little wife in an apron obeying her husband who leaves in a suit and tie for some obscure business-related job every day.


Why should it be a celebration? Why must EVERYTHING be celebrated?

Because its better than being miserable and thinking the rapture is going to happen tomorrow.

sandsjames
01-16-2013, 01:18 PM
So whether or not a show promotes something is entirely based on what the title is? Most of the time. Just as food products ("diet" coke or "ultralight" cigarettes) give the impression that they are healthier than the other choices, a show titled "The New Normal" gives the impression that a family makeup like the one portrayed is now "Normal". I wonder how you would respond if "The New Normal" was about a bible thumping nuclear Christian family.




Most likely they were driving at that a "modern" family can mean a lot of different things, not just the bible-toting little wife in an apron obeying her husband who leaves in a suit and tie for some obscure business-related job every day.It's possible. Though, as mentioned above, I'm sure you'd have some comments if that's what the show was about.




Because its better than being miserable and thinking the rapture is going to happen tomorrow.Way to bring in the religious zealots to the conversation when that's not what it's about. Why can't somebody just be gay? Go about their daily lives. Especially celebrities. The cameras will always find them. If Jody Foster wants everyone to know, then let her just live her life as she does. It doesn't need to be an announcement. It doesn't have to be a rah rah moment. The same way that all the people who accept their awards and thank Jesus in front of the crowd to let everyone know they are "religious" don't need to do that. Just live their lives. I don't care what your lifestyle is. Just live it. It doesn't have to be an event.

Pullinteeth
01-16-2013, 01:36 PM
Most likely they were driving at that a "modern" family can mean a lot of different things, not just the bible-toting little wife in an apron obeying her husband who leaves in a suit and tie for some obscure business-related job every day.

That is how I took the show. It isn't like it is just about a gay couple. It is about a father (Al Bundy) that married a younger hottie/their son, his ex-wife, his daughter/her husband/son/and two daughters, and his gay son/his man-candy/their daughter... By my math, that would mean that the gay couple is only 1/3 of the title of the show...
Not a fan but it covers pretty much the "modern" families; single divorcee, divorced and remairried, husband/wife(homemaker) their kids, and a gay couple and their kid...

AJBIGJ
01-16-2013, 02:07 PM
I am vastly underqualified to have an opinion on any major TV shows in this day and age, if it doesn't occur on The HUB or Nick I probably have never even seen it. But the comments are fun to read.

My impression at least towards the Modern Family are similar to those of Pullinteeth at least, the standard Nuclear Model does not always apply in all circumestances, hence the title "Modern Family". It's actually why I recommend changing all "marriage" legislation into domestic partnerships, and extending monetary benefits to adults only for rearing children they have guardianship/conservatorship over responsibly. No reason we need to offer tax breaks to Tom and Jane who happen to be "married" legally but living five states separate from eachother in an "open relationship" with no children from the relationship. The new reality might happen to be a divorced mother that brings her mother to live with her to help rear her young child. The divorced mother going to work to support the family with the grandmother absorbing the lion's share of the child-rearing responsibilities. The only disfunctional familial relationship in my mind is when the combination of guardians fails to provide the young children with an environment that allows them to develop into normal, functioning adults in our society. Who cares if the grandmother and mother are not "married"? Would there be any legal protections and benefits not necessary in this relationship that would be necessary in a "marriage"? I'm at a loss for anything in particular. The only time marriages would have legal involvement where these other forms of domestic partnerships do not is when the parties are about to divorce. No real need to write laws specifically to that, a judge can sort that stuff out just fine, as it's what generally happens anyways.

wharrblgharbl
03-17-2013, 09:30 PM
So, what's wrong with non-straight people serving in the military?

JD2780
03-17-2013, 10:06 PM
So two gay folks being married and adopting or having a child of their own by some way shape or form is promoting homosexuality? Not so much promoting, but saying its ok. Yes, its ok. Its better than somebody being miserable for the rest of their lives like some straight couples. The sactity of marraige has been compromised by folks getting divorced on a whim. If a gay couple arent abusing their child in anyway shape or form what are they doing wrong? Once again, there are plenty of documented cases of horrific abuse by straight couples. So far every reason folks have brought up for gays not to be married and not to have children has been shredded.

I've heard this a few times. If you dont like gay marriage, dont marry a gay.

Pullinteeth
03-18-2013, 11:50 AM
So, what's wrong with non-straight people serving in the military?

If you are all bent over, you look funny when you are marching...