Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-22-2010, 10:46 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaGrits84 View Post
This is BS. Women and men are kept seperate in most housing situations during combat to prevent sexual misconduct. So why in the hell would we now distract military officals with needing to figure out what to do to prevent misconduct between same sexes? This is retarded. I mean it is simply not a distraction our military needs.
How are they going to handle the barracks situation where most soldiers have roommates? What if a straight soldier is assigned a gay roommate and that gay guy wants to bring his boyfriend over for the night? When that heterosexual soldier complains, he's just going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's going to destroy his morale and motivation, and he's going to look for the quickest way out of the Army. Where otherwise he might have stayed in his entire career.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-22-2010, 10:55 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
How are they going to handle the barracks situation where most soldiers have roommates? What if a straight soldier is assigned a gay roommate and that gay guy wants to bring his boyfriend over for the night? When that heterosexual soldier complains, he's just going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's going to destroy his morale and motivation, and he's going to look for the quickest way out of the Army. Where otherwise he might have stayed in his entire career.
Exactly!!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-22-2010, 11:03 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Foxy View Post
Exactly!!
I've seen it happen many times to white soldiers from policies designed to protect African-Americans from discrimination. And to male soldiers from policies designed to protect women from sexual harassment. Those policies are designed to level the playing field, but in fact give the minority the upper hand that a few of them are more than willing to use to "pay back" whoever they feel is oppressing them, whether that oppression is real or imagined.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-22-2010, 11:13 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I've seen it happen many times to white soldiers from policies designed to protect African-Americans from discrimination. And to male soldiers from policies designed to protect women from sexual harassment. Those policies are designed to level the playing field, but in fact give the minority the upper hand that a few of them are more than willing to use to "pay back" whoever they feel is oppressing them, whether that oppression is real or imagined.
I had an incident a few months ago similar nature.. A lady thought I was racist, because she felt I slammed the door based on her color!!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-23-2010, 12:03 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Foxy View Post
I had an incident a few months ago similar nature.. A lady thought I was racist, because she felt I slammed the door based on her color!!
We had a soldier in Korea who got put on charges of racial discrimination because he asked a simple, logical question, "If I'm not allowed to say the word 'nigger' because I'm white, then why should I be forced to listen to that same word repeated over and over and over again in the gangster rap that my roommate plays ALL THE TIME?"

Unfortunately, not only was his roommate black, but so was his squad leader, so he was charged with making a racial slur. He was never the same soldier after that and became completely disillusioned with the Army and started making plans to leave the Army immediately after his enlistment was up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-23-2010, 01:21 AM
Spiritwalker's Avatar
Spiritwalker Spiritwalker is offline
Matt-4; GJJ Black Belts-0
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gastonia NC
Posts: 4,339
Default

So are we saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the armed forces?
__________________
It is because you chose to get on the mat that makes you the winner. Think about how many people are not on that mat right now. - Luis Sucuri Togno
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-23-2010, 01:31 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritwalker View Post
So are we saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the armed forces?
DING!DING!DING!DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Yes, I believe that homosexuals should NOT be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-23-2010, 01:56 AM
Mark's Avatar
Mark Mark is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Why would they even have to ask a soldier if he was homosexual?? I dont understand that! this is like a non issue, because the Government surely shouldnt be ASKING in the first place!!

They can ask you anything they want.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-23-2010, 02:05 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
They can ask you anything they want.
Yeah, there is no illusion of personal privacy in the Army. Many Constitutional freedoms are signed away when a person joins the military. As many commanders have said (and I'm sure it's been repeated in more than one movie), "We're here to defend the Constitution, not to practice it."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-23-2010, 02:14 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,757
Default

Good catch on them not mentioning the DADT was a Clinton policy, Nate. As far as this issue goes, I have always just been behind whatever policy the different branches of the military preferred to have in place. Far be it for me to say what is best for the armed services.

If I'm not mistaken, all 4 branches wanted this legislation put off until the Afghanistan conflict was resolved.

Obama chose to add to his political scorecard in lieu of following the advice of his military commanders.

I personally think he wanted this passed now because he was tired of being heckled at all his public appearances. Seriously.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.