1000 Rabbis Warn: Open Homosexuality in the Military is a Disaster and May Cause Further N

[blindsage]

...well I guess Israel is due for an earthquake then. :erg:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm just confused why talking about ending 'don't ask, don't tell' in the U.S. military would give cause to God to visit a debilitating earthquake on HAITI? WTF do they have to do with one another. If this were meant to be logical in anyway I would think the earthquake would have to be centered on D.C. or a major stateside military instillation, not the poorest foreign nation in the western hemisphere. Sometimes STFU is the only response that really makes sense.

Stupid people rarely need a rational reason to spout stupidity. Look at how many followers Oral Roberts, the Bakers, etc have.

 

[Scott T]

...well I guess Israel is due for an earthquake then. :erg:

At the very least, locusts. It's not a party without locusts.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Stupid people rarely need a rational reason to spout stupidity. Look at how many followers Oral Roberts, the Bakers, etc have.

The real sad thing isn't what these nut bars say, its the fact that they have so many followers!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Actually there are sound reasons for not allowing gays in the military (and it has nothing to do with religion or homophobia.)

1. There already is enough problems with couples (male & female) in the military. Divorces, breakups, running around with others, pregnancies, etc... and yes 'gays' have all those problems to (well maybe not pregnancies.)

2. Plus in the military there is little privacy. Everyone sleeps in the same barracks (at least same sexes do.) Same goes for the showers. Same goes for the restroom. That can cause quite a bit of problems to.

3. AIDS. Yes that to. Yea I know AIDs isn't confined to just gays, but a very high proportion of it is. In the military blood transfusions are needed on the battle field very often. And blood is spilled on the battlefield to quite often. Contamination is a serious problem.

And those facts above are real facts. Not unfounded fears.

Deaf

 

[JWLuiza]

Actually there are sound reasons for not allowing gays in the military (and it has nothing to do with religion or homophobia.)

1. There already is enough problems with couples (male & female) in the military. Divorces, breakups, running around with others, pregnancies, etc... and yes 'gays' have all those problems to (well maybe not pregnancies.)

2. Plus in the military there is little privacy. Everyone sleeps in the same barracks (at least same sexes do.) Same goes for the showers. Same goes for the restroom. That can cause quite a bit of problems to.

3. AIDS. Yes that to. Yea I know AIDs isn't confined to just gays, but a very high proportion of it is. In the military blood transfusions are needed on the battle field very often. And blood is spilled on the battlefield to quite often. Contamination is a serious problem.

And those facts above are real facts. Not unfounded fears.

Deaf

AIDS is more of a drug/needle thing in the states than a gay thing proportionally. And we also have these things called blood tests....

 

[Ken Morgan]

Actually there are sound reasons for not allowing gays in the military (and it has nothing to do with religion or homophobia.)

1. There already is enough problems with couples (male & female) in the military. Divorces, breakups, running around with others, pregnancies, etc... and yes 'gays' have all those problems to (well maybe not pregnancies.)

2. Plus in the military there is little privacy. Everyone sleeps in the same barracks (at least same sexes do.) Same goes for the showers. Same goes for the restroom. That can cause quite a bit of problems to.

3. AIDS. Yes that to. Yea I know AIDs isn't confined to just gays, but a very high proportion of it is. In the military blood transfusions are needed on the battle field very often. And blood is spilled on the battlefield to quite often. Contamination is a serious problem.

And those facts above are real facts. Not unfounded fears.

Deaf

with it working well in other militaries in the world should negate all of these "concerns"

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't think 1 uninfected person having relations (of any sort) with another uninfected person will somehow spontaneously catch something.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Actually there are sound reasons for not allowing gays in the military (and it has nothing to do with religion or homophobia.)

1. There already is enough problems with couples (male & female) in the military. Divorces, breakups, running around with others, pregnancies, etc... and yes 'gays' have all those problems to (well maybe not pregnancies.)

2. Plus in the military there is little privacy. Everyone sleeps in the same barracks (at least same sexes do.) Same goes for the showers. Same goes for the restroom. That can cause quite a bit of problems to.

3. AIDS. Yes that to. Yea I know AIDs isn't confined to just gays, but a very high proportion of it is. In the military blood transfusions are needed on the battle field very often. And blood is spilled on the battlefield to quite often. Contamination is a serious problem.

And those facts above are real facts. Not unfounded fears.

Deaf

Deaf, w/ all due respect, there already are gays in your military. Nothing in your laws currently prohibits gays from serving. They have been advised not to tell, and their superiors not to ask. The plan to amend DADT is simply that. Some military folks here have pointed out that there restrictions on the conduct of heterosexuals in the military -- restrictions which I'm sure are circumvented frequently, just as, I'm sure, gays have sought each other out.

Surely the 1000 rabbis know that there are gays in the military -- that's the very basis of DADT. By their perverse logic, simply allowing gays and lesbians to be out without reprisal will somehow invite the locusts.

At the end of the day, the White House, the Joint Chiefs, Congress, and the thousand rabbis can say what they want. There are limits to which people's natural sexual instincts can be controlled.

Finally, I would add that we've seen remarkable work done by allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As much as I gravely doubt the Iraq mission, I am very impressed with what I've read of military efforts to adapt to fighting in a war zone where the *enemy* doesn't fight under a flag. I saw a US Army officer on television talking about the field handbook he revised. He explained how personnel are trained to conduct themselves in a very professional manner because, as we have seen, the group that you're fighting against at one time, might become allies down the road.

We had a young Canadian soldier in Afghanistan who removed his helmet -- as he was trained to do -- when addressing a village elder. Some evil-doer came along and busted his head with an axe. The boy survived and was hoping to return. These are some pretty resilient dedicated people who serve in country on all the forces, and I think they're more than equal to the task of adapting to a repeal of DADT.

 

[Ken Morgan]

lol!

but sorry to disappoint you. He's not.



True.



yeah. thats 17 different kinds of weird. The oppressed end up oppressing. but the oppressed should know what it feels like.



One Black Horse, please.

and what kind would you like. You dont think I'll make you supply all the booze, do you? =]

I had to look up black horse!! I've never been down home, but I'll do my best on aquiring some.
As for me, have a look at this thread, any of the ten are fine, though I do believe Glenrothes may be my fav. I even put a bottle in my latest painting. http://guelphfirst.blogspot.com/
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83936&highlight=scotch
Yeah, you know, I think hell may just be more fun then heaven.

 

[blindsage]

Actually there are sound reasons for not allowing gays in the military (and it has nothing to do with religion or homophobia.)

1. There already is enough problems with couples (male & female) in the military. Divorces, breakups, running around with others, pregnancies, etc... and yes 'gays' have all those problems to (well maybe not pregnancies.)

2. Plus in the military there is little privacy. Everyone sleeps in the same barracks (at least same sexes do.) Same goes for the showers. Same goes for the restroom. That can cause quite a bit of problems to.

3. AIDS. Yes that to. Yea I know AIDs isn't confined to just gays, but a very high proportion of it is. In the military blood transfusions are needed on the battle field very often. And blood is spilled on the battlefield to quite often. Contamination is a serious problem.

And those facts above are real facts. Not unfounded fears.

Deaf

They are unfounded fears. Gays aren't forbidden from serving, they're forbidden from admitting their gay. They're already in the military, so your first two problems are moot to begin with. Only people who are uncomfortable personally acknowledging homosexuality pretend those are issues.

And your 3rd 'issue' is a red herring and, yes, homophobia disguised as fact. AIDS is proportionally higher in the black community, so maybe we shouldn't allow blacks to serve, I mean just based on your rationale. As someone said earlier, there is such a thing as a blood test, do we not screen people for AIDS during their initial physicals already? And finally, again, it's not a matter of whether they should be let in, as if it could mean a massive influx of HIV infected recruits, THEY'RE ALREADY THERE! If you don't have an epidemic of HIV infections now, then there won't be one by acknowledging the homosexuals that are already serving.

There are no factual reasons for not getting rid of 'don't ask, don't tell', as for not allowing gays to serve, that was a moot point a long time ago.

 

[SensibleManiac]

"We plead with saner heads in Congress and the Pentagon to stop sodomization of our military and our society. Enough is enough."

This sounds too funny, notice the word "saner", there is nothing sane about the 1000 Rabbis are implying.
"Enough is enough, will all sane people please stand up and stop the sodomization of our military and our society!"
Whoever said this deserves the title, Douchebag!

 

[Flea]

I just love Stumble ...

http://coffeeghost.net/images/dontaskdonttell.png

 

[Cryozombie]

with it working well in other militaries in the world should negate all of these "concerns"

While I don't care one way or another if we had/have/will have gays in the military...

I am tired of hearing the above as an excuse for why stuff (be it Universal Healthcare, gun control, or openly Gay couples in the military) should work for America. America has a different population, different ideals, a different background with respect to its founding etc... Certainly its possible that those things could work here, but not necessarily because the example has been that they worked elsewhere.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Yep you’re unique, just like everyone else….

I disagree, yes it’s your county, but honestly in my experience, when you really get down to it, most people are the same, regardless of where they live.

One thing I’ve told an ex GF before is, let’s see every one of the 22 guys your dated had something wrong with them…hmmm….now what’s the common denominator in that equation?

Look, the rest of the world isn’t all ****ed up or perfect, the USA isn’t perfect or all ****ed up, we all learn from each other. Canada and the UK consider precedents set in US law and I know the UK and the US look at what happens in Canada. It is just the smart thing to do. To completely dismiss something because it wasn’t a person from our country who came up with it is insane.

Yes not all ideas are equally transferable, but it does give them a certain degree of credibility when they do in fact work elsewhere. At the very least they should be examined for their merits.

 

[Cryozombie]

Yep you’re unique, just like everyone else….

I disagree, yes it’s your county, but honestly in my experience, when you really get down to it, most people are the same, regardless of where they live.

One thing I’ve told an ex GF before is, let’s see every one of the 22 guys your dated had something wrong with them…hmmm….now what’s the common denominator in that equation?

Look, the rest of the world isn’t all ****ed up or perfect, the USA isn’t perfect or all ****ed up, we all learn from each other. Canada and the UK consider precedents set in US law and I know the UK and the US look at what happens in Canada. It is just the smart thing to do. To completely dismiss something because it wasn’t a person from our country who came up with it is insane.

Yes not all ideas are equally transferable, but it does give them a certain degree of credibility when they do in fact work elsewhere. At the very least they should be examined for their merits.

No, but by the same token saying "Well, Gagaslovaika gave every one of its 1000 citizens a 1000.00 Gagal Note as a spending incentive worked! So it should work for the U.S. too!" is assinine, because here it would break the bank to give that much out, as our population is considerably higher. But people don't take that kind of thing into consideration, only that "It works for us, you should be no different."

Gun laws too. Our history with firearms is considerably different than, say, Brittan, but I constantly hear people telling me that "It works there, it should be the same here".