It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans block efforts in ending 'Don't ask don't tell'

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Why should a hetero man or woman in the military be forced to put up with showering with someone that is
sexually attracted to them, when it is not asked of civilians in a public setting?


It is naive to assume that they are not already showering with folks who have a different sexual orientation. Those men and women are legally required not to make their fellow soldiers aware of the same.



Assuming one gender or sexual orientation is a greater threat than another makes no sense.

Military code covers any situation concerning harrasment or unwanted advances...straight, gay, man, woman, whatever.






edit on 22-9-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


I salute you sir!

Latrines do require special attention.

This is a poltical game, period.

If not, they would have voted this through on any other bill that they passed last year.

Why wait until now?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Major Discrepancy
What's this recruit? The head rat, excuse the Major, the Senate Majority leader voted against it? Shouldn't that be the headline? It would be if the recruit didn't have an agenda. To their credit, the Republicans were voting on conviction; Lincoln, Pryor and Reid were voting to save their miserable necks in the upcoming election.


I know very little about Senate procedural rules, but apparently Reid voting with the Republicans (against the bill) will allow him to reintroduce it after the elections:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date.


Source (this seems to be a reprint of an AP piece on a blog, I can probably get a better source if needed).

 


Here's a better source:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) voted "no" in a tactic that leaves him the option to revive the bill later.

Wall Street Journal

 


From the blog on Sen. Reid's website:


A note on Senate procedure:

Senator Reid supports repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Today he switched his vote to "no" at the end of the vote simply because Senate rules allow him to bring the bill back to the floor by doing so. Senator Reid will urge the Senate to reconsider DADT, but in order to do so, Senate procedure required him to change his vote.


www.harryreid.com


edit on 9/22/2010 by americandingbat because: adding sources. Still haven't found an explanation of how this procedural thing works.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
This is just a pathetic attempt by the dems to look good in the eyes of the homosexual community. They new the defense budget would not pass with that little jewel in it, but they put it in there anyways to save face.

They did the exact same thing in 07 I believe when they refused to put a defense budget forward without it including a time table for withdraw from Iraq.

The sad thing is that the Don't ask, don't tell policy will go away, probably in the next 6 months. The dems know this, that is why they are pushing forward trying to get it repealed now instead of doing what the Pentagon wanted and let them finish with their investigation on it.

The Dems want it gone now regardless of the consequences and the Pentagon wants to test the waters and see what the boots in the sand think about it and take in their concerns so that they can be better prepared for it.

I'm tired of the Dems thinking soldiers are just a political pawn they can use when they want to look good in front of the camera.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


You are correct.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits harrassment. If it happens, report it. End of story.

My only other issue is I think that the military should be about combat, not screwing. I say, let them all shower together, privates with privates (lol, sorry), or whatever, but men and women, gay or not.

This might be wrong of me to say, but I would not have a problem with a gay man checking me out, I have nothing to hide. But only if I could check out that cute gal from Charlie Battery in the same shower! Equal rights



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


But that's assuming that people cannot control themselves. It suggests that if you put a gay person in a shower room with others of the same sex, it will inevitiably lead to something sexual. I really don't see why. If the others are not gay - what are they worried about?

I go to the gym and use the shower room - and I know there are a few gay men that go to the gym, as I'm sure likewise in the women's change rooms.. So far, out of 9 years at that gym, not once has a man oogled me, made any comments or propositioned me. Would it offend me? No. Would I be scared? Certainly not. I'd probably laugh it off and thank them for the compliment - hey - what's wrong if someone finds you attractive? Nice compliment, regardless of gender.

But again, i don't know where this view comes from that being gay means you're more promiscuous than a straight individual - and that is the sentiment i pick up from the anti-gay-in-the-military perspective.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 
So again, I ask the questions.....

Why do hetero women want a 'Womens Room'?

Why do women tend to keep 'women only' workout facilities in business??

Why does the Federal government provide 'Separate' (but not equal) restroom facilities in their buildings???

I don't know where this came from!


But again, i don't know where this view comes from that being gay means you're more promiscuous than a straight individual - and that is the sentiment i pick up from the anti-gay-in-the-military perspective.
I said nothing comparing gay to hetero promiscuity!



edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Major Discrepancy
To their credit, the Republicans were voting on conviction; Lincoln, Pryor and Reid were voting to save their miserable necks in the upcoming election.


If the Major had sufficient leave-time to determine the full voting record on the bill, then the Major certainly had sufficient time to read that Senator Harry Reid voted against the bill in a proceedural move that allows him to re-introduce the otherwise doomed bill at a later date, thus preserving a chance for victory.

And if the Major believes that the Republicans were voting on "conviction" and not pandering to their socially extremist base, then the Major should report to HQ for drug testing post-haste.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 
Thanks, But I am not in this group....



It is naive to assume that they are not already showering with folks who have a different sexual orientation. Those men and women are legally required not to make their fellow soldiers aware of the same.
I have been in the US Navy, and I have showered with homosexual males. I have been approached by them, not in the showers, but during my time on one ship.

So spare me the lectures and answer my questions that I posed to noonebutme in my post if you want/can.




edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: SLASHING



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 
Again you are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth....




Assuming one gender or sexual orientation is a greater threat than another makes no sense. Military code covers any situation concerning harrasment or unwanted advances...straight, gay, man, woman, whatever.

You are reading a lot that's not there with my post.
If one group is no greater threat than another(and I certainly am not saying that any are!), why do women have separate housing and showers at military facilities???
Why not have just ONE shower, ONE restroom and ONE type of barracks???




edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KerbDune
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 

Your argument is based on a faulty assumption -- no, it won't be "ask and tell". The military won't ask anyone about their sexual preferences. Repealing DADT means that people who have admitted being gay, or admit while in active duty, won't be rejected or kicked out of the military for it.

You can list those sexual preferences and fetishes all you want but it's completely irrelevant if you or me find them repugnant -- it's none of our business and it absolutely has nothing to do with the ability to serve in the military.

I'm sure many of the people you deal with daily have fetishes. Should what they do in private alone disqualify them from their jobs? Or mean they are less capable of performing them?


oh but it will be ask and tell, you think it wont be? they used to ask them about their sexual preferences before and then DADT was enacted to stop that. somehow you think repealing it wont have that effect?

the arguement of repealing DADT is under the facade of people not being kicked out for being gay, but that is not going to be affected, only wether they can talk about it will be effected, if they choose to kick someone out for being gay their gonna do it no matter the DADT policy, they just may do it under a different excuse.

of course it's repugnant, none of our business, and has nothing to do with serving THATS THE POINT OF DADT

"what they do in private alone disqualify them from their jobs?"

of course not and again that is the point of DADT because without DADT they will not keep it only to private life but be given the opportunity to talk about it at work on the job or in service, you go buy a burger at a fast food do you realy want to hear the two workers behind the counter talking about their scat fetish they practice when off the job? HELL NO yet you would say they have the right to talk about it all they want on the job?! of course not therefor DADT.







Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

if DADT is repealed then we also must realise our military service members WILL at some point be actively discussing any one of the sexual preferences/fetishes listed below, and many more then that too.


Sorry...you miss the point entirely. Your whole post is based on the premise that homosexuality is a fetish. I think you should educate yourself a little better...mind you, I'm going to assume that you learned a little something about fetishism in preparing your post.

In addition, DODT is not about telling stories of 'sexual escapades' (which is simply a matter of manners), it's about not having to live a lie.


i already told you in that post that it doesnt matter whether you classify one or the other as a fetish what matters is whats practiced and who wants to talk about it, fetishes are just as practised and communicated about as homosexuality is, so in this sittuation there is no difference. like i said, many fetish practitioners turn it into a lifestyle.


DADT is indeed about telling stories as well as any other communication it's purpose is to censor certain topics of discussion those topics being sex and sexual preference, this covers everything not just homosexuality.
what people are actualy upset about is that the military kicks out people when they find out they are gay, why is it we dont repeal that? why then are we instead repealing their right to talk about it?

people are under the false assumption that if the service members are made allowed to talk about being gay that they wont be kicked out for it like they are now


now you are the one making an assumption by thinking that those with a fetish dont also feel like they are living a lie, believe me they do, and they have the same desire to talk about it with everyone that a homosexual sometimes does. you cant seperate the two (fetish/homo) in terms of how they feel and how they communicate based solely on the psyciatrist labeling and definition.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
the arguement of repealing DADT is under the facade of people not being kicked out for being gay, but that is not going to be affected, only wether they can talk about it will be effected, if they choose to kick someone out for being gay their gonna do it no matter the DADT policy, they just may do it under a different excuse.


You do realise that DODT is not about telling ribald tales around the campfire...that it refers to "We won't ask if you're gay, and you don't tell us you're gay"...right?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Why not have just ONE shower, ONE restroom and ONE type of barracks???


edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



It works well for Great Britian, Canada and Israel...where gays serve openly and do not have "seperate facilities".

What else can I say? You envision certain scenarios in the shower with a Gay solidiers...that I think belongs in the realm of paranoia or fantasy? The Canadian, British and ISraeli military have had no reported issue's in showers. restrooms or barracks with thier gay soldiers.

So on one end of the spectrum we have three real world examples of large militaries that are doing well with gays openly serving and on the other end of the spectrum we have imagination.




edit on 22-9-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 
You obviously have me pegged wrong.

I have served in the US military, before DADT, but I served alongside gay men and showered with them.

I am NOT anti-gay.

I am not homophobic.

I would like someone to answer my questions though.

Why do women have separate facilities?

Try again with this thing.....



What else can I say? You envision certain scenarios in the shower with a Gay solidiers...that I think belongs in the realm of paranoia or fantasy? The Canadian, British and ISraeli military have had no reported issue's in showers. restrooms or barracks with thier gay soldiers.

I gave you ZERO reason to post such drivel.

And you have not answered my question.

Why do women need to be provided separate facilities at all?

I want to know why women should expect to have them? ( and the women have larger restrooms on almost every floorplan you look at!)






edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: Because someone is trying to make me out to be a homophobe!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I think this is a good thing

I think everytime funding for wars comes up in congress, attached should be a mandatory big gay bill, or some other aspect...like our ability to marry snapping turtles, etc.


I love this turn of events...eventually they will have to choose...do they fear homosexuals in the military enough to stop warring all together

one would hope the answer is yes, and by default we simply must stop wars due to lack of funding...

Well done Reps...your fears are solving the whole afghanistan issue better than any march on washington or anything else could produce.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Why do women have separate facilities.




Because all men are rapeist of course.

Actually, I will be honest with myself...as a straight man, I would be in favor of co-ed showering in the military if I was in the military.

and yes, it is all about sneaking a peek...a fit military woman nude and wet.

however, the thrill would last for about 2-3 showers, then I would be over it...especially if I started getting ridiculed about growing one by my peers and laughed at....that would put things into perspective real quick.
This could actually help in getting over the sexual tension between enlisted men and women real quick...so, don't dismiss the concept too quick.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
You know, as much as I support gay rights, I'm glad!

All the repeal would do is cause more people to give up their lives for nothing in a pointless war.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Are you kidding me? Common shower areas would rock!

And yes, it might get old for some, but I think it would solve a lot social problems, possibly cut down on military spending, boost morale overall, and to be brutally honest, be a whole lot of fun!

Again, I believe that anyone who wants to stand up and fight for their country, should be allowed. I do think this is all about getting the sheeple's riled up before the elections since they could have passed this last year at anytime. I also think that it should be done quickly, but as carefully as possible. And yes, common showers would really help...Anyone remember that scene from Starship Troopers where they had common showers? This Vet thinks that is a good idea.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 
Thank you very much!

I am all for coed facilities, not only in the military, but any public place.

Why not? It would certainly be a lot cheaper to build one facility than two!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lasertaglover
 



Starship Troopers where they had common showers? This Vet thinks that is a good idea.

Because it IS a good idea, and it is fair.






edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join