My rant of the day, and I guarantee all of my Republican friends are going to blow me up for this.

We need to get over this gay and transgender in the military issue and issue in general. If they want to serve and can pass all of the training required, why shouldn't they be able to serve?

In Israel, the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet have accepted gay, lesbian and transgender for years and they are regarded as one of the most bad a$$ militaries and special operators in the world.

We as a party need to get past this social issue. Most gay and lesbian Americans are conservative but vote Democrat because of how the Republican Party treats them. Does it really affect your life so much if you see two men together or two women together? If it does then your the one with issues.

If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it.

I end this with part of a famous document written on July 4th 1776. Maybe you have heard of it?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as written by

Thomas Jefferson.

The God of love says such diversity''

Please stay on Topic....

We have deleted several post going off topic or pictures that was not needed.

Site Mod
Kristi

It might not be all that cost effective.

The military is an institution that attempts to remove as much individuality as possible to mold people into standard issue tools for applying government force for the lowest price possible.

The LGBTQ community seems intent on pushing acceptance, recognition, and celebration of individuality and personal desires/tastes to the detriment of the group.

People openly living as LGBTQ realistically represents less than 5% of the population.

Can you see that as a good idea for a military?
Can you see the costs involved in accommodating when you don't really deal with customization?

Other than that, it seems similar to any job.

Someone may be awesome at doing a particular job or task, but can they conform and enjoy the culture of the company?
If you spend most of your time fighting against or trying to change the culture, you are less effective at doing your job.

In the case of the military the culture is directly influenced by the job. Which is ultimately killing people. The training to do so includes to some extent stereotyping enemies, demonizing and dehumanizing them.

You think it's a good idea to get people from a community that fight on the forefront against stereotypes and being dehumanized and put them into a community whose purpose is to stereotype and dehumanize in order to more effectively kill, since that isn't natural to people?
You see no problems, like PTSD, or dissonance issues, stemming from that?

To me it's like asking/allowing a 10 year old to join NAMBLA. Either bad things are going to happen, or the 10 year old is going to get the government to change the institution completely changing its purpose and effectiveness at what it does.


In Africa, they let 8 year olds join the military.
They're some of the most bad a$$ kids in the world.
Israel is not the U.S.


doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not mean being subsidized in fulfillment of happiness by conforming to what individuals want to do and what they think will make them happy.

Our military shouldn't be a social justice experiment.... Nor should it be used by either political side as a tactic to gain votes.....which is what this "rant" is pushing.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

to be fair, it doesn't really matter what someone's orientation is when all they do is press buttons on a joystick now...

ground troops are pretty much a thing of the past, unless they are sent to help the UN...

Your right about that on the joystick part . Just look to the video game industry , interesting how "Third world country's" kids can use a rifle without it .

Can you say E.M.P

Tell the grunts that were in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are a thing of the past.
Hell, no need for all of those infantry units either, just get rid of them. Why train them, we have joystick operators now!
No need for those PFTs, do away with em! I mean, hell, if all we have is joystick pushers, why do they have to be in shape?
All that is applicable if one believes "ground troops are pretty much a thing of the past". But since all those things STILL exist, I don't believe it at all.

Like I said, if they can pass all the qualifications, training and live up to the standards then they should be allowed to serve. They are not trying to change anything but their ability to serve their country. It's not like they want to put a rainbow patch on their uniforms.

I have a friend who is a former Ranger, he also has a special forces tab which makes me think he was part of the Delta Unit, but I have never asked, and he wouldn't tell me if I did. He is one of the most openly gay people ever meet and could probably tare both you and I apart at the same time. He retired from the military with an honorable discharge 25 years.

He is a prefect example of how not only a gay man can serve in the military successfully but also qualify for one of their most elite units.

so who's doing the killing? the unmanned drones or the "ground troops"...

sorry the military isn't what you think it is, but obarry and the liberal ilk have changed it a lot in the past eight years...

Ah I get your point now...Obamas strategy has failed, but I get your point.

My problem with your "rant" is there should be no "qualifiers" at all. This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest.
I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history.
Why should a gay or transgender even "notify" the military of what sexual preference they are unless to receive "special treatment" which divides everyone even more.
All men and woman should be able to serve regardless of any "preferences" as long as they can pass the requirements.

Yeah, but when bullets are whizzing by your head and you have body parts splashed all over you, I think that's the last thing anyone is thinking about.

umm, Obama 'politics' is responsible for reversing the division by lifting bans on gay and transgender and passing equal marriage laws


the division of the country was probably at its heighth during slavery,, and has only become more subtly divided and less blantantly,, the increase has little to do with any one person but the American culture at large

I agree though, if one can pass the tests and agree to the confomance and rules involved for everyone else''

let them serve

if they require 'additional' , let them remain civilian

I'm a veteran. Some positions it makes no difference who's pushing the button as stated above. However, some positions it makes a huge difference.

Oh yeah.....

Men and women are absolutely different. Some things men are better at. Some things women are better at.

There is a joke in there somewhere but I'll let it go because I'm too tired.

They are wired different and have different chemicals running through their body's. Transgenders during transition have a crazy mix of chemicals going through them. These chemicals influence decision making.

BTW.....

I'm soooooo glad I can't give birth. Thank you lady's for taking that responsibility.


I don't want him/her pushing any important buttons!!!!

Obama isn't responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....same sex marriage was made legal in all 50 states through litigation in courts. By the appeal process it reached the SCOTUS and the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States.
It was a Supreme Court ruling, not a law, that made same sex marriage legal.

well, if one can claim he is responsible for division with nothing to back up the claim

I just provide the counterargument with examples

cant claim its courts reversing decisions but not courts making them

either courts were responsible for the division, and now the unifying,, or they weren't

So your thinking is if someone says something that is OPINION based that you think is wrong it makes sense for you to counter it with something that is DEFINETLY wrong?

Got it.

lol

no,if someone posts an opinion without anything to back it up that I feel is 'wrong'

when I counter with what I feel is 'right', I attempt to back it up with Reason and evidence of why I feel that way

my thinking is opinions backed by some substance and proof, are stronger than those that are just opinion

You said Obama politics was responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....there is NO SUCH LAW.....there is NO SUBSTANCE or PROOF in making a blatantly FALSE statement.

Keep spinning.....I know it makes you feel good.