Zephie wrote:This is horrible. Now one of the few loopholes for dodging a potential draft is closed.
You could always get a sex change, the Government doesn't consider women competent enough for combat yet.
Advertisement
by SaintB » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:08 pm
Zephie wrote:This is horrible. Now one of the few loopholes for dodging a potential draft is closed.
by Bydlostan (Ancient) » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:09 pm
by Hassett » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:10 pm
by Greed and Death » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:10 pm
Bydlostan wrote:
In practice, this rarely happened as it was generally up to thee local commander to enforce it. Too many soldiers decided they'd rather be gay then get deployed and cheat the system only to get deployed. serve their contracts and then, maybe get a general discharge.
I do think discharge is too harsh and bad policy, a better policy is that soldiers should just be discouraged or reprimanded if they don't keep tight-lipped about their sex life, just as they are about sexual harassment or racist views. It doesn't help you in any workplace.
by New Genoa » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:11 pm
Greater Americania wrote:I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired. The very concept of judicial review should be reevaluated Constitutionally and edited so that Courts will not have the authority to make decisions like this. The Courts are becoming as though a legislature of their own. All they have to do is scream "unconstitutional" and they can enforce whatever they please.
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:11 pm
Greater Americania wrote:I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired.
by Bydlostan (Ancient) » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:12 pm
greed and death wrote:Bydlostan wrote:
In practice, this rarely happened as it was generally up to thee local commander to enforce it. Too many soldiers decided they'd rather be gay then get deployed and cheat the system only to get deployed. serve their contracts and then, maybe get a general discharge.
I do think discharge is too harsh and bad policy, a better policy is that soldiers should just be discouraged or reprimanded if they don't keep tight-lipped about their sex life, just as they are about sexual harassment or racist views. It doesn't help you in any workplace.
DADT discharge was a medical and honorable.
by SaintB » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:13 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:14 pm
SaintB wrote:You could always get a sex change, the Government doesn't consider women competent enough for combat yet.
by Zephie » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:14 pm
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by Zephie » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:15 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:SaintB wrote:You could always get a sex change, the Government doesn't consider women competent enough for combat yet.
That's incorrect. Women in the military are trained for, and have fought and killed with distinction, overseas, they just can't be in infantry units because of the rape problems (99% male plus 1% female plus a whole lotta stress plus guys that enjoy killing equals problems). Female medics even once attached to infantry units had so many fucking scandals connected as a result that now even that isn't allowed.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by The Parkus Empire » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:15 pm
Bydlostan wrote:soldiers should just be discouraged or reprimanded if they don't keep tight-lipped about their sex life
by The Parkus Empire » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:16 pm
Zephie wrote:He's referring to women not having to sign up for the draft.
by Cobhanglica » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:17 pm
by Xsyne » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:18 pm
Chernoslavia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:according to both the law library of congress and wikipedia, both automatics and semi-autos that can be easily converted are outright banned in norway.
Source?
by Peddieville » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:19 pm
Zephie wrote:
Eh, just because there's a bunch of feminazis running around, doesn't mean the rest of the women should be punished. I believe it's the responsibility of men to protect the women and children.
by Greater Americania » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:19 pm
by Holy Paradise » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:19 pm
Cobhanglica wrote:More autocratic government by the courts under the premise of "constitutionality"; despite the fact that such decisions basically amount to the Court rewriting the Constitution to suit its views. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could possibly be construed as giving gays an unalienable right to serve openly in the military.
by Bydlostan (Ancient) » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:20 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:20 pm
Xsyne wrote:Given that the remark was made in context of ways to avoid being drafted, I'm pretty sure it was in reference to women not having to sign up for the draft. Just call it a hunch.
by Zephie » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:21 pm
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by Peddieville » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:22 pm
Cobhanglica wrote:More autocratic government by the courts under the premise of "constitutionality"; despite the fact that such decisions basically amount to the Court rewriting the Constitution to suit its views. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could possibly be construed as giving gays an unalienable right to serve openly in the military.
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:22 pm
Greater Americania wrote:
I'm getting tired of Courts pretending that what they want to see become a reality is the only Constitutional way to go.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Peoplestasine, Singaporen Empire, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement