Wed May 20, 2009 4:36 pm
A2C wrote:The rules in the military are clear, homosexuals are not allowed to serve.
Once again, you are wrong. They are not allowed to serve openly. However, they do and have served quietly and well for centuries. The current situation is literally one where they can lose a career just because one sorry bastard decides to stick his nose where it isn't wanted. One jackass can break the law, receive no punishment, and ruin another persons life.
Wed May 20, 2009 6:03 pm
The real issue here outside of the B/S issue of his orientation is the missing panel on the left, forward of the leading edge?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Wed May 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Okay, I usually keep away from the political topics. But, why does the government get to tell the general public how to act, who they can hire, who they can fire and for what reasons, but the same rules don't apply to them?
I truly appreciate everyone who's served, protected and defended this country. I also appreciate and, for the most part, support the system that defends us. Some things just make me wonder what in the world's going on.
I won't even get into the investment in dollars and time that we've put into this aviator. Not to mention his time and commitment to defending our freedom.
I truly appreciate everyone who's served, protected and defended this country. I also appreciate and, for the most part, support the system that defends us. Some things just make me wonder what in the world's going on.
I won't even get into the investment in dollars and time that we've put into this aviator. Not to mention his time and commitment to defending our freedom.
Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 pm
It has to do with the required qualification - that is often overlooked these days - and in more ways than this - that an officer uphold a code of ethics and be of "good moral character" - actually this is also a requirement for Airline Transport Pilots. This hearkens back to a day when leaders were at least supposedly held to a higher standard. Like it or not, that standard used to be a much more Christian-based (not perfectly) one. You wouldn't want to have an officer who was accused of theft, murder, or adultery. All of which are in the list of evil deeds in Scripture. Sodomy is also on that list.
He might be a REALLY good pilot, but if his character became known, the standard should be upheld.
Now honestly, there is often a bit of a double standard here - it's pretty common knowledge in my opinion that the aviation crowd is NOT always of the highest moral character.
Ryan
He might be a REALLY good pilot, but if his character became known, the standard should be upheld.
Now honestly, there is often a bit of a double standard here - it's pretty common knowledge in my opinion that the aviation crowd is NOT always of the highest moral character.
Ryan
Wed May 20, 2009 10:46 pm
Let me add to this;
The rules are simple, set by a not so moral leader, "don't ask, don't tell".
The answer is if you are a homosexual don't tell. End of story. What's so hard about following the rules? This pilot knows that if he admits he's a homosexaual, he knows what the consequences are. So why does he feel so compelled to admit it? Is he trying to get himself into a controversey?
It's interesting he would do this, because in aviation there can be few controversies. Your stall speed is what it is. If you fly below your stall speed you will stall. In the military, if you admit you are a homosexual, you will be dropped. Basic stuff.
The rules are simple, set by a not so moral leader, "don't ask, don't tell".
The answer is if you are a homosexual don't tell. End of story. What's so hard about following the rules? This pilot knows that if he admits he's a homosexaual, he knows what the consequences are. So why does he feel so compelled to admit it? Is he trying to get himself into a controversey?
It's interesting he would do this, because in aviation there can be few controversies. Your stall speed is what it is. If you fly below your stall speed you will stall. In the military, if you admit you are a homosexual, you will be dropped. Basic stuff.
Last edited by A2C on Wed May 20, 2009 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed May 20, 2009 10:50 pm
262crew wrote:The real issue here outside of the B/S issue of his orientation is the missing panel on the left, forward of the leading edge?
Not a missing panel -- it is the door for the air refueling slipway operating exactly as designed.
Wed May 20, 2009 10:52 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:It has to do with the required qualification - that is often overlooked these days - and in more ways than this - that an officer uphold a code of ethics and be of "good moral character" - actually this is also a requirement for Airline Transport Pilots. This hearkens back to a day when leaders were at least supposedly held to a higher standard. Like it or not, that standard used to be a much more Christian-based (not perfectly) one. You wouldn't want to have an officer who was accused of theft, murder, or adultery. All of which are in the list of evil deeds in Scripture. Sodomy is also on that list.
He might be a REALLY good pilot, but if his character became known, the standard should be upheld.
Now honestly, there is often a bit of a double standard here - it's pretty common knowledge in my opinion that the aviation crowd is NOT always of the highest moral character.
Ryan
Well, I guess we can always turn to our religious leaders for examples of high, moral, Christian based character, Ted Haggard for instance...
Wed May 20, 2009 11:02 pm
Christian based character, Ted Haggard for instance...
He's probably better than many others.
Wed May 20, 2009 11:38 pm
michaelharadon wrote:RyanShort1 wrote:It has to do with the required qualification - that is often overlooked these days - and in more ways than this - that an officer uphold a code of ethics and be of "good moral character" - actually this is also a requirement for Airline Transport Pilots. This hearkens back to a day when leaders were at least supposedly held to a higher standard. Like it or not, that standard used to be a much more Christian-based (not perfectly) one. You wouldn't want to have an officer who was accused of theft, murder, or adultery. All of which are in the list of evil deeds in Scripture. Sodomy is also on that list.
He might be a REALLY good pilot, but if his character became known, the standard should be upheld.
Now honestly, there is often a bit of a double standard here - it's pretty common knowledge in my opinion that the aviation crowd is NOT always of the highest moral character.
Ryan
Well, I guess we can always turn to our religious leaders for examples of high, moral, Christian based character, Ted Haggard for instance...
Well, there are those who fail - and they deserve the bad reputation they have. They certainly do not follow the standards they themselves have claimed to uphold, and there is no shame in calling that person a hypocrite. On the other hand, if there is no such thing as a moral standard, then really and truly, who cares? They just decided one day it didn't matter anymore... I for one don't believe that.
Ryan
Thu May 21, 2009 9:06 am
Being gay has nothing to do with moral character. It is not a crime, nor is it hurting anyone. In fact, I would have to agree with A2C that it is hypocritical to demand that a soldier basically lie about himself just to keep his job. There should be nothing at all said in any way about homosexuality in the military beyond requiring the same sexual harassment free work environment for gays as for anyone else--and requiring that they adhere to that law as well.
Thu May 21, 2009 9:49 am
Well, obviously, it depends on how you define crime. Scripture says it is a crime. Many countries of the world still consider it a crime, and it was a crime here in our country until very recently when the US Supreme Court decided against TX in a bad, bad case. Technically it's still on the books as a crime, but not prosecutable because of the judicial system.
Ryan
Ryan
Thu May 21, 2009 10:13 am
Ryan, in which legal system in the United States of America is homosexuality considered a crime? You can take all the time you like in order to find the answer to that, if you want.
You can take your scripture and roll it up and tuck it under your arm for this discussion. We are discussing UCMJ and constitutional law, not Christian ethics. Besides a sin isn't a crime. Render unto Ceaser yadda yadda yadda...
I am not sure you can claim that being gay is a sin anyway. Sodomy is a sin. Being gay doesn't not necessarily mean one has sodomy. Nor does sodomy demand that either sodomizer or sodomized be gay.
And as for many countries considering it a crime: Name some. And, as conservatives used to be so fond of saying back when teh world hated us: Why do we care what the legal system in some other country says about us, and why should we be looking at anything but what WE want and OUR constitutution to rule ourselves?
Sodomy laws have pretty much all been thrown out as unconstitutional. The only holdout are states where no on has contested it, and UCMJ. And UCMJ has long been the refuge of supercilious, silly leadership demanding that the old ways be continued in order to maintain social supremacy. Hell, up until Korea and Vietnam our officers still had their own latrines, and ate in separate mess halls. The same old system propped up by the same old guys, demanding the same old rights and perks by denying them to others imo.
This is less an issue of military order than an issue of "Not in my clubhouse." Blacks were finally allowed in the clubhouse and guess what? Nothing bad happened. And women have finally been more or less allowed in the clubhouse and guess what? The world didn't end. And when the homos finally get let in....Guess what? Nothing gonna happen then either.
That's because this is the same old bigotry, hiding behind the same old crap excuses, and espoused by the same guys who don't want to share their dishes and silverware.
In general things like this change as the old guard dies of old age. In another 20 years it won't be an issue.
You can take your scripture and roll it up and tuck it under your arm for this discussion. We are discussing UCMJ and constitutional law, not Christian ethics. Besides a sin isn't a crime. Render unto Ceaser yadda yadda yadda...
I am not sure you can claim that being gay is a sin anyway. Sodomy is a sin. Being gay doesn't not necessarily mean one has sodomy. Nor does sodomy demand that either sodomizer or sodomized be gay.
And as for many countries considering it a crime: Name some. And, as conservatives used to be so fond of saying back when teh world hated us: Why do we care what the legal system in some other country says about us, and why should we be looking at anything but what WE want and OUR constitutution to rule ourselves?
Sodomy laws have pretty much all been thrown out as unconstitutional. The only holdout are states where no on has contested it, and UCMJ. And UCMJ has long been the refuge of supercilious, silly leadership demanding that the old ways be continued in order to maintain social supremacy. Hell, up until Korea and Vietnam our officers still had their own latrines, and ate in separate mess halls. The same old system propped up by the same old guys, demanding the same old rights and perks by denying them to others imo.
This is less an issue of military order than an issue of "Not in my clubhouse." Blacks were finally allowed in the clubhouse and guess what? Nothing bad happened. And women have finally been more or less allowed in the clubhouse and guess what? The world didn't end. And when the homos finally get let in....Guess what? Nothing gonna happen then either.
That's because this is the same old bigotry, hiding behind the same old crap excuses, and espoused by the same guys who don't want to share their dishes and silverware.
In general things like this change as the old guard dies of old age. In another 20 years it won't be an issue.
Thu May 21, 2009 10:39 am
Muddy,
I'm not going to respond further on board - I got too far off topic already, but feel free to send me an email and I WILL send a reply.
Ryan
I'm not going to respond further on board - I got too far off topic already, but feel free to send me an email and I WILL send a reply.
Ryan
Thu May 21, 2009 10:56 am
Muddy,
Some very wise word there!
Some very wise word there!
Thu May 21, 2009 12:00 pm
The rule is the rule. Why did he come out? Did someone rat him out?
I think it's a shame this rule is in place, and he got discharged because of it. Seems like a good guy, obviously excellent at his job, and a decorated combat vet to boot.
I think it's a shame this rule is in place, and he got discharged because of it. Seems like a good guy, obviously excellent at his job, and a decorated combat vet to boot.