- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
agenteagle said:
You'd think that homosexuality was contagious, would be compulsory if permitted at all. :
You'd think that homosexuality was contagious, would be compulsory if permitted at all. :
- Reaction score
- 1,724
- Points
- 1,140
agenteagle said:
The problem with that is that it can be applicable to everything. What if someone/some people aren't comfortable around females, black people or muslim?
I think the bottom line is that in a modern military, we should't care about what you are, but rather, we should concentrate on what you can do. I have no issue whatsoever serving with anyone, even though I sometimes do not agree with what they do outside work, as long as they are not given preferential (or the opposite) treatment. 1 standard for 1 job. IMO, this debate about gay people is almost the same debate they had 80 years ago when we allowed women to vote...
I agree with you 100% Supersonic Max.
And while I certainly don't propose that we tell them how to run their armed forces, it is unfortunate that something as silly as sexual orientation can still be a career killer.
Before anybody jumps on me for being "anti-American" and soforth - this same issue was experienced in regards to translators in Iraq. Qualified people were being dismissed from the military at a time when their skills were urgently needed and there was a shortage of qualified translators - simply because of their sexual orientation. Operational needs should be put ahead of something like someone's sexual preference.
While I don't argue with the notion that certain people could feel uncomfortable around people who are/gay lesbian, and that respect must be given to their policies - it still remains an unfortunate situation. After 18yrs of service and plenty of experience and decorations - it is unfortunate that he is being dismissed from a job that he loves simply due to his sexual orientation. As he stated, his retirement plans are up in the air now too since he isn't going to meet the 20yr mark....that just doesn't seem like the proper way to say "thankyou" to someone who has dedicated his life to service.
**No cheap shots/anti-Americanism intended.**
And while I certainly don't propose that we tell them how to run their armed forces, it is unfortunate that something as silly as sexual orientation can still be a career killer.
Before anybody jumps on me for being "anti-American" and soforth - this same issue was experienced in regards to translators in Iraq. Qualified people were being dismissed from the military at a time when their skills were urgently needed and there was a shortage of qualified translators - simply because of their sexual orientation. Operational needs should be put ahead of something like someone's sexual preference.
While I don't argue with the notion that certain people could feel uncomfortable around people who are/gay lesbian, and that respect must be given to their policies - it still remains an unfortunate situation. After 18yrs of service and plenty of experience and decorations - it is unfortunate that he is being dismissed from a job that he loves simply due to his sexual orientation. As he stated, his retirement plans are up in the air now too since he isn't going to meet the 20yr mark....that just doesn't seem like the proper way to say "thankyou" to someone who has dedicated his life to service.
**No cheap shots/anti-Americanism intended.**
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
We are very fortunate to be serving in a military that is so forward thinking. We openly allow members of the LGBT community to serve, we have women in combat roles and even women serving on subs.
The American military may have more people, bigger toys and more money, but they are nowhere near as advanced as we are when it comes to these issues. Until such time as women are openly allowed to serve in combat roles, trained at par with men in these roles and deployed as such, one cannot expect the U.S. military to openly allow homosexuals to serve. It is not a dig on that military, but they must be allowed to evolve on their own time.
All we can do is be there to guide them as a good friend and neighbour should when they decide to make these advancements.
The American military may have more people, bigger toys and more money, but they are nowhere near as advanced as we are when it comes to these issues. Until such time as women are openly allowed to serve in combat roles, trained at par with men in these roles and deployed as such, one cannot expect the U.S. military to openly allow homosexuals to serve. It is not a dig on that military, but they must be allowed to evolve on their own time.
All we can do is be there to guide them as a good friend and neighbour should when they decide to make these advancements.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
If you apply for a job and the employer specifies they will only hire non-smokers then you know that going in. The days of the draft are long gone. You enlist in the US military you know the rules. Violate the rules on day 1 or day 7000 you know the possible penalty. Until the policy/law is changed then thats the way it is. If you are gay and you cant follow the rules then dont enlist until the policy is changed. I have known several officers who probably were gay but they abided by the policy. It didnt seem to inhibit their careers at all at least one ended his career as a Major General. In the real world you have to deal with the way things are and not as you want them to be. Perception though is a two edged sword. To you the US military is not as evolved as your own. To us your policy might be viewed as the byproduct of a pc society.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
T6, just so you know - to us Canuks, PC = "President's Choice" (ironic that isn't it??) ...
A no name product line available at local supermarkets; they've now also branched out into banking.
http://www.presidentschoice.ca/FoodAndRecipes/HealthyLiving/HealthyEatingMadeSimple/ToolsAndLinks.aspx
8)
A no name product line available at local supermarkets; they've now also branched out into banking.
http://www.presidentschoice.ca/FoodAndRecipes/HealthyLiving/HealthyEatingMadeSimple/ToolsAndLinks.aspx
8)
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
T6, agree with you. How many threads have we had on this site about various CF policies that we didn't agree with only to say that it's policy and must be followed until it changes? Too many to count.
Just for curiosity's sake, if the policy is "Don't ask, don't tell," if someone were to "ask" would they be charged? Not trying to poke the hornet's nest. I really am just curious.
Just for curiosity's sake, if the policy is "Don't ask, don't tell," if someone were to "ask" would they be charged? Not trying to poke the hornet's nest. I really am just curious.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
They are not us, and we are not them.
We can have our own 'personal' opinions on what we think may be right or wrong. However, that's all it is, a personal opinion. Open to interpretation and bias, with no one being able to state categorically and without argument who is right or wrong. If either is.
It is not our place to judge, guide, rebuke or chastise.
Until we become some sort of collective North American Defence Force, and personally involved, with a single CoC, uniform and TO&E, how they conduct business is none of our's.
We can have our own 'personal' opinions on what we think may be right or wrong. However, that's all it is, a personal opinion. Open to interpretation and bias, with no one being able to state categorically and without argument who is right or wrong. If either is.
It is not our place to judge, guide, rebuke or chastise.
Until we become some sort of collective North American Defence Force, and personally involved, with a single CoC, uniform and TO&E, how they conduct business is none of our's.
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
recceguy said:
I cannot disagree with you more on this. It is wrong to discriminate against a class of citizens on the basis of an inherent trait. Full stop. You cannot, and will not, convince me otherwise. You are right, that yes, it is my personal opinion, and you cannot convince me that it is not my place, as a citizen living in a free country, to voice my opinion when I encounter injustice.
When other countries do things, we are well within our rights to judge those actions, offer guidance, and if need be, rebuke or chastise them. If enough of us decide to start speaking up, the Canadian government might even decide to start offering guidance, and or chastisement. If this happens in enough countries, it might even actually convince the government in question to effect change.
While I am not about to start saying so in my official capacity as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, mainly because I do not have the power to set departmental policy in this manner, I am sure as heck doing to do so as a human being with a moral compass guided by something other than bigotry and revulsion.
But it is precisely because it is a personal, and moral opinion, that is IS our place to judge, guide, rebuke, and chastise.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
As I said, your beliefs are based strictly on your opinion and bias and what you percieve is right. That doesn't make it so.
You are free to offer all the opinions you want, but nobody is obliged to bend to your will if they think you wrong, by their own beliefs.
No one is omnipotetent and has all the right answers, including you. Until someone of that capacity comes along to say so, people are free to think what they want, and act within the confines of the laws of the collective they wish to align with.
You cannot discrimate partially. If you do, in any sense, you are a bigot and nullify any status of superiority you may seek to establish for yourself.
Everyone has a choice.
You are free to offer all the opinions you want, but nobody is obliged to bend to your will if they think you wrong, by their own beliefs.
No one is omnipotetent and has all the right answers, including you. Until someone of that capacity comes along to say so, people are free to think what they want, and act within the confines of the laws of the collective they wish to align with.
You cannot discrimate partially. If you do, in any sense, you are a bigot and nullify any status of superiority you may seek to establish for yourself.
Everyone has a choice.
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
2 Cdo said:
I would like to make it clear(er?) that I was in no way suggesting that service members should violate policies that they disagree with. What I was saying was that I feel that I do, and that others should, have a moral imperative to be vocal about policies that they feel are repugnant. As we live in Canada, vice North Korea, I don't feel this is a problem, provided, as I stated, that you are not doing so in the course of your duties. The particular line in recceguy's post that I had a problem with was:
Speaking out against injustice, no matter where it occurs, or who perpetrates it, is, in my humble opinion, everyone's "place". And I realize that people may disagree with what constitutes an injustice.
But if someone has a problem with some policy, be it Don't Ask Don't Tell, the CF Drug Policy, or Apartheid, they have every right to express their opinion on said policy. Being a member of the CF doesn't make them any less a citizen of Canada. They have a duty to follow a policy (that applies to them), not agree with it.
- Reaction score
- 1,724
- Points
- 1,140
2 Cdo:
The difference is that our drug policy is clear cut. You cannot take drugs. Period. The problem I have for the most part is the fact that someone can be gay in their military, but cannot openly say it.
The no drug use policy isn't a "don't ask, don't tell policy"...
The difference is that our drug policy is clear cut. You cannot take drugs. Period. The problem I have for the most part is the fact that someone can be gay in their military, but cannot openly say it.
The no drug use policy isn't a "don't ask, don't tell policy"...
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
PMedMoe said:
And as long as the collective seeking to change the perceived injustice (genocide, terrorism, etc) is the larger (world opinion) then it can be argued that they are right, at least in principle. However, when the collective is in a minority, while perhaps morally right, at least in their own opinion, it does not give them the authority to impose their will on the larger, if the larger does not want it. Especially if the smaller is from outside that larger demographic.
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
recceguy said:
In general, who said anything about imposition? The only imposition involved in this approach would be if those of us speaking up manage to convince those with the power to change the policy in question, and they decide to impose the change. There is a difference between letter writing and activism and holding a gun to someone's head.
Specifically related to the topic at hand, well, you're not going to convince me to stop speaking out against discrimination merely because the majority doing the discrimination want to continue the discrimination, no matter what their excuse. I will reiterate my point. Wrong is wrong, and I will speak out against it, even if doing so is unpopular. If I were to stay silent merely because my speaking up would be unpopular would be cowardice on my part.
And to invoke Godwin's Law, an illuminating quote that I think touches upon the issue at hand:
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
I wondered how long it was going to take before someone tried to play their trump card and drag that out.
So ends reasoned discussion.
Toodles.
So ends reasoned discussion.
Toodles.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
gcclarke said:
So? Would you have applied that same philosophy towards defending the Rights of the Nazis? I don't think so. Therefore you don't believe what you just printed. Or am I wrong in my assumption?
Seems to me that the rest of the World was rather "discrimatory", to say the least, towards the National Socialist Party.
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
George Wallace said:
Well, I think it's safe to say that the policies that I, and most others would be against would be their blatantly discriminatory policies, and not everyone else's reaction to them invading other countries.
However, it does raise an interesting question. Would WWII have started even if Germany hadn't invaded any countries? If the only thing that they did was kick off the holocaust against their own citizens, would the rest of the world have fired the first shot?
Based upon our reactions since... honestly, I'd have to say probably not.
Similar threads
