SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.
Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.
In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.
Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.
Source: Fox News
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:16PM
> The military IS NOT the place to play experimental social games.
You may not think so, but there is a good long history of exactly this. An older friend (gone now) commanded a tank company in the Korean War, early 1950s. One of his treasured stories was of Pres. Harry Truman who integrated the US Armed Forces -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 [wikipedia.org] He told stories about all the excuses from the "old Army" and many others, and condemned them as so much crap. Yes he was white, but his position was constant--if someone qualifies for the job they should be allowed to do it.
His tankers were mixed and he never had any racial problems with his team. He was very proud to have headed his unit and, in some respects, to have been out in front of the civil rights movement that started later in the 50s and 60s.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @10:29PM
Uh-huh. First, I recommend the CNN article, "Gay is not the new Black", written by a gay black man who should know what he is talking about.
Then, I've already recommended Rudyard Kipling. Try Fuzzy Wuzzy. Military men have always respected people who have proven themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:44PM
> "Gay is not the new Black", written by a gay black man who should know what he is talking about.
I'll see your token black man and raise you the entire country of South Africa that, after freeing itself from apartheid which had made miscegenation illegal, recognized that bigotry against minorities in all forms is unacceptable and so gave full marriage rights to gay people in 2006.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:17PM
"token black"
LOL, I'm not one of those who try to keep blacks on the plantation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:20PM
Nope you just want to use them as pawns for hating on gay people.
Good deflection though, unable to argue with an entire country, a country that openly accepted gays in their military in 1996, you try to make it all about you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:43PM
Hating on gay people - - - - -
Please find the hate, and quote it back to me. Please find where I've stated that all gays are going to hell, because God didn't make them that way. Go ahead, find all the hate.
Sorry, poor deluded fool, this entire discussion seems to have "whooshed" over your head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:54PM
Yet again its all about you isn't it.
But now you are claiming to support gay marriage.
That's new.
Did you finally come out of the closet?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:13AM
YOU made it about me with your personal attack.
No, idiot, I don't support gay marriage. I might have supported civil unions, but never marriage.
It isn't hate to recognize that marriage is about children. Homosexuality is not about children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:23AM
No. You made it about you when you went off about you not wanting to keep black people on the plantation.
Oh, excuse me, "blacks" not black people.
As for your hostility to gay marriage, every hater ever has some rationalization that their hate is actually totally reasonable.
That doesn't make them any less of a hater.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:26AM
"every hater ever has some rationalization"
Alright, you have your opening. Start rationalizing your own hatred.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:30AM
Awww, are your feelings hurt?
How terrible for you that you be judged for your own words.
Its not fair!
Does your narcissism know no bounds?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:38AM
Feelings hurt? Please - you over estimate your importance and influence. I simply don't give two shits what you think of me. I heard you crying for an opportunity to rationalize your own hatred. It seems that you're going to waste the opportunity. Speak now or forever suffer in silence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:51AM
> I simply don't give two shits what you think of me.
And yet you made this thread all about you first chance you got and then you did nothing but respond to the parts where I fucked with you for like 6 posts now.
You are easily the most insecure person on this site.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @02:28AM
"where I fucked with you for like 6 posts now"
And, there you have it folks - AC admits to being a troll. Except, AC actually has an identity, but we're not supposed to know that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:30AM
Indeed. Once you made that plantation crack and revealed yourself as having no interest in honest debate you invited trolling.
Don't like it? Don't start it.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday January 14 2017, @02:48AM
Heterosexuality isn't about children, either. Pretty much everybody I see on a daily basis has been divorced 2 or 3 times and has children from each relationship. The other thing is marriages that don't even intend to produce a child.
What I am hopeful of is that homosexual couples are as capable of raising a child as heterosexual couples. It would need to be proven out in the data. I admit I'm biased because in deep infiltration mode I'm basically a heterosexual woman.
Should marriage be held to a higher standard? Perhaps. I've been thinking that perhaps if marriage has any legal recognition at all, it has to be something that's much less flimsy than even pre-gay-marriage marriage. People shouldn't be able to just divorce at the drop of a hat. (I believe the Bible gives precedence for divorce in cases of domestic violence for example, so I'm not saying it needs to be final-final.)
I guess the problem then is what we do with all those heterosexuals who keep making babies outside of wedlock where baby has 3 dads because that's how many men mommie's made babies with.
Does my chain of thought make any sense here?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:09AM
"all those heterosexuals who keep making babies outside of wedlock"
Stop paying those women for having babies. If the parents can't support their babies, then take the babies, and feed them, clothe them, shelter them - and let the mother sleep on the streets. Our welfare system has come to be designed to encourage the kind of crap you describe. Each of those baby's daddies should be supporting the child, instead of hanging out with their fellow gang members.
A lot of different things have gone to undermine the institution of marriage, and the welfare scheme is just one of them.
But, marriage was and is all about children. It's not about the couple. No society has really stood to benefit from couples having sex and sharing a home - there was never a need to recognize or reward a married couple if you take children out of the equation. Society invented marriage because of the children. We need to get back to the basics - if you don't intend to commit to supporting children, then don't get married, don't have sex, don't pretend to be married - just don't. If marriage is little more than a piece of ass and a tax break, then you're not nearly ready to be married.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:34AM
Ah, I see where you're coming from, and I think we might have a lot of points of agreement. Some people who find they can't have kids for whatever reason adopt, and there's going to be a lot of kids to adopt. I'm assuming the case of an infertile heterosexual couple adopting isn't in question here, since that would seem to qualify as marriage, right?
Could two people of the same gender, by way of being infertile, also adopt and marry? That's what I'm wondering about. I think two parents is non-negotiable. Sounds like both of us believe that owning a uterus does not necessarily qualify one to rise children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:55AM
> Stop paying those women for having babies.
You are delusional.
Half the people on welfare are the working poor.
In even the most expensive areas welfare maxes out at $600/month no matter how many children you've got.
The reason mothers are having kids out of wedlock is not about the financial incentives to have children, its about the costs of getting married. People can't afford shotgun weddings anymore.
If you want people to stop having kids out of wedlock, then support planned parenthood. Their contraceptive programs prevent half a million unplanned pregnancies a year. No other group is anywhere near as effective. And do not give me any of your hypocritical god shit. Your church supported full abortion rights until at least 1976.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:50PM
Following that logic, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. Perhaps society could start with an age limit: no women over the age of 60 may marry? Should the couple be required to provide a certificate attesting to their fertility?
Next, we should require couples to provide evidence that that they don't have serious genetic defects before being allowed to marry. Perhaps you can see where this is going? Or do I need to spell it out for you?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday January 13 2017, @11:43PM
I recommend the CNN article, "Gay is not the new Black", written by a gay black man who should know what he is talking about.
I'll admit I didn't do a thorough search. Was it this piece [cnn.com] you had in mind?
No point I'm after here, just curious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:57PM
Yeah, that's the one.
And, as usual, derpaway has only read the headline and the intro paragraph.
Because it pretty much says the opposite of what he wants it to say.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:23AM
Right author, wrong article - I wasn't aware that there was another article incorporating that old title. The original article is dated 8 June 2012.
Errr - wait a second. I'm not certain that IS the "original". As I recall, the original was longer than that.
I don't guess it matters a whole lot. The message is, if you're gay and black, that doesn't necessarily make you part of the greater gay movement. White gays aren't all that accepting of black gays. And, at the end of the day, race counts for more than sexuality.
That much is preserved in your find, as well as this link. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/22/opinion/granderson-black-and-gay/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday January 14 2017, @01:40AM
Thanks! That was a good read.