Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Military Marriage and Parenthood

Military Marriage and Parenthood

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
sysadminannouncement
25 Posts 11 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T Tom Deketelaere

    dan neely wrote:

    being heavily abused

    How? Women getting pregnant on purpose and all the time?

    D Offline
    D Offline
    Dan Neely
    wrote on last edited by
    #16

    yeah. I assume it was getting pregnant before leaving.

    Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • O Oakman

      Richard A. Abbott wrote:

      You have no statutes or regulations that safeguards employment of reservists called up for duty?

      Yep and they worked fine to protect a reservist or guardsman serving his required six months of active duty when he first enlisted, or his 30 days of retraining every summer. But ask yourself what would happen to your job, if three times in the last seven years, you'd gone away for thirteen months. Your position technically might be held open for you, but would you have the promotions you would have gotten? Raises? Or even worse - suppose you were an independent consultant responsible for finding your clients and keeping up a relationship with them?

      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #17

      In UK This is applicable[^] but I understand your 2nd paragraph.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • realJSOPR realJSOP

        I'm not claiming anybody was wrong, I'm saying the rules have to change to disallow marriage *between two service members* (including reservists who can still be called up and Nation Guard).

        "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
        -----
        "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

        B Offline
        B Offline
        blackjack2150
        wrote on last edited by
        #18

        Such a measure should not be acceptable in a democratic society, no matter what consequences might be. After all, you're not divided in castes like India's people... BTW, is there any law in US that forbids marriages between 2 people that want to get married? (excepting under aged, same sex, relatives, etc)

        realJSOPR 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • realJSOPR realJSOP

          Yes, but they're limited to the 2-week annual reserves camp-out. The employer can't fire you for having to serve in the guard, but if you're called up from the reserves, or serve more than a two-week tour of duty in the Guard, the employer is not obligated to hold your job for you.

          "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
          -----
          "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

          D Offline
          D Offline
          Dan Neely
          wrote on last edited by
          #19

          That's not true for federal callups. State callups are subject to state law, but if Uncle Sugar wants you, your job's safe unless you've spent over 5 years deployed. http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/summer2002/summer20023.html[^]

          Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • realJSOPR realJSOP

            Back Story - There is a woman here in town who is in the Army Ready Reserves (she was regular Army and was discharged after honorable service), meaning she can be called up at any time for deployment. She was married to a guy that was recently killed in Afghanistan, and she has a young child (yes, a result of the marriage). The Army recently called her up for deployment, and she doesn't want to go because if she gets killed, her son will be made an orphan. My Views From this point forward, military personnel should be enjoined from marrying someone that is also in the military (that can in any way be recalled as a result of being either active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard). From this point forward, a married couple who are both in the military and have children cannot both be deployed to a combat area at the same time. This will radically lesson the chance of the child(ren) entering the foster care system. Primarily, I think that if someone joins the military, they should do so with the outlook that their duty comes first, and their love-life comes second, and they should not place themselves in a position that they would be reluctant to fulfill (or flat-out refuse to fulfill) the obligation that THEY signed up for. ---------- As I was typing this, the local news channel reported that the Army granted her request to not be deployed, and fully discharged her (she's no longer in the Reserves). In this case, I think the Army did the right thing, but the woman was wrong to marry another military member knowing that this could happen.

            "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
            -----
            "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

            C Offline
            C Offline
            Chris Austin
            wrote on last edited by
            #20

            What an incredibly bad situation she has placed herself in.

            John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

            Primarily, I think that if someone joins the military, they should do so with the outlook that their duty comes first, and their love-life comes second, and they should not place themselves in a position that they would be reluctant to fulfill (or flat-out refuse to fulfill) the obligation that THEY signed up for.

            I come from a point of view of really disliking the idea of telling people how they should live. But, in this case I can't help but agree with you. To be honest this seems like common sense to me. Then again ...

            Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B blackjack2150

              Such a measure should not be acceptable in a democratic society, no matter what consequences might be. After all, you're not divided in castes like India's people... BTW, is there any law in US that forbids marriages between 2 people that want to get married? (excepting under aged, same sex, relatives, etc)

              realJSOPR Offline
              realJSOPR Offline
              realJSOP
              wrote on last edited by
              #21

              The military isn't the public, and to maintain a usable fighting force, rules have to be made. If you join the military, you agree to abide by those rules.

              "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
              -----
              "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

              O 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • realJSOPR realJSOP

                Back Story - There is a woman here in town who is in the Army Ready Reserves (she was regular Army and was discharged after honorable service), meaning she can be called up at any time for deployment. She was married to a guy that was recently killed in Afghanistan, and she has a young child (yes, a result of the marriage). The Army recently called her up for deployment, and she doesn't want to go because if she gets killed, her son will be made an orphan. My Views From this point forward, military personnel should be enjoined from marrying someone that is also in the military (that can in any way be recalled as a result of being either active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard). From this point forward, a married couple who are both in the military and have children cannot both be deployed to a combat area at the same time. This will radically lesson the chance of the child(ren) entering the foster care system. Primarily, I think that if someone joins the military, they should do so with the outlook that their duty comes first, and their love-life comes second, and they should not place themselves in a position that they would be reluctant to fulfill (or flat-out refuse to fulfill) the obligation that THEY signed up for. ---------- As I was typing this, the local news channel reported that the Army granted her request to not be deployed, and fully discharged her (she's no longer in the Reserves). In this case, I think the Army did the right thing, but the woman was wrong to marry another military member knowing that this could happen.

                "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                -----
                "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                M Offline
                M Offline
                MrPlankton
                wrote on last edited by
                #22

                If she renamed her kid to Hitler the state would take care of the kid for free.

                MrPlankton

                Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.

                realJSOPR 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M MrPlankton

                  If she renamed her kid to Hitler the state would take care of the kid for free.

                  MrPlankton

                  Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.

                  realJSOPR Offline
                  realJSOPR Offline
                  realJSOP
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #23

                  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

                  "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                  -----
                  "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • realJSOPR realJSOP

                    The military isn't the public, and to maintain a usable fighting force, rules have to be made. If you join the military, you agree to abide by those rules.

                    "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                    -----
                    "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                    O Offline
                    O Offline
                    Oakman
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #24

                    John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                    The military isn't the public, and to maintain a usable fighting force, rules have to be made. If you join the military, you agree to abide by those rules.

                    Maybe that's why no-one has made a rule trying to regulate the right of experienced, trained, dedicated soldiers to marry each other or to even have children together. There's enough chickenshit in their lives already. And if no rule set down in concrete means occasionally some rear echelon MF has to figure out that it's better not to send a mother into combat just after the father has been KIA, is that really such a price to pay? Your original suggestion that she simply be assigned to stateside duty seemed to make a lot of sense. If there absolutely needs to be a rule, why can't that be it?

                    Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • O Oakman

                      John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                      The military isn't the public, and to maintain a usable fighting force, rules have to be made. If you join the military, you agree to abide by those rules.

                      Maybe that's why no-one has made a rule trying to regulate the right of experienced, trained, dedicated soldiers to marry each other or to even have children together. There's enough chickenshit in their lives already. And if no rule set down in concrete means occasionally some rear echelon MF has to figure out that it's better not to send a mother into combat just after the father has been KIA, is that really such a price to pay? Your original suggestion that she simply be assigned to stateside duty seemed to make a lot of sense. If there absolutely needs to be a rule, why can't that be it?

                      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                      J Offline
                      J Offline
                      JimmyRopes
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #25

                      There you go being rational again! :doh: As I remember it you were entitled to non combat duty if you were a "sole survivor" after the death of a sibling as a result of being KIA. I don't see why becoming a sole survivor of your family because a spouse has been killed as a result of being KIA would be any different?

                      Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
                      Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
                      I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes

                      • Login
                      • Don't have an account? Register
                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups