End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Where I come from, you give respect to get respect.[/quote]

Agreed.

As I’ve said, if someone acts inappropriately, they should be punished according to strict sexual harrassment standards.

But if that doesn’t happen, soldiers should respect one another and focus on getting their job done, regardless of their orientation.
[/quote]

Nice dodge.

This has nothing to do with acting appropriately or even respect, this has to do with you telling people to “grow up.” You are in no position to tell anyone to grow up, simply because they disagree with you. They don’t have to agree with you. Mind your own business, not everyone cares about a kumbaya moment. Try it again, you will be called out again, every time.

242

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Where I come from, you give respect to get respect.[/quote]

Agreed.

As I’ve said, if someone acts inappropriately, they should be punished according to strict sexual harrassment standards.

But if that doesn’t happen, soldiers should respect one another and focus on getting their job done, regardless of their orientation.
[/quote]

Nice dodge.

This has nothing to do with acting appropriately or even respect, this has to do with you telling people to “grow up.” You are in no position to tell anyone to grow up, simply because they disagree with you. They don’t have to agree with you. Mind your own business, not everyone cares about a kumbaya moment. Try it again, you will be called out again, every time. [/quote]

He lives in la la land. If you don’t see things his way you’re a homophobe and need to be silenced.

243

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Where I come from, you give respect to get respect.[/quote]

Agreed.

As I’ve said, if someone acts inappropriately, they should be punished according to strict sexual harrassment standards.

But if that doesn’t happen, soldiers should respect one another and focus on getting their job done, regardless of their orientation.
[/quote]

I agree with your general sentiment, as I’m sure you understand by now. What’s most important is doing whatever it takes to get the job down in the most efficient manner possible. After all, this is our country’s military we’re talking about, a pretty important organization, yknow?

Are you saying there’s a lot of other counties that have men and women living in the same barracks? You have to remember, America is a VERY lawsuit oriented country. The potential for countless sexual harassment lawsuits (on both ends) is unacceptably high imho.

For one thing, in our military, you can get charged with sexually harassing a woman if you stare at her for too long/in a way that makes her uncomfortable. Whether you agree or disagree with that rule, that’s how it is. Now apply that same standard to gay/straight guy/gals…let that sink in. The grey areas are simply too vast, and that situation is just begging for unfair judgments. This isn’t all about ideals, we don’t live in an ideal world or country. It’s about making the best of the situation we currently have, and over time, trying to improve that situation, making it closer to ideal. [/quote]

I know you do, and again I can see where you’re coming from.

My point is that other countries don’t care about the sexual orientation of their soldiers. Gay soldiers share barracks with straight soldiers, and all these doomsday scenarios about gays sexually assaulting their fellow soldiers don’t pan out. If that were to happen, the soldier would be booted from the military with a dishonorable discharge. Their militaries are strong, and ours will be as well.

244

Any gay man who joins the military and is openly gay will get killed. That’s something the Left/Gay communities don’t understand – for decades, people who genuinely hate homosexuals joined the military so that they could avoid interacting with gays. If someone in the service was discovered to be gay, that person was actually kicked out to PROTECT them from being killed.

Given that most military guys despise gays, the laws protecting gays, like DADT are now gone. There will now be lots of ‘accidents’.

245

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Any gay man who joins the military and is openly gay will get killed. That’s something the Left/Gay communities don’t understand – for decades, people who genuinely hate homosexuals joined the military so that they could avoid interacting with gays. If someone in the service was discovered to be gay, that person was actually kicked out to PROTECT them from being killed.

Given that most military guys despise gays, the laws protecting gays, like DADT are now gone. There will now be lots of ‘accidents’.[/quote]

I think 2nd Lieutenants hold the record in the US army and for very good reasons.

246

Actually, according to the DADT results, the majority of soldiers in every branch of the military said that serving with a gay soldier had little to no effect on combat performance. Only a minority in each branch believed that repealing DADT would have a negative or very negative effect on the unit working together to get the job done, on pulling together as a team, on trusting each other, on caring about each other, or on unit effectiveness for completing the mission.

The report studied other countries that implemented a similar policy, and concluded that it was a “non-issue”.

247

[quote]forlife wrote:
Actually, according to the DADT results, the majority of soldiers in every branch of the military said that serving with a gay soldier had little to no effect on combat performance. Only a minority in each branch believed that repealing DADT would have a negative or very negative effect on the unit working together to get the job done, on pulling together as a team, on trusting each other, on caring about each other, or on unit effectiveness for completing the mission.

The report studied other countries that implemented a similar policy, and concluded that it was a “non-issue”. [/quote]

The rate of people who disagreed with repealing DADT was MUCH higher among combat MOS’s, around 70% if I recall correctly.

248
  • “The Pentagon’s report found that service members repeatedly said that allowing gays to serve openly would lead to widespread overt displays of effeminacy as well as harassment and unwelcome advances.”
249

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Actually, according to the DADT results, the majority of soldiers in every branch of the military said that serving with a gay soldier had little to no effect on combat performance. Only a minority in each branch believed that repealing DADT would have a negative or very negative effect on the unit working together to get the job done, on pulling together as a team, on trusting each other, on caring about each other, or on unit effectiveness for completing the mission.

The report studied other countries that implemented a similar policy, and concluded that it was a “non-issue”. [/quote]

The rate of people who disagreed with repealing DADT was MUCH higher among combat MOS’s, around 70% if I recall correctly. [/quote]

The highest opposition was in military combat troops, particularly Marines, but even there it was 40%-60% opposed. Overall, 70% of military personnel thought it would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence.

I was pleasantly surprised at the general acceptance, but most importantly I’m glad to see the policy itself going away.

I have a feeling gay marriage/civil unions will follow a similar path.

250

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I never had a problem with homosexuals serving in the military. They should have the same opportunity as anyone else to fight and die for their country. But, they should absolutely NOT share the same barracks with other normal men. Can you imagine if a heterosexual man could share the female quarters? Pretty similar except that the average homosexual man has sex with both men and women. A fact that not many gay men like to talk about. Anyway under the right conditions I see no problem with it.

(Yes I said “normal” isn’t that something?)[/quote]

Pretty much what I’ve been saying, but nobody has an answer for it. And that’s my biggest problem, living quarters. Once that issue is solved, I won’t really have further issues with the repeal of DADT. Frustratingly, I have yet to hear a SINGLE good answer to that problem. But no no, apparently I MUST be a homophobe…gets infuriating. [/quote]

So what if they could make straight men bunk with straight men (no presumed attraction there; not possible for anything to happen)…gay men with gay women (no presumed attraction)…straight women with straight women (again, no presumed attraction)? I guess that would require for all gays to come forward first.

I mean, let’s assume it’s even possible, so nevermind them “likely imperfect ratio of each category.”

Would you be ok with this? Your issue sounds like:

  1. You don’t want to bunk with someone who might be attracted to you because you’re not allowed to bunk with a female (because you presumedly could be atrracted to her or vice versa).

Right? If we used the above sleeping arrangements, would you be ok?

251

I thought people might find this interesting, from the DADT study:

[quote]“In the course of our review we heard from a very large number of Service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian,” said the report. “Some went so far to suggest that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’ Tell may even require separate bathroom and shower facilities for gay men and lesbians. We disagree, and recommend against separate facilities. Though many regard the very discussion of this topic as offensive, given the number of Service members who raised it, we are obliged to address it.”

The working group said that having homosexuals use different bathrooms and living facilities from heterosexuals would not only create a “logistical nightmare” but would be discriminatory.

“The creation of a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities and living quarters, whether at bases or forward deployed areas, would be a logistical nightmare, expensive, and impossible to administer,” said the report.

“And, even if it could be achieved and administered, separate facilities would, in our view, stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of ‘separate but equal’ facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s,” said the report.

“Accordingly,” the report concluded, “we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments or the designation of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation. At the same time, commanders would retain the authority they currently have to alter berthing or billeting assignments or accommodate privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interests of morale, good order and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools, from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecution, to deal with misbehavior in either living quarters or showers, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight.”[/quote]

252

This is the military of the 21st century…led by women and homosexuals. The military is a mans job…yes I said it, a mans job…it’s not for women and fairies. Never has, never will be. I wonder how many homos and women were in Napoleons army? Or how would WWII have turned out with a bunch of females and homosexuals fighting the japanese and germans??? This is insane!

253

]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]

Why should woman and gays be disallowed from the serving? That’s just ridiculous.[/quote]

What military EVER IN THE HISTORY OF PLANET EARTH has had a successful military with queens and women serving in it??? This is the beginning of the end for the US military. No wonder China will be the next world power, I wonder how many gay and female soldiers they have/

254

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I don’t care if my mechanic is gay. It doesn’t bother me if my dentist is a homo. I’m not phased if my mailman takes it in the stern, so why should I be concerned if a soldier posted to defend me and my country is gay?
If you’re doing your job, who gives a shit if you dig dudes?

A member of the Special Forces told Pentagon officials that he’s been on duty with a gay soldier. “He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys. … No one cares that he’s gay.” [/quote]

Im sick of all this propoganda trying to paint gay men as the pinaccle of manliness. Yeah not every gay man is a swishy queen, but lots of them are. Stereotypes are based in truth and don’t come out of thin air.

255

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Nah, we wouldn’t lose 'em all. I recommend that they still be allowed to do support type jobs, ie nurse or admin roles. Just as long as they’re not involved in anything physical or in a war zone. [/quote]

Quoted for teh lulz.

You have disqualified yourself from making any legit argument.

You FAIL.
[/quote]

YOU fail, for not offering a valid reason as to why I fail. What I said may be a little out there but I’ve yet to see a valid counter argument. Just hearin a lot of “oh no no you’re crazy man” but no ones really addressing the points I made.[/quote]

I quoted your ignorant statement about woman in the military. There is no need to counter argue your verbal poop. And what you have been saying is more than just, “a little out there”.

It’s clear you are a little man with major issues. Luckily, you aren’t in the military anymore.[/quote]

Read it^. Then read it again. Then maybe once more for good measure. Lol @ litle man with issues, internet doctor. If you can’t come up with a decent response just say that, don’t pretend you don’t want to. [/quote]

What is there to respond to? You’re a bigot towards gay men and apparently think women are “weak” and can’t do their job in the military. Why should I spend a second trying to refute ignorance?[/quote]

Why is it when one says something true, but politically incorrect, its always “ignorance”?

256

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
…
Obviously, you have nothing to worry about. If a gay soldier makes inappropriate advances on a fellow soldier, he will lose rank, salary, and potentially be discharged. The sexual harassment policy applies, regardless of the person’s sexual orientation.
… [/quote]

We shall see if this is true or if it will be covered up in these politically correct times.[/quote]

We both know it will be covered up.

257

[quote]forlife wrote:
In other words, you don’t mind the government “imposing its values on the citizenry” as long as they are YOUR values. Fortunately, the majority of people share the values of the government, and support the right of gays to protect their country like anyone else.[/quote]

If gays want to get married, let them, but if I own ahouse and don’t wish to rent to a gay couple, shouldn’t that be my right? It is my house? The gay couple has the right to pay someone to build them a home, or secure land and build their own home? You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

258

Clip, gays have served in every major war. Not openly, but they have given their lives in defense of their country and principles, just like heterosexuals have done. The difference now is that they can be honest about who they are.

On renting to a gay couple, you should be free to do whatever you want, as long as you’re not being subsidized by the government.

259

[quote]forlife wrote:
Clip, gays have served in every major war. Not openly, but they have given their lives in defense of their country and principles, just like heterosexuals have done. The difference now is that they can be honest about who they are.

On renting to a gay couple, you should be free to do whatever you want, as long as you’re not being subsidized by the government.[/quote]

Well lets see how long the U S remains a world class military.