Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[pegwinn]

Yeah yeah yeah. So what? I don’t care if one of the soldiers was also the president of the USA or the muscle bound governor of California. In my book, there is still something to be said for class and character. Groping and harassment should not be tolerated from gays or straights – particularly in the military.

That old cliché “boys will be boys” or “let them let of stream” is simply an unacceptable cop-out.

I'm going to attempt to remain civil in the face of your patrician dismissal. The effort is going to cost me. I might need therapy.

Did you actually read the response I typed out? If not please read it, out loud if you have to.

Where did I excuse the offensive behavior? I believe I addressed it up front by alluding to the process. You have two points of view you are putting out. First was the "they shouldn't be allowed in the military" which was answered. Now it is "should not be tolerated" which was addressed as well. Are you running out of arguments or are you confused. Take your time, I will wait.

 

[Gunny]

First air support mission?!? Tell it to George Bush.

If I need air support I wouldn’t care if came form a heterosexual person or from a homosexual person.

Telling response. In other words, get off your f-ing PC soapbox when you have little clue as to what the Hell you're talking about.

And nobody has said a thing about fags but YOU ... YOU keep trying to interject your stupid opinion on homosexuals into an argument you ALREADY derailed to a separate topic.

Just for your edification, calling in a close air support mission does not include a question concerning the pilot's sexual orientation. Completely separate subject handled in a completely separate forum within the military.

 

[Gunny]

I'm going to attempt to remain civil in the face of your patrician dismissal. The effort is going to cost me. I might need therapy.

Did you actually read the response I typed out? If not please read it, out loud if you have to.

Where did I excuse the offensive behavior? I believe I addressed it up front by alluding to the process. You have two points of view you are putting out. First was the "they shouldn't be allowed in the military" which was answered. Now it is "should not be tolerated" which was addressed as well. Are you running out of arguments or are you confused. Take your time, I will wait.

Of course he didn't read it. He's too busy trying to push fags any-and-everywhere he can. Anything you have to say is irrelevant as it does not mirror his fag-loving, military-ignorant POV.

 

[pegwinn]

Of course he didn't read it. He's too busy trying to push fags any-and-everywhere he can. Anything you have to say is irrelevant as it does not mirror his fag-loving, military-ignorant POV.

Yeah but it's fun to draw em in. I am not allowed to demonstrate L-Shaped ambushes anymore. So I gotta take what I can get.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah but it's fun to draw em in. I am not allowed to demonstrate L-Shaped ambushes anymore. So I gotta take what I can get.

Ambushing him has become rather monotonous and way too easy to me. He leaves his flanks open the second he starts running his jib.

 

[GotZoom]

Ambushing him has become rather monotonous and way too easy to me. He leaves his flanks open the second he starts running his jib.

Careful Gunny...you might excite him.

 

[Gunny]

Careful Gunny...you might excite him.

 

[Gurutoo]

Those men who you think shouldn't be allowed to remain in the military are the best damned fighter pilots in the World, and I'd rather have them a phone call away than some fairy who'd like as not fly in on his own wings.

 

[liberalogic]

Of course he didn't read it. He's too busy trying to push fags any-and-everywhere he can. Anything you have to say is irrelevant as it does not mirror his fag-loving, military-ignorant POV.

I actually agree with you to some extent over your anger towards political correctness in this situation. I fully support the gay people, but I don't think that the military needs to be immersed in activism. It diverts attention from their main goal: to protect and defend their country. The military is not a place to promote your sexual orientation. What do they get out of declaring their homosexuality in the military? Marriage (and the benefits that come along with it) is a different issue, but sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their job to defend our nation.

Is sex prohibited in the military? I'm just curious because it should be. That forces soldiers to channel that energy into combat.

 

[Gunny]

I actually agree with you to some extent over your anger towards political correctness in this situation. I fully support the gay people, but I don't think that the military needs to be immersed in activism. It diverts attention from their main goal: to protect and defend their country. The military is not a place to promote your sexual orientation. What do they get out of declaring their homosexuality in the military? Marriage (and the benefits that come along with it) is a different issue, but sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their job to defend our nation.

Is sex prohibited in the military? I'm just curious because it should be. That forces soldiers to channel that energy into combat.

The act of sex has nothing to do with it and you know it. You're just trying to play semantics.

The activist homosexuals who want to be allowed to openly be members of the military only want to flaunt their aberrant sexual behavior in the faces of others.

If I walk into work and give a graphic accounting of the goings on in my bedroom, it not only is personally disrespecting my wife, but unprofessional behavior on my part and I would expect to be reprimanded for it.

If I was to say the same about a homosexual flaunting his behavior he'd counter by squealing discrimination.

Of course, to you libs, this is absolutely fair.

Homosexal have been and are still in the military. As long as they keep their personal business their personal business, then there is no problem, is there?

 

[nt250]

The act of sex has nothing to do with it and you know it. You're just trying to play semantics.

The activist homosexuals who want to be allowed to openly be members of the military only want to flaunt their aberrant sexual behavior in the faces of others.

If I walk into work and give a graphic accounting of the goings on in my bedroom, it not only is personally disrespecting my wife, but unprofessional behavior on my part and I would expect to be reprimanded for it.

If I was to say the same about a homosexual flaunting his behavior he'd counter by squealing discrimination.

Of course, to you libs, this is absolutely fair.

Homosexal have been and are still in the military. As long as they keep their personal business their personal business, then there is no problem, is there?

I'm surprised this thread has gone on so long without a single liberal using the old "you flaunt your sexuality everyday by wearing a wedding ring". Having pictures of your wife, husband, children, on your desk. You are throwing your hetrosexuality in everybodies face by doing that.

Oh, they do that. I, too, don't happen to give a rats ass what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, or behind the rest area on 495, I just don't want to hear about.

If you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I simply find it a disgusting personal habit and I won't look at you the same way again once I know you do such disgusting things.

Oh, that's when they come back with "but being gay has nothing to do with sex". Oh, yes, they do THAT too. See, I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. But I have a real problem with the double standard that gays seem to want to inflict on the rest of the world. And I had no problem at all until they started in on schools. Once they did that? Lost me forever.

But they have no comeback for someone like me. I'm not religious. They can't accuse me of being a close minded Christian. So once they know that, that's when they pull out their other arguments about straight people "flaunting" their sexuality by having pictures on their desks. My comeback to that? "But that's normal".

They REALLY hate that, and that's when they claim being gay has nothing to do with sex.

It's really very funny. Well it would be if they stayed out of the fucking schools. And, I guess, the military.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt, there are three classes of requirements.

Need to Have: Those skills, materials, and abilities absolutely required to accomplish the mission. Without them, it is impossible.

Good to Have: Those skills, abilities, and material that enhance mission accomplishment. You can get it done, but the good to have stuff sure helps.

Nice to Have: Stuff that has no bearing on whether you can or cannot accomplish the mission. It may give you a warm fuzzy, but you can definitely do without it. Manners, and the knowledge of which fork to poke at the salad with, fall into the nice to have category.

With all due respect, I read your requirement. You still forgot to include a disclaimer about those being discovered as homosexuals. Suppose that someone has the things that are needed and even has the things that are good to have, and even has the things that are nice to have – yet the only “negative” thing about him is that he is homosexual?

Also, gays don’t go into the military to promote their homosexuality any more than do straight people go into the military to promote their heterosexuality.

Finally, it was a lame cop-out for you to excuse bad behavior on testosterone. Hey, ladies. Go out with me but do so at your own risk. I might abuse you but, hey, it is just testosterone.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I was just curious as to how others feel on this policy. I was reading a newspaper article about a lesbian who served for 10 years (honorably) and was recently discharged after saying that she was gay. It also said that about 10,000 soliders have been discharged for this reason since the bill's conception.

Does this really make any sense? Especially considering that participation in the armed services has decreased. Don't we need all the help that we can get? Besides, I don't foresee many "girly" gay guys joining and most of the lesbians are probably manly anyway.

It's nonsense to discharge military personel on the basis of their sexual orientation. I served on board the U.S.S. Ranger for nearly three years...we all knew who was and wasn't gay...And it didn't make a damn bit of difference to me. They did their jobs the same as I did and were there doing their jobs when the shit hit the fan during general quarters...in engine room fires...or when a plane came in hot, gear up on the flight deck during night ops.

It just doesn't make a difference.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It's nonsense to discharge military personel on the basis of their sexual orientation. I served on board the U.S.S. Ranger for nearly three years...we all knew who was and wasn't gay...And it didn't make a damn bit of difference to me. They did their jobs the same as I did and were there doing their jobs when the shit hit the fan during general quarters...in engine room fires...or when a plane came in hot, gear up on the flight deck during night ops.

It just doesn't make a difference.

Yeah it does! The other soldiers might catch gayness from the queer troops. Or their souls might be damned by proxy.

 

[mattskramer]

Yeah it does! The other soldiers might catch gayness from the queer troops. Or their souls might be damned by proxy.

?!? Aren’t individuals ultimately responsible for their own decisions? How does one “catch gayness”? It is not like catching a cold. I remember when a guy asked me for sex. I declined. It did not turn me into a homosexual. I remember years ago when I was mildly curious and physically attracted to another guy. We never had sex. Anyway, many people understand the risks of having sexual relationships with coworkers.

And what is this stuff about souls being damned? First of all the issue of whether or not god and souls exist (and whether or not those that engage in homosexual behavior actually go to hell) is highly debatable. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is true. Again, isn’t it the individual’s choice to sin, refuse to accept salvation, and go to hell? Adults in general – and certainly soldiers in particular – don’t need babysitters to protect them from homosexuals. If some “dangerous” homo comes onto a soldier, a simple “No. I’m not interested. Leave me alone” would be sufficient -

Well – unless testosterone is involved and the recipient of the sexual advance is a woman.

 

[pegwinn]

With all due respect, I read your requirement. You still forgot to include a disclaimer about those being discovered as homosexuals. Suppose that someone has the things that are needed and even has the things that are good to have, and even has the things that are nice to have – yet the only “negative” thing about him is that he is homosexual?

Also, gays don’t go into the military to promote their homosexuality any more than do straight people go into the military to promote their heterosexuality.

Finally, it was a lame cop-out for you to excuse bad behavior on testosterone. Hey, ladies. Go out with me but do so at your own risk. I might abuse you but, hey, it is just testosterone.

Matt. Go back and re-read the previous two posts where you and I talked. Nowhere did I excuse over-the-line behavior. I explained it. .Mil types tend to be fairly plain spoken compared to the 100 lb heads that pontificate on the political. If you are gay when you join the service, you know all about the rules and the consequences. Believe it or not, it is just that simple.

 

[Gunny]

With all due respect, I read your requirement. You still forgot to include a disclaimer about those being discovered as homosexuals. Suppose that someone has the things that are needed and even has the things that are good to have, and even has the things that are nice to have – yet the only “negative” thing about him is that he is homosexual?

No discalimer required. It is not illegal to be homosexual and be in the military. It is illegal to live a homosexual lifestyle and commit homosexual acts while in the military.

Therefore, discovery doesn't necessarily lead to anything. That it does is an assumption on your part.

Also, gays don’t go into the military to promote their homosexuality any more than do straight people go into the military to promote their heterosexuality.

The gays that do not go into the military to promote their homosexuality already are, and always have been in the military. They keep their sexual behavior to themselves, as it should be.

So, yes, those gay activists DO want to go into the military for the sole purpose of forcing their aberrant sexual lifestyle on others. There can be no other LOGICAL reason to explain it.

Finally, it was a lame cop-out for you to excuse bad behavior on testosterone. Hey, ladies. Go out with me but do so at your own risk. I might abuse you but, hey, it is just testosterone.

It's a crying shame that morons like you have managed to make it politically incorrect for men to act like men. You may prefer your more lady-like behavior, but then, that just makes you a pussy.

When I go into combat, I want alpha-males who aren't afraid to be backing me up, not some PC dimwit sitting in the rear weighing the political consequences of his possible actions in providing close air support to some Marines or Soldiers that NEED it.

People like you are a perfect argument for natural selection because without the damned wolves to protect your sorry ass, you wouldn't be alive to disgrace the term "man" as you do throughout this board.

 

[Gunny]

Matt. Go back and re-read the previous two posts where you and I talked. Nowhere did I excuse over-the-line behavior. I explained it. .Mil types tend to be fairly plain spoken compared to the 100 lb heads that pontificate on the political. If you are gay when you join the service, you know all about the rules and the consequences. Believe it or not, it is just that simple.

NOTHING is EVER that simple with Matt around. It has to be twisted out of context and a bunch of unrealistic parameters introduced.

 

[pegwinn]

NOTHING is EVER that simple with Matt around. It has to be twisted out of context and a bunch of unrealistic parameters introduced.

If you thump long enough and hard enough even the most dedicated enemy will make friends, if only to make the beating stop.

 

[Gunny]

If you thump long enough and hard enough even the most dedicated enemy will make friends, if only to make the beating stop.

I liken him to the one untrainable Marine I had in 20 years .... he's not smart enough. Even if he tucks tail and runs, he'll be back in a few weeks or months making the exact same argument that gets shot down everytime he makes it. It's just a vicious cycle he lives.