Will eliminating "don't ask-don't tell" improve the military?

[bodecea]

It's not a protected class and you know it. Straights don't have a ban on discussing their sex lives unlike gays. All lifting DADT will do is make it so gays get to play by the same rules.

Right there is a reason to keep DADT. Can you just imagine the gays bragging about their sexual exploits, disgusting. <gag> They call it sexual deviate behavior for a reason.

How can you say its not a protected class? The "special few" are already taking up more time and energy than they are worth. There is nothing wrong with DADT. It is currently not about sexuality, the dems are trying to make a special protected class, like they always do. It will probably involve quotas for promotions etc.

The military polls say that about 10% will leave if DADT ends. I'd say that is a reasonable fact. What would be gained by ending it, nothing but political correctness. There is no compelling reason to end DADT, its worked fine for many years.

Can you just imagine the gays bragging about their sexual exploits,

Is that what you do?

More than we do, apparently.

 

[AquaAthena]

The military polls say that about 10% will leave if DADT ends. I'd say that is a reasonable fact. What would be gained by ending it, nothing but political correctness. There is no compelling reason to end DADT, its worked fine for many years.

Yes , and 25% said they would leave if they had to serve with blacks. Surprisingly, they used the same excuse you did....they didn't want to have to shower with them

Everybody seems to want to compare the queers with the blacks. I don't see the comparison. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It's not the same thing.

They are comparing the two within the context of discrimination. Discriminating against a person who has not committed injury to another, is wrong. Asking yourself, "well, what if this happens or that happens " is not justifiable logic to deny an innocent person the right to be who they are. We should not have that power in the first place. We must evolve, knowing for every problem there will be a solution if anybody has the balls to implement it. The military will be better served because more homosexuals will join. Not all of them are hustlers, you know? Just as all heterosexuals are not.

 

[Father Time]

Its not a matter of "revealing" their sexuality. Its a matter of their sexuality is all too obvious. Its a matter of many in the military prefer not to know.

Well if it's obvious then I guess it's too bad for those who don't want to know it.



This is the freaking army. I guarantee working with someone they don't like isn't on the top of their list of complaints. Besides working with people you don't like is a possibility in any job so tough shit.



Why should only they get to vote on it? Our taxes pay for the military and when we to change say what's acceptable police behavior we don't let only the cops vote on it.

p.s. the question before was "what are they going to do with the rest of their lives <if they don't want to associate with gays>. Its not about "revealing sexuality" <that happens to the "special few" in group showers>, if you want to work with straights, there are ways to do it. They'll be fine after leaving the <new pink> military.

You think the military will be pink once DADT is lifted? Really?

The military is VOLUNTEERS. If you joined were men acted like men and women acted like women under DADT, it will be a lot different than having cross-dressers and transvestites sharing your duty.

This law does not address transvestites and cross dressers can also be straight (although IIRC everyone's required to wear a uniform anyway so what difference does it make).

When you march, you are supposed to be on the same beat (not to whatever tune you want).

That's the dumbest excuse I heard to keep DADT. They're different from us so they must leave? A gay can be a good member of a team and be a good soldier. Conformity in the army does not extend to people's private matters, never has been.

When you put on the uniform, it it a symbol of pride, not a costume to troll.

So you think being gay while wearing the uniform does a disservice to the uniform?

Sounds mighty bigoted if you ask me.

There is a problem NOW, with homosexuals (or bisexuals) raping new recruits.

A. Prove it
B. Then punish the rapists instead of banning all gays. There's tons of reports of straights sexually harassing people in the army. This is similar to banning anyone who drinks from service because some people are problem drinkers or show up drunk.

It is not publized due to PC and the total humiliation of the victims (typically done to a subordinate, or people in the same barracks).

Oh how fucking convenient.

There have been problems in the past, as well with homosexual behavior.

Such as?

Saying homosexual behavior is ACCEPTABLE will only increase these types of problems, and hurt morale (the necessary ingredient to any battle).

It'll hurt morale? Oh no some people may have to live with gays. *Gasp* the sheer horror. Living with gays is something college kids are expected to put up with. You saying soldiers are weaker than college kids?

It's an unfair, unneeded law and it should be repealed.

 

[Father Time]

So.... having more homosexuals in te military will "improve" it?

Yeah, ok.

Yes having more soldiers in the military would improve it.

Any more questions?

Even if it didn't improve the military it's a discriminatory policy that is not needed so it should go.

 

[ScottBernard]

Either the service has shifted greatly in its attitude on this matter since my time in; or the political left really wants to ram this one through to stop the oppression. Maybe unfairness in their view.
Anyway, it boils down to the matter of getting the job done and maintaining your military composure. Will repeal mean degradation of this? I think the popular answer would be no.
But believe me, there will be incidents where it will not be accepted. And violently so. That I have no doubt at all.

 

[Father Time]

Either the service has shifted greatly in its attitude on this matter since my time in; or the political left really wants to ram this one through to stop the oppression. Maybe unfairness in their view.
Anyway, it boils down to the matter of getting the job done and maintaining your military composure. Will repeal mean degradation of this? I think the popular answer would be no.
But believe me, there will be incidents where it will not be accepted. And violently so. That I have no doubt at all.

IMO anyone who beats someone up solely for being gay is a violent degenerate and probably shouldn't have been in the army.

 

[The NCO]

Eventually it will pass, unfortunately... But be ready to spend more money having to segregate them from the general population. No straight person wants to bunk or hygiene with a homosexual. New living quarters costs money.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again:

So how do you bunk them? 2 gays in a room together?

A gay in a room with a straight macho guy?

Or do we bunk a gay guy with a straight female?

How about a gay female with a straight guy?

This is only one of the problems the Military chiefs asked for a year to study before congress acted on this. But noooo, some dumb asses can't wait a year. I guess Obama feels he needs the votes in November.

Easy.....who the hell cares??

Guess what? Kids go to college all the time and are assigned gay roomates. Are you saying the delicate sensitivities of our Armed Forces are worse than some liberal, sissyfied college student?

 

[The Rabbi]

Get ready for blanket parties.
When discipline and morale go to shit then what?

 

[G.T.]

If dudes who signed up for War are too puss to deal with something like this then they should rethink being ready for War. Some things in life are really.......really..............................really small. Having perspective is as easy as going "oh!"

 

[The Rabbi]

If dudes who signed up for War are too puss to deal with something like this then they should rethink being ready for War. Some things in life are really.......really..............................really small. Having perspective is as easy as going "oh!"

You're dealing with 18 and 19 year old kids. They aren't noted for maturity in judgment.

 

[G.T.]

If dudes who signed up for War are too puss to deal with something like this then they should rethink being ready for War. Some things in life are really.......really..............................really small. Having perspective is as easy as going "oh!"

You're dealing with 18 and 19 year old kids. They aren't noted for maturity in judgment.

So they're too immature to realize the Virtue in serving then, you say? Because to me, if we're to regard Serving in the Military as the Noble, selfless act that I feel we actually should...........................then it becomes a little watered down when you let your anti-Gay sensibilities over-rule your sense of Duty to Country. How strong was that sense to begin with, if this is what bothers you away from service?

 

[The Rabbi]

If dudes who signed up for War are too puss to deal with something like this then they should rethink being ready for War. Some things in life are really.......really..............................really small. Having perspective is as easy as going "oh!"

You're dealing with 18 and 19 year old kids. They aren't noted for maturity in judgment.

So they're too immature to realize the Virtue in serving then, you say? Because to me, if we're to regard Serving in the Military as the Noble, selfless act that I feel we actually should...........................then it becomes a little watered down when you let your anti-Gay sensibilities over-rule your sense of Duty to Country. How strong was that sense to begin with, if this is what bothers you away from service?

I dont know how many enlist for duty to country and how many for benefits and guaranteed jobs. And in this economy that is a big motivator for a high school grad with mediocre grades.
I am not dissing kids who enlist for that reason. I think that is a very reasonable thing to do. Bt pretending that all our enlisted guys are saints is a mistake.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think they're all Saints, but I do question their Machismo if this is an actual reason that deters them.

Maybe this will improve our Military, in a sense that many of those who make irrational decisions based on weak-emotion would be weeded out.

 

[Zona]

Anyone who would leave or refuse to join the military because homosexuals, who are already serving, would not have to hide the fact that they're homosexual, is by definition not a "good man."

Net positive.

Just like the punks who say they refuse to fight because of Obama's brith certificate, there will be a few who takes this stance. Punks. We train them, they signed a piece a paper and swore they will uphold the constitution and follow the orders of teh CIC, and they are LOOKING for a reason to not serve. Fuck them.

OH and I knew of a few gays in the service when I was in and I found no problems at all. Who cared as long as they worked well.

 

[rightwinger]

Get ready for blanket parties.
When discipline and morale go to shit then what?

Then throw them in the stockade and see how many blanket parties you get.

Its not like openly gay males have never lived with straight males before. Military from other nations have allowed gays for years without problems.

Are our troops less capable than foreign troops?

 

[Zona]

Once again:

So how do you bunk them? 2 gays in a room together?

A gay in a room with a straight macho guy?

Or do we bunk a gay guy with a straight female?

How about a gay female with a straight guy?

This is only one of the problems the Military chiefs asked for a year to study before congress acted on this. But noooo, some dumb asses can't wait a year. I guess Obama feels he needs the votes in November.

Easy.....who the hell cares??

Guess what? Kids go to college all the time and are assigned gay roomates. Are you saying the delicate sensitivities of our Armed Forces are worse than some liberal, sissyfied college student?

SFC Ollie, what makes you think there are no gays in the service now?

 

[Zona]

Eventually it will pass, unfortunately... But be ready to spend more money having to segregate them from the general population. No straight person wants to bunk or hygiene with a homosexual. New living quarters costs money.

So there are no gay ones in there now? Are you this dumb? You did serve didnt you?

I can almost tell your age by this post. The old style Archie Bunkers are dying off, thank God.

 

[rightwinger]

Eventually it will pass, unfortunately... But be ready to spend more money having to segregate them from the general population. No straight person wants to bunk or hygiene with a homosexual. New living quarters costs money.

So there are no gay ones in there now? Are you this dumb? You did serve didnt you?

I can almost tell your age by this post. The old style Archie Bunkers are dying off, thank God.

What they are really afraid of is thought crimes.

Any direct, physical contact by a gay soldier would be severely disciplined, now they are afraid of what he may be..........Thinking

 

[SFC Ollie]

Once again:

So how do you bunk them? 2 gays in a room together?

A gay in a room with a straight macho guy?

Or do we bunk a gay guy with a straight female?

How about a gay female with a straight guy?

This is only one of the problems the Military chiefs asked for a year to study before congress acted on this. But noooo, some dumb asses can't wait a year. I guess Obama feels he needs the votes in November.

Easy.....who the hell cares??

Guess what? Kids go to college all the time and are assigned gay roomates. Are you saying the delicate sensitivities of our Armed Forces are worse than some liberal, sissyfied college student?

SFC Ollie, what makes you think there are no gays in the service now?

No doubt that there are, And as long as they do not identify themselves as such no one will ever care. They do not need special treatment and special rules to serve.