The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[bodecea]

The first thing to examine when looking at a ****** is integrity.

LIED on an military service application to sneak in to serve with normal people.

Enough said?

Before 1993, ONLY if you already had gay sex. Since most enlist at 17/18, that's not necessarily a give.

After 1993, that question was not asked.

But...feel free to go on with your weak storyline.

 

[Spoonman]

In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces

Still waiting for the military benefit Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too. Let's get real here ok?

Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in critical occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).

they should have been charged back the cost of their training

 

[Seawytch]

Equal is not a formula, it's literal. Gays have the exact same rules as straights.

Wrong. DADT did NOT apply to heterosexuals, only to gays and lesbians. Stop being ridiculous, Nancy.


If gays and straights served under the exact same rules and regulations, then you wouldn't have base housing, dependent pay or anything of the like. Anyone wearing a wedding ring would be instantly discharged. No pictures of your spouse in your wallet, helmet or on your desk. Nothing, zip, zilch.

Yeah, let's apply DADT to straights and see how long the policy would last.

 

[bodecea]

Still waiting for the military benefit Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too. Let's get real here ok?

Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in critical occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).

$50K is chump change in the government.
Worth every penny to drum out homos...

I'm guessing that you did not like being shown up by the gay sailors getting better evals than you.

 

[kaz]

I nailed this really hot chick last night

Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these... And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?

Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want. If you were female, it would get you discharged.

Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering. Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.

Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight. I wasn't in the military, yet I somehow doubt that.

 

[slukasiewski]

50K to discharge a homo?

How much does it cost to hospitalize and treat a full blown AIDS-infested polesmoker?

 

[Seawytch]

Your brother could be your point of contact, your mother, your best friend. It doesn't have to be a spouse. Gays are not exempt from taking advantage of the program

Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee. Why? Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth. And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.

However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs. Why? Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.

And..........how do I know so much about these programs? Part of what my office did was run that program.

When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me. When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood. Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".

Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.

 

[bodecea]

Equal is not a formula, it's literal. Gays have the exact same rules as straights.

Wrong. DADT did NOT apply to heterosexuals, only to gays and lesbians. Stop being ridiculous, Nancy.


If gays and straights served under the exact same rules and regulations, then you wouldn't have base housing, dependent pay or anything of the like. Anyone wearing a wedding ring would be instantly discharged. No pictures of your spouse in your wallet, helmet or on your desk. Nothing, zip, zilch.

Yeah, let's apply DADT to straights and see how long the policy would last.

Now that would be a really funny experiment. I'd pay to see that tried out.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee. Why? Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth. And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.

However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs. Why? Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.

And..........how do I know so much about these programs? Part of what my office did was run that program.

When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me. When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood. Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".

Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.

It was a dicey time. If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.

 

[Seawytch]

Still waiting for the military benefit Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too. Let's get real here ok?

Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in critical occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).

they should have been charged back the cost of their training

No, they shouldn't have been discharged in the first place. It is a ludicrous policy that has met its end. Get over it. If you can't get over it and are serving, get the **** out. Simple as that.

 

[slukasiewski]

Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these... And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?

Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want. If you were female, it would get you discharged.

Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering. Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.

Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight. I wasn't in the military, yet I somehow doubt that.

Of course they pretended to be straight (lied) to get in.
We wouldn't have accepted them otherwise. No one wants to serve with a polesmoker/carpet muncher.

It's filthy....

 

[slukasiewski]

Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in critical occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).

they should have been charged back the cost of their training

No, they shouldn't have been discharged in the first place. It is a ludicrous policy that has met its end. Get over it. If you can't get over it and are serving, get the **** out. Simple as that.

When/where did you serve asswipe?

 

[Grace]

Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee. Why? Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth. And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.

However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs. Why? Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.

And..........how do I know so much about these programs? Part of what my office did was run that program.

When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me. When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood. Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".

Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.

 

[kaz]

Equal is not a formula, it's literal. Gays have the exact same rules as straights.

Wrong. DADT did NOT apply to heterosexuals, only to gays and lesbians. Stop being ridiculous

If you don't know what literal means, why don't you Google it before showing you're a moron? My God liberals are lazy. The law is literal, not figurative. Here you go, lazy ass, I'll help you. Literal | Define Literal at Dictionary.com

Nancy

Bam, now that's what I'm talking about. I love it when liberals use my own insults back on me. There can be no greater admission you have nothing, so you have to use mine.

If gays and straights served under the exact same rules and regulations, then you wouldn't have base housing, dependent pay or anything of the like. Anyone wearing a wedding ring would be instantly discharged. No pictures of your spouse in your wallet, helmet or on your desk. Nothing, zip, zilch.

Yeah, let's apply DADT to straights and see how long the policy would last.

They do have the exact same regulations, you actually don't want them to.

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously? I called you Nancy to call you a sensitive girl about political correctness. You seriously need that explained to you, Nancy?

You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?

Actually I have answered the question. First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC. Nor is not using it. I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.

Want a tissue?

Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:

When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.

 

[slukasiewski]

You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?

Actually I have answered the question. First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC. Nor is not using it. I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.

Want a tissue?

Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:

When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.

You're really simple. That's it.

 

[Qball]

I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.

There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.

They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.

Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too. I don't want to hear about your girlfriend. I don't want to hear about your date. I don't want to hear about your marriage. I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids. I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar. If I do hear about them, you can be discharged. It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.

If you were in the military, you could tell them that. I'd love to see the response you'd have gotten, but I mean, you could still say it. Like it or not, homosexuality is deviant in that most people aren't gay. So it's unlikely that they would ever consider someone talking about an opposite-sex spouse as being inappropriate. But you knew that.

"Equal treatment" isn't entirely important to the military. I don't think it's a virtue unless you can rationalize it. Wanting to be as forthcoming about your sexual endeavors as all those ungrateful straight people doesn't strike me as a good reason, but YMMV.

 

[kaz]

When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me. When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood. Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".

Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.

It was a dicey time. If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.

Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian. The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.

Did you not know the rules when you joined the military? At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?

 

[Seawytch]

well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment? Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school. under the law, there is no prayer in school. is that an equal ruling? but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.

Christians have the right to pray in school all they want. No one has ever stopped that. You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.

sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game. guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down. that's a reality. now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights? they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved

It doesn't matter if anyone complained or not, it is a publicly led prayer at a public school which clearly violates the separation of church and state. Your High School could have simply said "we will now take a moment for private prayer or contemplation" and no laws would be violated. It is when it is a publicly led prayer that you get into "troubled waters".

 

[bodecea]

well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment? Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school. under the law, there is no prayer in school. is that an equal ruling? but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.

Christians have the right to pray in school all they want. No one has ever stopped that. You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.

sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game. guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down. that's a reality. now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights? they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved

What you mean to say is that the football team at your local high school had to stop ORGANIZED PUBLIC prayer of only one denomination. No one can stop prayer in school...I see football players take a knee and pray all the time...before, during and after a game.

So, explain to us why...to you...

This: ORGANIZED PUBLIC School-led prayer of one denomination

equals

That: prayer