Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Matter

[boljr01]

It really only affects those who are currently in the military, who may be forced to shower with people they will find out are homosexual. That would be the only issue. For those who don't want to be forced to use shower facilities with a member of the same sex who may find them attractive, or get aroused, don't join the military..it is that simple.

er, uh, don't that not affect us all?

 

[Indy317]

er, uh, don't that not affect us all?

Technically, yes, but since no one is forced to join the military, there is the ability to opt out and avoid the issue entirely.

 

[Zephri]

Love how this debate always ends back up in the shower, you guys worry too much.

Betcha this whole topic dies and is completely forgotten in about 5 months or so in place of something else.

 

[machete]

Love how this debate always ends back up in the shower, you guys worry too much.

Betcha this whole topic dies and is completely forgotten in about 5 months or so in place of something else.

heres what i think the real worry is,,,you know what GAYDAR is... you also know that there are a LOT of closeted gays in the military... gays have ALWAYS been part of the military,,,and the more macho the force,,,the more gay history tells us they were...

i cant tell whos gay and whos not,,,but some people i know can pick someone whos gay out of a crowd as easily as if the guy was 10 feet tall... i say ---no way--- and they say ---whatever...

if some---real---gay people start showing up in the military,,,the Chris Cooper types from American Beauty will be outed quickly and regularly,,,but not in a judgmental sort of way,,,just sort of a basic acknowledgement kinda way...

maybe then they can then live lives they really want,,,instead of being angry and frustrated,,,and hiding who they really are...

see??? gays in the military will be good for everyone...

 

[Compatriot G]

"and the more macho the force,,,the more gay history tells us they were..."

What ?!?!?!?!
Is gay history some sort of college-level course I can take now? So would the first chapter in gay history class be about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the rampant homosexuality?

 

[Dave Doehrman]

Here's something to think about

 

[nawainwright]

It really only affects those who are currently in the military, who may be forced to shower with people they will find out are homosexual. That would be the only issue. For those who don't want to be forced to use shower facilities with a member of the same sex who may find them attractive, or get aroused, don't join the military..it is that simple.

I love how this is used to imply "if you don't like the new rules then you don't have to join" but when someone uses it to say "if you don't like the regs prohibiting homosexuals then don't join" its ignorant. It seems the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I fall into the latter category, for me its not about the homosexual issue, its about the rules. If you don't like the qualifications for employment then don't apply. In my world, if the jobs says "no tattoos" then I don't hide mine and then try to change the system after I get hired to conform to me and my preferences. I don't sue anyone when I'm fired for failing to maintain the code of conduct of the company that employs me. But I'm crazy like that.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I love how this is used to imply "if you don't like the new rules then you don't have to join" but when someone uses it to say "if you don't like the regs prohibiting homosexuals then don't join" its ignorant. It seems the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I fall into the latter category, for me its not about the homosexual issue, its about the rules. If you don't like the qualifications for employment then don't apply. In my world, if the jobs says "no tattoos" then I don't hide mine and then try to change the system after I get hired to conform to me and my preferences. I don't sue anyone when I'm fired for failing to maintain the code of conduct of the company that employs me. But I'm crazy like that.

By the same token then, people shouldn't ***** when a rule changes because they're used to the old one or don't understand the new one.

 

[Compatriot G]

By the same token then, people shouldn't ***** when a rule changes because they're used to the old one or don't understand the new one.

But why change the rules when the old one worked just fine? Keep in mind, homosexuals probably compose less than 5% of the total population. Of that 5%, how many are actually affected by DADT? It has to be less than 1%. I would guess it is a fraction of a percent. So, overall, we are changing the rules to appease a few thousand people.

To use another example, what if IMPD decided they didn't like the fact that an individual with an LTCH can open carry a firearm. Suppose they lobby the legislature to change the law to prohibit open carry. Let's say they use the worn-out phrase, "officer safety" So, should we just sit here quietly and not complain about it? What if the legislature were to pass something like this over the objections of those who will be most affected? Do we just quit complaining and learn to live with it?

Ghost, I read your Facebook page. I'm always amused when a kid just barely out of high school, that isn't in the military, decides he knows more about how things should work in the military, than those that are currently serving or those that are veterans. And I don't care what the poll said. If you had been in the military, you would understand the Secretary of Defense can get any result he wants on a poll. I'll go with the poll of those in combat arms. That is probably far more accurate. Besides, desk jockeys don't really count!

 

[Denny347]

But why change the rules when the old one worked just fine? Keep in mind, homosexuals probably compose less than 5% of the total population. Of that 5%, how many are actually affected by DADT? It has to be less than 1%. I would guess it is a fraction of a percent. So, overall, we are changing the rules to appease a few thousand people.

To use another example, what if IMPD decided they didn't like the fact that an individual with an LTCH can open carry a firearm. Suppose they lobby the legislature to change the law to prohibit open carry. Let's say they use the worn-out phrase, "officer safety" So, should we just sit here quietly and not complain about it? What if the legislature were to pass something like this over the objections of those who will be most affected? Do we just quit complaining and learn to live with it?

Ghost, I read your Facebook page. I'm always amused when a kid just barely out of high school, that isn't in the military, decides he knows more about how things should work in the military, than those that are currently serving or those that are veterans. And I don't care what the poll said. If you had been in the military, you would understand the Secretary of Defense can get any result he wants on a poll. I'll go with the poll of those in combat arms. That is probably far more accurate. Besides, desk jockeys don't really count!

Actually your point is backwards. The DADT policy is akin to a law restricting OC. It only affected a few people so why should they care to remove it? To those few people it was a BIG PROBLEM. So removing this policy is one less restriction on a person's freedom. I know openly gay soldiers(open while not interacting with fellow soldiers) that hide it while on active duty. They are great soldiers. But saying that they are gay would get them discharged...no sense.

 

[Zephri]

heres what i think the real worry is,,,you know what GAYDAR is... you also know that there are a LOT of closeted gays in the military... gays have ALWAYS been part of the military,,,and the more macho the force,,,the more gay history tells us they were...

i cant tell whos gay and whos not,,,but some people i know can pick someone whos gay out of a crowd as easily as if the guy was 10 feet tall... i say ---no way--- and they say ---whatever...

if some---real---gay people start showing up in the military,,,the Chris Cooper types from American Beauty will be outed quickly and regularly,,,but not in a judgmental sort of way,,,just sort of a basic acknowledgement kinda way...

maybe then they can then live lives they really want,,,instead of being angry and frustrated,,,and hiding who they really are...

see??? gays in the military will be good for everyone...

Like I said you guys worry too much, nothing is really going to change because of this.


Ps, My gaydar fried awhile ago.

 

[hornadylnl]

By the same token then, people shouldn't ***** when a rule changes because they're used to the old one or don't understand the new one.

Here's an old saying we had while I was in.

The Army - 200 years of tradition unhampered by change.

 

[Compatriot G]

Actually your point is backwards. The DADT policy is akin to a law restricting OC. It only affected a few people so why should they care to remove it? To those few people it was a BIG PROBLEM. So removing this policy is one less restriction on a person's freedom. I know openly gay soldiers(open while not interacting with fellow soldiers) that hide it while on active duty. They are great soldiers. But saying that they are gay would get them discharged...no sense.

Once again, members of the military don't have rights or freedoms as in the civilian world. I used to think the rules about proper dress while you were off-duty and off base were stupid. However, I followed them.

 

[hornadylnl]

Once again, members of the military don't have rights or freedoms as in the civilian world.

You're right. We give members of the military the same rights as we give 2 year olds. Are our soldiers slaves or free?

 

[nawainwright]

By the same token then, people shouldn't ***** when a rule changes because they're used to the old one or don't understand the new one.

You know, the impetus of any rule change is on the new to disprove the old. Anytime something new comes along, it doesn't automatically supplant the old because its new, or because someone wants it to. All the homosexual community has proved with the constant whining and lawsuits is that they are not up to any kind of real responsibility in this matter. If I have a choice between an employee thats going to spend all day whining about how unfair the job is or an employee who just goes about their job, guess which one I'm going to pick?

 

[Expat]

You're right. We give members of the military the same rights as we give 2 year olds. Are our soldiers slaves or free?

They are contract employees. They enter into that contract of their own freewill and can leave at the termination of their contract. There are even ways they can get out before the end of the term if they really want too. The only real difference with normal employees is that they are contracted out 24/7. So no they are not slaves. My company has rules on how I dress on business, my hair length, tatoos, piercings, what I can say as an employee, etc.

 

[hornadylnl]

They are contract employees. They enter into that contract of their own freewill and can leave at the termination of their contract. There are even ways they can get out before the end of the term if they really want too. The only real difference with normal employees is that they are contracted out 24/7. So no they are not slaves. My company has rules on how I dress on business, my hair length, tatoos, piercings, what I can say as an employee, etc.

I'm not talking about dress, hair, tattoos, and piercings here. I'm talking about fundemental liberties you and I enjoy every day. Our society gives prisoners more rights than our military.

Major Winters's men said how high when asked to jump by him. They did so out of duty, honor, country, and their respect for their leader. He earned that respect. He didn't beat it into them and he didnt enslave them into it.

 

[ghostinthewood]

You know, the impetus of any rule change is on the new to disprove the old. Anytime something new comes along, it doesn't automatically supplant the old because its new, or because someone wants it to. All the homosexual community has proved with the constant whining and lawsuits is that they are not up to any kind of real responsibility in this matter. If I have a choice between an employee thats going to spend all day whining about how unfair the job is or an employee who just goes about their job, guess which one I'm going to pick?

Odd because most of the homosexual community, as represented by a lot of people who have served and are speaking for the ones they know, have been professional. Seems you've just fallen in to the mind set of what you see on TV is what is reality....

My business requires tattoos <.<

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You're right. We give members of the military the same rights as we give 2 year olds. Are our soldiers slaves or free?

Offering the same two idiotic choices over and over doesn't change the fact they are idiotic.

I'm not talking about dress, hair, tattoos, and piercings here. I'm talking about fundemental liberties you and I enjoy every day. Our society gives prisoners more rights than our military.

Major Winters's men said how high when asked to jump by him. They did so out of duty, honor, country, and their respect for their leader. He earned that respect. He didn't beat it into them and he didnt enslave them into it.

So you would limit the freedoms of our military members. Liberties you dismiss as not fundemental others would call an intrinsic right to expression. I think that makes you a nanny state loving statist. See how stupid that sounds?

And we neither expect or ask prisoners to do anything. We expect our military to be a cohesive unit in order to protec and defend this nation's way of life. The key word if you're looking for one is cohesive.

Sorry, but the Marine Corps I was in wasn't reducible to a mini-series that could be romanticized on HBO.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Homosexuality ≠ wimps

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armed Camp: Gay Male Militarism

Tough Gay

Once again you refer to strawman arguments and stereotypes. You're very ineffective in proving your point to reasonable individuals.