|
|
 |
 Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Kyle L. Varnell, 2/2/2010 5:31:21 PM 
  RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Amorette Allison, 2/2/2010 8:11:40 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob L., 2/2/2010 8:14:07 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/2/2010 8:30:42 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/2/2010 8:36:37 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/3/2010 5:35:06 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Richard Bonine, Jr, 2/3/2010 6:36:40 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, J. Dyba, 2/3/2010 6:44:29 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 6:45:21 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 6:46:45 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bill Freese, 2/3/2010 8:01:53 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/3/2010 8:29:40 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/3/2010 9:13:41 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Smiley, 2/3/2010 9:24:34 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/3/2010 9:29:08 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/3/2010 9:36:30 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 9:37:19 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/3/2010 9:49:07 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob L., 2/3/2010 9:53:54 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Amorette Allison, 2/3/2010 10:19:40 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Lorin Dixson, 2/3/2010 10:24:18 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/3/2010 10:30:37 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Mindy B, 2/3/2010 10:43:49 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 10:48:29 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Lorin Dixson, 2/3/2010 10:58:50 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/3/2010 11:04:45 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 11:13:16 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Steve Allison, 2/3/2010 11:36:23 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/3/2010 11:37:23 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Wendy Wilson, 2/3/2010 11:51:27 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Amorette Allison, 2/3/2010 11:53:05 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bk, 2/3/2010 12:40:38 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bill Freese, 2/3/2010 12:41:49 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Lorin Dixson, 2/3/2010 2:19:48 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Richard Bonine, Jr, 2/3/2010 2:28:20 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 2:29:32 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/3/2010 4:43:52 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 4:54:43 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/3/2010 5:24:06 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/3/2010 7:36:33 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/3/2010 8:35:16 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Levi Forman, 2/3/2010 9:07:01 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/3/2010 9:23:06 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Amorette Allison, 2/3/2010 9:37:30 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/3/2010 9:47:57 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Richard Bonine, Jr, 2/3/2010 10:27:40 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Christen LeBlanc Ramsey, 2/3/2010 10:45:46 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/4/2010 9:35:02 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Brian A. Reed, 2/4/2010 1:23:02 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/4/2010 4:48:05 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Brian A. Reed, 2/4/2010 5:17:33 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Cory Cutting, 2/4/2010 5:23:25 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, howdy, 2/4/2010 6:37:41 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Kyle L. Varnell, 2/4/2010 6:41:07 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob L., 2/4/2010 6:46:49 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Kyle L. Varnell, 2/4/2010 6:51:54 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Lorin Dixson, 2/4/2010 6:55:26 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, B. Hunter, 2/4/2010 7:06:06 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/4/2010 10:32:15 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/5/2010 8:29:56 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Wendy Wilson, 2/5/2010 9:17:49 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/5/2010 9:40:21 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 1:20:01 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Mary1, 2/6/2010 8:36:26 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/6/2010 8:52:47 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 9:36:21 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/6/2010 9:41:19 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/6/2010 10:07:00 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Amorette Allison, 2/6/2010 10:14:36 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/6/2010 10:26:50 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/6/2010 10:44:07 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Christen LeBlanc Ramsey, 2/6/2010 11:12:02 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Wendy Wilson, 2/6/2010 11:24:52 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Amorette Allison, 2/6/2010 11:50:15 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob L., 2/6/2010 1:09:27 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 1:17:12 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/6/2010 1:25:54 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/6/2010 1:28:12 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/6/2010 1:41:40 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/6/2010 6:24:53 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Lorin Dixson, 2/6/2010 6:35:54 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Cory Cutting, 2/6/2010 6:36:38 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 7:15:40 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, polar bear, 2/6/2010 7:20:48 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 7:24:36 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/6/2010 7:56:53 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/6/2010 9:04:51 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/6/2010 9:05:03 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, howdy, 2/6/2010 9:08:11 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Wendy Wilson, 2/6/2010 9:31:12 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 9:33:25 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 9:36:32 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/6/2010 9:45:16 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Christen LeBlanc Ramsey, 2/6/2010 9:50:09 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Ashley Earley, 2/6/2010 10:10:07 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Wendy Wilson, 2/6/2010 10:29:25 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Matt - Schmitz, 2/7/2010 12:17:03 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 10:07:10 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bob Netherton II, 2/7/2010 10:20:23 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, polar bear, 2/7/2010 10:27:02 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 10:31:29 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/7/2010 10:41:58 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 11:07:11 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/7/2010 11:32:13 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 12:23:12 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Mary1, 2/7/2010 12:47:37 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/7/2010 1:27:01 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, howdy, 2/7/2010 1:37:56 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 1:42:15 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/7/2010 1:42:32 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/7/2010 1:44:01 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 2:00:20 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/7/2010 2:07:14 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Jeremy Orthman, 2/7/2010 2:22:56 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Bridgier, 2/8/2010 11:04:57 AM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Gunnar Emilsson, 2/9/2010 3:49:35 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Richard Bonine, Jr, 2/9/2010 4:22:51 PM
RE: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, No More, Denise Selk, 2/9/2010 4:48:53 PM
About time.
Gates Backs Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-dont-ask-dont-tell/ |
| This should have been done as an executive order on January 21. Now DO IT! |
| Don't tell Ricardo. |
Ahem. If you are hunkered down in a desert foxhole, sand flying all around you, shrapnell falling on your helmet as a result of an Al-Qada car bomb going off, all hell breaking loose.....
...the last thing you want is your buddy to be putting his arm around you and asking if you've seen the latest Adam Lambert youtube clip. Then whipping out Mr. Happy.
There are two sides to every story. I am with Richard on this one.
Richard? |
| I wonder what Larry Craig thinks about this one? |
| what a great time to casue a rift in the US military. |
I am likely committing forum suicide here but:
I guess I am really old fashioned in my thinking in that I am still trying to get my brain to accept the concept of women in combat/military. Not sure I think that is an appropriate vocation. 
I do agree with Gunnar's comment, as well.
Seems to me the military currently has much bigger fish to fry than dealing with this issue. This policy change won't likely boost troop morale, but then that is probably why the commander-in- chief is making the change. |
Mr. Fruityloops who likes to rock the heels at night and wears butterfly wings to the Gay Pride parade is not the type of homosexual that is joining the Military.
Most of the lesbians I knew when I was in the service could kick the sh*t (easily) out of 90% of the people who post on this forum without breaking a sweat.
This is just another step in the right direction towards allowing CITIZENS of the United States equal treatment. |
Ahem. If you are hunkered down in a desert foxhole, sand flying all around you, shrapnell falling on your helmet as a result of an Al-Qada car bomb going off, all hell breaking loose.....
...the last thing you want is your buddy to be putting his arm around you and asking if you've seen the latest Adam Lambert youtube clip. Then whipping out Mr. Happy.
This is a totally offensive stereotype. That actually goes without me pointing it out... given COMMON sense. However, as the saying goes common sense isn't common.
I'm sure the women of our military forces would never argue against men serving with such a blatantly sexist (not to mention juvenile) reason.
The gays and lesbians that serve (in forced secrecy until DADT is repealed) are NOT serving because they want to whip out Mr. Happy or any other such euphemism. Nor are they serving to gossip over Adam Lambert or any other gay media icon.
They are serving, and want to serve, for the same reasons that any of their straight counterparts are... because they love their country (no matter how many rights it denies them) and they want to defend their country.
How something as simple as patriotism can get so skewed on this issue is beyond me... |
Mr. Fruityloops who likes to rock the heels at night and wears butterfly wings to the Gay Pride parade is not the type of homosexual that is joining the Military.
Most of the lesbians I knew when I was in the service could kick the sh*t (easily) out of 90% of the people who post on this forum without breaking a sweat.
This is just another step in the right direction towards allowing CITIZENS of the United States equal treatment.
Hallelujah, J! |
Hallelujah, B!
As for those who use "not during a time of war" as an excuse to postpone doing the right thing, can we even imagine that during the next peace they will say, "OK, do it now"? |
Let's be brutally honest people:
1.) The military is not a social experiment.
2.) Morale of the troops and satisfaction with military life can be the difference between victory and defeat.
3.) Soldiers are individuals who come from civilian life and are subject to all of the emotions and prejudices that encumber the civilian population.
4.) Soldiers work and live together. From the standpoint of morale and efficiency, it is important that the barracks be so attractive that soldiers will not be watching the clock for a chance to get away.
5.) A total abandonment or sudden change in policy would affect enlistments and reenlistments, probably making peacetime selective service necessary.
Now, the reasons stated above are those given in testimony opposing desegregation by Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army, before the President's Committee On Equality Of Treatment And Opportunity In The Armed Forces on March 28, 1949.
These exact same reasons are being used today, over 60 years later, to justify the current DADT policy in the military.
Based on current enlistment data, you tell me what kind of shape our U.S. military would be in if we solely relied on Caucasian, heterosexual males to serve.  |
Of course, Richard also told us once that women didn't want to be pastors either.
And I'm sure there are no gay people in his church either.
However, if he wants to be in a club that excludes women from positions of authority, and gays from positions of existence, that's his call - it's a private organization (tax exempt, but that's totally different) and I'm sure he'd raise holy hell if someone came in and told him that things needed to change, as well he should. If a group of private citizens can't come together and enforce a hierarchy based upon immutable attributes amongst themselves, then who among us is truly free? Or something.
But the military doesn't get to be that kind of club. I'm constantly told that the very act of donning a uniform transforms people from the schlubs that I knew in high school into the epitome of heroism, but I'm supposed to believe that only straight people are proper vessels for The Spark Of The Avatar, or whatever other fetishistic hokum we wrap around the military.
Everyone should be equal before the law, whether that law be martial or marital.
[This message has been edited by Bridgier (2/3/2010)] |
This is a totally offensive stereotype. That actually goes without me pointing it out... given COMMON sense. However, as the saying goes common sense isn't common.
I totally agree. When I read the Adam Lambert comment I was discouraged. I can't wrap my head around why this would be a problem. Who cares what your next door neighbor is doing? Why does who you love matter so much in this country? I wrote a report in sociology about it; the subject matter of the report was "the weirdest thing in our society." And this is to me the weirdest thing.
It's a long report, but here is a quote
" If you were going to get a marriage license and they told you "No" because you were marrying a catholic and you were protestant, YOU WOULD BE ANGRY. If you were denied the right to marry because you had brown eyes, you'd wonder why. It isn't your fault you have brown eyes. So whether homosexuality is choice or genetic, it exists. So why are we still discriminating?" |
Mark my words, if you're hiding behind the remnants of a 2,000 year stone wall and bullets from the Taliban's AK-47s are flying over your head....you're concentrating on how to stay alive and get that grenade over to where you think those terrorist bastards are hiding....
Then all of sudden your buddy starts talking about old Marilyn Monroe movies and asks to see your one-eyed trouser trout....you'd be wishing that DADT was still national policy.  |
I'd much rather they sing to me Adam Lambert than Ted Nugent.  |
Mark my words, if you're hiding behind the remnants of a 2,000 year stone wall and bullets from the Taliban's AK-47s are flying over your head....you're concentrating on how to stay alive and get that grenade over to where you think those terrorist bastards are hiding....
Then all of sudden your buddy starts talking about old Marilyn Monroe movies and asks to see your one-eyed trouser trout....you'd be wishing that DADT was still national policy.
Ugh! You are disgusting. I'm sorry for being rude but you are.
If YOU were concentrating so hard on staying alive and getting a grenade over to the terrorists... don't you think anyone else in the vicinity would be doing the SAME EXACT THING.
To assume that homosexuals are that sex-obsessed is absurd. It's mis-informed and it is utterly childish.
I simply cannot communicate how much your small-minded bigotry offends me... and I'm sure COUNTLESS others.
[This message has been edited by B. Hunter (2/3/2010)] |
B., Gunnar is a greyhound and mockery is his rabbit.
He's much more in touch with his feminine side than he lets on. You know what they say about those who protest too much. |
| Denise: Well played. |
I believe there was a period when a woman serving in the military was more likely to be raped than a woman living in an inner city with a high crime rate. Since this proves that HETEROSEXUAL men are sex-maddened lunatics, only women should be allowed to serve in the military.
End of problem.
Every time I hear "morale" about this, I think back to when allowing "colored" soldiers to serve with white soldiers would be hard on morale. Guess what? While there are still narrow-minded bigots in the military, most folks adapted.
Same thing will happen once the civil rights of citizens who wish to serve their country are recognized.
Why are "straight" men so afraid of "gay" men, hummmmmmm? |
| I am not sure, but it doesn't sound like most of the people against repeal have been in the service. It has been 30 years since I was in, and yes we had gays then. We knew they were gay some were well respected because, they either did their job and did it well. I remember some that I never knew how well they did their job, but were respected because they were just nice guys. I think maybe they had it better than under DADT, I was in six years I can't think of anyone kicked out because they were queer. In summation we have always had them always will, it is past time to let them serve openly. If they Blooming pansy's they won't make it in the military anyway and they canbe booted for legitimate reasons. |
Why are "straight" men so afraid of "gay" men, hummmmmmm?
Because they tell our wives to make us wear fashionable, neat clothes instead of the comfortable yet spotted and stained items that we love. |
"24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems." NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 2007
If so many other countries are allowing gays to openly serve in the military why is our freedom loving country fighting it. We believe in freedom, fight for it...but than we do this to our own people. |
I think maybe they had it better than under DADT, I was in six years I can't think of anyone kicked out because they were queer.
Then I suggest looking into one Lt. Daniel Choi. He's not the only one but he's an example I can think of that occurred in recent times:
http://www.ltdanchoi.com/bio.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7568742&page=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/...arabic_n_199592.html |
| B Hunter; You obviously only read portions of my post I think I clearly said when I was in the service and before DADT. Also if you would have read my post you would have seen I am for repeal of DADT. |
"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
~ Barry Goldwater |
You obviously only read portions of my post I think I clearly said when I was in the service and before DADT. Also if you would have read my post you would have seen I am for repeal of DADT.
No, I did read all of it. I admit that I didn't respond to the positive points of your post and only the parts I disagreed with.
It is nice to see others for the repeal. Thank you. |
| My question is if this would be so destructive to military moral and discipline, why is it that it is the top three people in charge of the military, at least one still in uniform, that are testifying that Don't ask, don't tell needs to be done away with. Personally I don't have a lot of experience in this area and am willing to lesson to the people who live the life and have to live with the consequences. |
| I just think that when John Wayne was raising the flag over the sands of Iwo Jima, Rock Hudson thought twice about placing his hand on the Duke's inner thigh. |
You really got them going, Gunnar.
I applaud this change.
[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (2/3/2010)] |
| If there is one person who should never be brought into a discussion of the military, it is John Wayne. |
| "Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either" -Meghan McCain, Daughter of 2008 Republican Presidential Nominee Sen. John McCain |
Got it! John Wayne. Rock Hudson. That is why all Gunnar's imagined homosexual characters behave the way he describes. The theater of war he is thinking of is the kind that sells popcorn in the lobby.  |
B.Hunter said
No, I did read all of it. I admit that I didn't respond to the positive points of your post and only the parts I disagreed with.
Unless you were in the service at the time I was and seen something different than what I said my experiences were, I'm not sure what part you disagreed with. I said I was in the service before DADT and that I thought Gays were better off before DADT. As they were there and we all knew it, and accepted it. I do beleive it should be repealed and they be allowed to serve openly. all though the times I speak of if they were, (which in my experiene they didn't) if they were hitting on people they probably would have been kicked out. |
"Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either" -Meghan McCain, Daughter of 2008 Republican Presidential Nominee Sen. John McCain
I am not sure that Meghan McCain and foxhole are words that should be used together in the same sentence. |
Lorin,
I didn't have so much as a disagreement with something you said...
I simply wanted to give example that some have been kicked out because of their sexuality. That was my only intention by referencing your post. |
All that I'm trying to say is that after a long hard day of shooting terrorists with the finest weaponry in the world, the last thing our boys need to worry about is their backside when they bend over in the shower to pick up that bar of soap.
Just sayin'. |
Gunnar Emilsson wrote
All that I'm trying to say is that after a long hard day of shooting terrorists with the finest weaponry in the world, the last thing our boys need to worry about is their backside when they bend over in the shower to pick up that bar of soap.
Just sayin'.
Hmm... if we use your example then that is reason to exclude all straight men from the military as well... As the last thing the women who serve this country need to worry about is being caught alone and unaware around their male counterparts... just sayin'.
Sounds a bit ridiculous when put that way, doesn't it? |
| Take the hook out Mr. Hunter... Gunnar's just going to troll you as long as you let him. |
| Gunnar speaks for REAL men. |
I'm not a Mr. anything, for better or worse! 
And I speak for equal rights for all, not for any ill-conceived concept of "real" men or "real" women. |
| Should have gotten some heavier tackle Gunnar, this is going to take a while. |
Okay....I will bite "B. Hunter"'s obvious attempts to troll me and avoid THE ISSUES......I am always scrapping for a fair and impartial debate.
Point 1: Lets agree that we disagree about homosexuals in combat. Lets move on to where 98+% of where our troops spend their time....not on the front line, but being prepared to go wherever our President (may God bless him!) decides to send them next, to ward off the minions of Satan.
So, Johnny signs up for the Army to protect his country. He walks into his bunk, and throws his gear down....and is instantly mocked for he chose the standard drab olive green sleeping bag instead of the puce and burgundy color combination.
Little Johnny, being but 18 years old, shrugs and gets on with his training. But then, he is harassed by his drill sargeant for not wearing a lavender ascot while crawling through the mud.
All because he isn't like "them".
Over time, Little Johnny wonders if experimentation might be okay after all, just as a certain Colorado geologist by the name of Randy Marsh once did....a decision that led to tragedy.
Is this what you really want, for Miles City's finest young men, to end up?
Think long and hard before you post your reply. |
| Gunnar, you are a SCREAM! Really. Have you considered stand-up? Heeheeheeheehee. |
I hardly think screaming is something we want to bring into this discussion, Amorette, when the screaming you hear might be the de-flowering of the bungholes of Miles City's finest young patriots.
Lets keep this topic focused, please....for the sake of the families. |
| Keep piling that spoil Gunnar... eventually you will get back to AOC. |
Then all of sudden your buddy starts talking about old Marilyn Monroe movies and asks to see your one-eyed trouser trout...
holy crap gunnar you must be so, so handsome that all the guys just fall over for you! damn! it must be a huge problem for you being just so attractive that they just wont leave the likes of you, or other heterosexual guys like you, alone. i'm sure, just sure, that the gay community cares nil about things like, personality when looking for date material... |
In general, I like where this conversation has been heading (although you may be reaching your daily limit) - but when I think about all of the awesome hot gay military loving that we're not asking about (and therefore, haven't been told about (and you know it must be awesome, otherwise why would we need laws to tell us it's wrong?)), it always involves a pope hat and a pair of assless chaps - do you think you could work this into your narrative somehow? I mean, if there's one thing a strapping young lad from MC would have access to, it's a pope hat.
Also, the term "bareback" needs to be brought into play as well. |
A friend of mine used to be in the military. He killed himself a few years ago. I can't say that I know for certain why he did it. Chances are there were a lot of factors involved, most of which I'll never know. But I have heard that one of the reasons was because he was outed, which, among other things, meant the end of his career.
He was a good person. He was smart, funny and kind. He also loved his country. He was also gay. I care about five of the aforementioned five things.
The other one doesn't matter unless you're a bigot, a coward or a jackass who thinks he's funny. |
I was wondering when this was going to happen and I kind of figured the majority would agree with it. I'd have to agree with the minority of posts here. I've been in for almost 15 years now and I've served or met individuals that we knew to be gay and it didn't bother me, but I'm not everyone...
My point is, not everyone is and will be so accepting. Right now the military is involved with two main combat zones, several other deployments to various countries, shortages accross the board, back to back deployments and stress is at an alltime high. The Army and other services feel the suicide numbers are up. My point in listing all this is to say while it might be the "right thing to do," I don't know that now is the right time. While it might not bother me, I know a lot of people it will. Do we need that extra tension and stress down range right now? |
I have one simple question for anyone who uses any variant of the "Some gay guy's going to see me in the shower and wait for me to drop the soap" argument:
If you somehow found yourself in a shower with several naked women, would you automatically rape one of them?
If you think that's a stupid and insulting question, then you should also be able to see how stupid and insulting the "drop the soap" and "Adam Lambert" hypotheticals are. |
Brian,
While I find your attempts to argue the point noble, the converstation was going along pretty well and with some humorous postings....
A) Don't stir the pot.
B) Be thankful that it really hasn't turned into some lecture from certain people on the sin of it all. |
| If gays are defending American citizens, then we should accept who they are...If they are willing to put their lives on the line for us, why can't we accept who they are?? |
If you have working limbs, are healthy and want to serve this great Nation then the only obstacle should be your decision on which branch of the military to serve in.
Period. |
Kyle:
Nice to see you back. Hope all is well.
Do you have anything new to report on Oprah's show? |
| All is well Bob and I'm not too sure about Oprah. |
| It doesn't sound like this is going to happen, at least not right away. The R's are going to do all they can to stop or slow it down. Just because it is a Obama initiative. I am sure there will be a few D's join them thinking they would be more successful if they act like an Republican |
Just want to add that I thinks it's awesome that so many intelligent people are actually responding to this topic and not just the ones with the Rock Hudson and Marilyn Monroe jokes and those that find them hilarious.
The final word on the matter, in my opinion, is that anyone who wants to serve... should be allowed to. And anyone that is outed either by themselves, a third party or harrassed and persued by their superiors until they are outed... shouldn't lose everything because of it.
Another example of someone not only losing their job/livelihood, penions and everything else that's tied to it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8495793.stm
So, make all of the flaming jokes you want and reference as many gay icons as you please (though wow, you seem to know more than me!)... have fun with that.
I will be doing what I can to push for the repeal of DADT... though that amount is limited. |
Jeremy said:
"My point is, not everyone is and will be so accepting. Right now the military is involved with two main combat zones, several other deployments to various countries, shortages accross the board, back to back deployments and stress is at an alltime high. The Army and other services feel the suicide numbers are up. My point in listing all this is to say while it might be the "right thing to do," I don't know that now is the right time. While it might not bother me, I know a lot of people it will. Do we need that extra tension and stress down range right now?"
Jeremy - for some people there will NEVER be a right time. Besides that, you noted "shortages across the board". So lets deal with those shortages by finding a reason which has nothing real to do with a person's ability to serve, and get rid of them. Or lets just accept anyone who can walk across an empty room and spell c a t in, as long as they aren't gay. Face it. There ALREADY ARE gay people in the military. And to the people that aren't so accepting....tough sh t! You're supposed to be tough. Deal with it!
As the story goes(and I'm sure this is highly stylized)...when Harry Truman integrated the military, a lot of his top brass told him they'd quit if he went through with it. Truman's response was 'Fine. If you don't like it, I expect to see your resignations on my desk by morning'. He went through with it, and there were no resignations in the morning.
Gunnar's offensive(but hilarious) posts aside...people who think like that seem to be the ones you really need to look out for. Think of that noted macho-man who got busted in the Minneapolis airport for his "wide stance". |
Oops. Didn't read Bob's awesome rant in its entirety... so never mind.
[This message has been edited by Bridgier (2/5/2010)] |
Bob's argument is spot on. The only people causing trouble in this case are the intolerant bozos who can't man-up. If a soldier can't put aside his own prejudices and do his job then HE's the one who should be booted out. The military would be better for it.
[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (2/5/2010)] |
Yawn.
This thread has turned into a real snoozer.
How about someone starting a new thread about Homosexuals in the Entertainment Industry? I have some controversial opinions (well, maybe not to Richard) on that subject.
This one, however, has pretty much run its course. |
Seems to me that homosexuals are the ones who can't "man-up". Those straight "intolerant bozos" are the ones doing their jobs, not the ones chit-chatting about their sexual preference. How does the subject of ones sexuality come up anyway in a war zone? I would think the DADT policy would be pretty easy to keep.
And why did you capitalize HE and not mention anything about SHE? That's a little prejudice don't you think?
If you ask me, America is getting a little too free...
And no, for once, this is not my husband posting under my name. |
Ashley, they are not talking about their sexual preferences all the time they are talking about their lives/home. I have never been in the military but have several relatives that are, a spouse who served and work with a lot of veterans in my job. If you think in the military no one asks if you are married, if you have kids, are you dating...any other normal conversation that you might have when you work with someone than your nuts. Most of the homosexuals who were outed were outed by others in their units who read their e-mail over their shoulder or over heard them talking to "Joe" or "Jane" over the phone and just by using their loved one's first name they were now suspected of being gay. And if you never talk about your love life or home life with any one people wonder too.
Just think about your posts and your husband's posts you two talk about each other in this forum all the time even if it is just to say who is using the account. I mean come on no one here even asked if you were married but you just start talking about your sexual preference already! Please keep it to yourself!! |
Yes. Because all the straight soldiers are celebate asexual little flowers, but those icky icky gays just can't control their hormones.
*cough*tailhook*cough*
Whatever. |
Excuse me but I don't need YOU to tell me what the military and being overseas is like because my husband has served for 4 years SO FAR. I don't know where your relatives were serving but my husband didn't have time to fiddle around on the phone and internet. I had to wait weeks for a 5 minute phone call and I have only 17 emails from his last 10 month stretch. How do you figure the military is at all like a normal job where you can have a normal conversation? You take the military a little too lightly. But enough about real men... I believe it would be fine to hang pictures of a "loved one" and mention their name but there is no reason to elaborate on it. Knowing that a person is gay is a lot different than talking about it.
I was posting about the homosexuals in the military not homosexuals in general. I believe the military is not a place for them OR women. Obviously I am a woman and it doesn't bother me at all to hear people say women shouldn't serve because its true...neither have the mindset or competency. Look at all the women trying to flake out of the military because of family problems and BS like that. That is completely off subject though...
We should be thinking about what's best for the military and therefore what is best for our country.
By the way Mary...just because I'm married doesn't mean that men are my sexual preference
Of course I'm kidding but thought I would make that a point.
And I would appreciate if you would stop stalking mine and my husband's posts. Thank you. |
I agree, for some there probably never will be a right time. However, this is not just the wrong time, its probably the worst time.
First, your acting as if there are currently no gay/lesbians in the military. I asssure you there are, just not openly. The only thing this policy will change is now they will be openly gay.
Second, its not about being tough, its about being realistic. It doesn't bother me, but I'm not the majority. The fact is it will cause problems whether you or I like it or not. The question becomes is now the right time to introduce all that extra stress and problems into a military that is already dealing with a lot of them in combat zones.
Also, some of you have the wrong idea about this whole "outing" concept. The impression I get when I read these posts is as if there is a Straight posse rounding up all the guys, being doing secret searches. In my career I've only known or heard of two individuals who were "outed." One did it himself and the other, while I can't prove it, did it herself. The military has a strict policy about persuing matters of orientation.
[This message has been edited by Jeremy Orthman (2/6/2010)]
[This message has been edited by Jeremy Orthman (2/6/2010)] |
Obviously I am a woman and it doesn't bother me at all to hear people say women shouldn't serve because its true...neither have the mindset or competency. Look at all the women trying to flake out of the military because of family problems and BS like that.
Keep digging Ashley, keep digging... |
| Oh, lord, Ashley. I can point you to many, many, many women who have served in the military in war after war who had "the mindset" and weren't trying to "flake out." Yikes. |
From Jeremy's latest post:
"First, your acting as if there are currently no gay/lesbians in the military. I asssure you there are, just not openly. The only thing this policy will change is now they will be openly gay."
From my previous post(which preceded Jeremy's):
"There ALREADY ARE gay people in the military."
You just made my point for me, Jeremy. |
These excuses have been seen and spoken before, in times just as demanding, if not more so, than today. The need for desegregation during World War II, specifically to fill the shoes of fallen white soldiers, was met with exactly the same arguments. And despite Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 9981, combat troops remained segregated, until the Korean Conflict, when again black troops were asked to replace the losses in white units. Many argued that blacks did not have the proper military mindset or competency.
So I say, if we are to rely only on the Caucasian heterosexual male (since females are all "flaky" and stuff), there are a whole lot of you who'd better be stepping up to defend our country, or our U.S. military will be in sad shape indeed. |
Obviously I am a woman and it doesn't bother me at all to hear people say women shouldn't serve because its true...neither have the mindset or competency.
alright ashley, what else can't we do? my sister-in-law was in the army for 4 years, and kicked-ss. (breaking both feet in basic training, yet keeping on until she was done. if that isn't sheer bad-ssry, i really don't know what is...) she is a heterosexual lady, now a mother, married to a ranger. |
Ashley said I believe the military is not a place for them OR women. Obviously I am a woman and it doesn't bother me at all to hear people say women shouldn't serve because its true...neither have the mindset or competency.
Yeah, right on Ashley! They shouldn't be law enforcement officers either. And what about them trying to be the President of the United States? No woman could ever handle that job. I mean, really, the only place they should work is in the kitchen or at Hooters.
|
Women should stay at home. Biscuits in the oven and buns in bed. Otherwise, they may damage their delicate mental facilities. Plus, serious exercise may derange their organs, making them unable to bear children, which is all women are meant for.
Did you know girls were once forced to play half court basketball because people seriously thought their "female parts" might be joggled around and damaged if they ran the full length of the court and then they couldn't have children. Plus too much exercise might get them "worked up" and you know what THAT would lead to.
I was hoping we might move to the 21st century in this country but some of us still seem to be stuck in the 19th. Sigh. |
| Amorette: High school girls played six-on-six (halfcourt) hoops in Iowa and Oklahoma into the 1990s. |
Notice none of the men are complaining about what I wrote.
IN THE MILITARY PEOPLE. Damn you all sure like to twist things around. But now that you bring up hooters...most young women these day act and dress like that is where they belong. Totally different subject though, just thought I would keep digging.
Honestly would you really feel comfortable having a woman run the country? Talk about an emotional wreck of a country.
And back to the topic.... |
| Ahhh, I see. A statement is only true if a man says it's so. Gotcha. I'll head back to my kitchen now. |
Except for THIS one, Ashley....
THE bestest woman in the world. |
| I've been thinking. I think we should go back to letting only non-tattooed, virgin males into the military. I don't know how all of those Baptist and Mormon men would get along, however. |
Ashley is right on.
I applaud you to post what you think. |
Ashley is right on.
I applaud you to post what you think.
Ashley probably is, or at least, would be a good Chistian wife. The Man is Lord of the Manor |
Well, there is a positive side to Ashley's ideas.
At least her tiny little mind will have room to grow inside her giant oversized head. |
| Point proven...women are too emotional and get riled up too easily to be in a position of power. The military would end up spending more money on anti-depressants then the war itself. |
| In that case, women should not be teachers, mothers, or nurses either. Too emotional to do those jobs without harming others. |
| Well atleast the money for their antidepressants comes out of their own pockets and not the military's. |
| Right, Ashley. I've never heard of a man from the military with PTSD or any other problem like that. |
| A female unlearned. Sad, sad, sad. |
Ha ha.
Well atleast the money for their antidepressants comes out of their own pockets and not the military's.
Glad to know the military has pockets of its own. |
| LOL, that's almost as bad as that old man from South Carolina saying he wanted the government to keep their damn hands off his medicare LOL.. |
Point proven...women are too emotional and get riled up too easily to be in a position of power. The military would end up spending more money on anti-depressants then the war itself.
Not sure what point you've proved, Ashley. I wouldn't have any problem with a female President as long as it was the right woman. Oh, I get it now. You're trolling. You must be. If you were for real your hubby wouldn't allow you access to the computer. Isn't it time to fetch his slippers now? |
| This is ridiculous! I state my opinion and ya'll just bash. I would say that was the liberal way of going about things but I don't think we need another forum on that. |
| Actually he just surprised me by getting and putting on his own slippers! Once again we're talking about the military so quit trying to make this into something its not. |
I've just noticed that "Gunnar" and "Ashley" have the same number of letters and both last names begin with the letter "E".
.....Gunnar, is Ashley your Wonder Woman alter ego? |
so quit trying to make this into something its not.
i believe the original topic was outing the homosexual members in the military. you started the topic about what we women are incapable of handling due to
Point proven...women are too emotional and get riled up too easily to be in a position of power.
$hit, i'm just as shocked as the rest here that your husband lets you type your own thoughts for the rest to see, or is he typing on your behalf? ...the thoughts of a 'good wife?' |
| I'm sure you were trying to get us angry but it really had no effect. Its an untrue statement so I'm not going to try any harder than that to defend myself or my husband. |
Sorry, Ashley, when you make blanket statements like this you have taken this discussion beyond the military. I quote:
Point proven...women are too emotional and get riled up too easily to be in a position of power.
Let's see. Here's a list of women currently in positions of power.
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor
Sheila C. Bair, Chairman of the FDIC
Indra K. Nooyi, Chairman, chief executive, PepsiCo U.S.
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Chairman, chief executive, Kraft Foods
Hilary Clinton, Current Secretary of State
Ursula Burns, CEO Xerox
Here's a list of historically powerful women.
Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State
Margaret Thatcher-Prime Minister of United Kingdom
Golda Meir-Prime Minister of Israel
Hatshepsut-considered by historians to be one of ancient Egypt's most successful rulers
Maria Theresa of Austria-as empress of Hapsburg in the 1740s she repelled invading armies and abolished witch-burning and torture, ended capital punishment, and made education mandatory.
Queen Elizabeth I of England-no explanation needed.
Queen Victoria of England-no explanation needed.
Empress Dowager Cixi of China reigned 1861-1908. Influenced China's insular political policies against westernization and quelled the Taiping Rebellion.
Catherine the Great - Empress of Russia
There are several others, too numerous to list, that have had a direct and major impact on the world.
You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to mine. I, for one, am tired of being governed by old, white men. (I apologize for any offense taken by old, white men reading this.) Perhaps I've lived in Utah too long where old, white men are de rigueur. Things are changing and I like it. But you don't have to. |
Ashley......You stated that women are too incompetent to serve in the military, and that they don't have the mindset to do so. You followed that by saying that women are too emotional, and get to riled up to be in a position of power. You get called out for these insane statements, and then have the balls to say that you are being bashed?
In my opinion, after reading and posting on this website for several years, yours are the dumbest comments to date. And that includes many dumb comments posted by myself. It was suggested to me many years ago to never argue with an idiot. Bye |
Bob,
How did I make your point? Those in the military are not openly gay. They are not openly gay, which is where I think the problems would come. |
Jeremy:
It's not about being openly gay. It's about being able to serve when you are capable whether you are straight or gay. People aren't asking for rainbow parades and feather boas issued to every gay soldier. Gays in the military want to serve without the risk of being kicked out anytime some asshole finds out they are gay and then decides turning them in is a good way to make brownie points. Is that what you'd do, Jeremy? |
| I have decided that Ashley is projecting what she believes about herself onto all women. It is wrong. |
Bob,
Thats my point. They can serve now and they are, just not openly. The amount of people being kicked out for being gay, I would bet is extremely low. I have no data to back it up, but in my career I've seen it twice and both were outed by themsevles. The military has a strict policy of not even persuing these matters. |
Jeremy,
More than 13,000 troops have been discharged from the military for being gay since 1993, when the law was enacted. This statistic does not include the last reporting year, which I understand was the lowest it has been, at a little less than 500 for the year. |
Denise,
Does your statistic say how they were outed or discovered? Like I said earlier, two that I have first hand knowledge of outed themselves and were discharged. |
Jeremy,
I have not seen the Pentagon report this statistic. However, there are plenty of anecdotal stories of soldiers being discharged under DADT that were not the situation you describe.
A statistic that I find interesting is that of the growing number of recalls of soldiers formerly discharged from the military under DADT. Very curious that they were not suitable to serve then, but the military has no problem recalling them to serve the military's purpose now. I don't believe you can have it both ways. They are either suitable to serve, or they aren't. |
Denise,
I'm not sure what your referencing in your second paragraph, but if a person was in fact discharged for being gay, that is different from a regular, ETS. The people who are discharged for reasons not of thier choice are not the ones recalled. The ones recalled are the ones who simply serve thier regular contract and end thier service. People complain about these recalls, but they are part of every contract that is signed. My first military contract was for five years with three years of inactive service. If I got out of the Army after 5 years I was subject to recall for three years after I got out. This was in the contract I signed in 1995, well before any war. |
Ashley,
You are so right I know nothing of the military. I foolishly thought soldiers worked together and got to know one another even going as far as talking about their lives with each other. Obviously this is wrong the military doesn't allow it, they just give you a gun, point you toward a target and yell shoot. Now that you have opened my eyes I realize that they probably have a no talking rule and program your dreams to stop you from thinking of home and talking about missing your loved ones. Also you can only be in the military if you are in a war zone with limited access to email and phone. No one can truly be consider a soldier if they are stationed else working as something as wimpy as teacher, nurse, plumber or lawyer. No all soldiers are carefully controlled. Well I have a lot of work to do today, what with calling friends and relatives in the military and getting their ass out to Iraq. Who do they think they are acting like they are soldiers and sailors when they are nursing, teaching and cooking. That is total BS! Also will get of hold of my friend Rich to find out if he got his purple heart because he wasn't following the no talking rule and comforted his buddy who got a dear john letter. Probably got shot doing that, if that is the case we should take away his VA benefits.
Thanks for all the help! |
No, Jeremy, that is not what I am speaking of. When I have time, I will try to find you the article I read some time ago about a soldier discharged under DADT, later recalled several years later for service.
An even more interesting side effect of DADT is that the Pentagon admits they are sending openly gay soldiers off to war, because of the belief that more and more heterosexuals are using this excuse as a way to avoid combat service. The Pentagon's stance in this regard is to go ahead and send the soldier to fight, and then sort through the claim after the return from combat service.
Doesn't this seem like a lot of extra hassle for the military? If gays were allowed to openly serve, they would all be shipped out equally, and the military would not have to deal with heteros claiming to be gay to avoid service.
And, BTW, it's the Pentagon's claim that this scenario is becoming more common, not mine.
Bottom line, the military is supposed to represent honor, truth, integrity, etc. The entire DADT policy is swathed in smarminess. I see nothing of honor, truth or integrity in this policy. For anyone.
[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (2/7/2010)] |
is this the article Denise??
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=45627 |
| That article, actually makes the opposite point. He was gay, discharged for it and then recalled. Also, note that he was found out when he came forward. |
| No, Howdy, it's not. Fairly similar story though. I will try to find it though (after the Super Bowl hubbub - Go Saints!!!) |
| Isn't that the point we are addressing Jeremy? The fact that you can be discharged under DADT, but then recalled at a later date? |
Denise,
I thought that your point was they were being discharged under DADT, but not recalled. In this article he was discharged and recalled, which would make him no different then his straight counter parts. The chain of command that discharged him, made this happen with good intentions. As the article stated, they discharged him honorably, which made him eligible for recall. No giant conspiracy here. |
My point was that you cannot apply DADT willy-nilly to suit your purposes. Article after article talks about the slowdown in discharges under DADT because troops are needed for combat service. Now, if you are good enough to serve your country in combat, you are good enough to serve period.
There should be none of this "We will ship you off to combat, even though you are openly gay, because we need soldiers, and then we'll sort out the mess when you return." This is saying they are good enough to die for our country, but not serve openly in times of peace.
Allowing everyone to openly serve would create so much less paperwork and hassle, from heteros claiming to be gay to gays being discharged under DADT. |
Denise,
How is that applying it willy nilly? I think your making this story more then it is. He came forward to his chain of command on his own, probably because he no longer wanted to live in the closet or not openly. His chain of command thought enough of him as a sailor that they didn't want to ruin his civilian life by giving him a bad discharge, therefore they discharged him honorably.
I think there are slow downs in discharges period, not just for DADT. At one point people were discharged more frequently for being over weight and now not so much because of the two war fronts. At one point people were being discharged for misconduct and not as much now because of shortages. Basically, all discharges are cut down as a result of optempo. |
Jeremy -
This is what Denise has been saying since the beginning: If discharges for gayness decrease when troops are needed (which appears, statistically, to be the case) then DADT is a flawed policy, because it's only applied for reasons of political convenience.
You keep wanting to argue the merits of this particular case, or that particular incident, which is irrelevant. |
I understand the NFL is also considering repealing their DADT rule... |
Gunnar: that is pretty funny.  |
 |
|
|
|
- WA