Should we repeal "Don't ask, don't tell?"

Should we repeal this atrocity?

  • Total voters
    23
Southern Man said:
That's pure bullshit Damo. Article 125 applies uniformly to all members of the military. Because some group tries to equate it with racism is meaningless. Causation does not equal correlation.
Click to expand...
This is truly inane, correlation in reasoning does mean correlation to issue. When the arguments are inseparable, then reason for the arguments are the same. It doesn't matter why, you can tell that it is a "civil right' because the argument against it is the same as the argument against a previous group going through the same process.

I've never understood why people even try this crap, it's a waste of political energy. The absolute best you can hope for is to just keep them away for just a 'bit longer'...
 
Southern Man said:
Article 134 deals with adultery- "clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member."

Try again.
Click to expand...
It actually deals with a multitude of things. Adultery being one of them. It's generally considered a catch-all in military proceedings. Any time someone is charged, 134 is thrown in as well (at least in the Corps anyways).
 
Yog-Sothoth said:
It actually deals with a multitude of things. Adultery being one of them. It's generally considered a catch-all in military proceedings. Any time someone is charged, 134 is thrown in as well (at least in the Corps anyways).
Click to expand...
If I were caught cheating on my wife while I was in the military I would have been given an "Other than Honorable" discharge, lost my clearances, and left high and dry.
 
Damocles said:
If I were caught cheating on my wife while I was in the military I would have been given an "Other than Honorable" discharge, lost my clearances, and left high and dry.
Click to expand...
Same here. Of course if that's all that would have happened to me if I cheated, I'd be lucky. Puerto Ricans are notoriously jealous. And vengeful.
 
Socrtease said:
Nice way to deflect why you didn't serve your country. Make this all about my oral predilections during sex. Actually I was tonguing ass long before I was penetrating it and it was not due to a porn movie, I noticed LOTS of women like their ass licked.

So which time did you lie, when you said there was no war, or because your brother "influenced" you?
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Lots of issues weigh in on decisions.
Click to expand...
You have a reading comprehension problem along with your pica disorder.
 
Damocles said:
This is truly inane, correlation in reasoning does mean correlation to issue. When the arguments are inseparable, then reason for the arguments are the same. It doesn't matter why, you can tell that it is a "civil right' because the argument against it is the same as the argument against a previous group going through the same process.

I've never understood why people even try this crap, it's a waste of political energy. The absolute best you can hope for is to just keep them away for just a 'bit longer'...
Click to expand...

The arguments aren't inseparable because on issue is of race and the other is of behavior.
 
Southern Man said:
The arguments aren't inseparable because on issue is of race and the other is of behavior.
Click to expand...

Not true.

"A service member may be investigated and administratively discharged if he or she:

1. states that he or she is lesbian, gay or bisexual;

2. engages in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or

3. marries, or attempts to marry, someone of the same sex.



from: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html#works




Being gay is not simply about sex. You have ignored this time and again, but it does not change the facts.
 
Southern Man said:
Gay is the behavior.
Click to expand...

Is being straight a behavior? Is the fact that you are attracted to women a behavior? Is the love you feel for your wife a behavior?

Whether they act on their desires or not does not change the fact that someone is gay.
 
Southern Man said:
Yes, yes, and yes.
Click to expand...

None of that matters to a military operation. Yes, it is behavior in the strictest sense of the word.

But it matters not. The corrolations between DADT and segregation are plentiful and accurate.
 
Being attracted to someone is not a behavior. You can't just will yourself to be attracted to someone you are not. These preferences are far more deeply ingrained than one's choice of religion.

The DADT does not only bar homosexual acts. It would not be okay if it did, but the policy attempts to penalize for any disclosure of a personal preference for those of the same sex.
 
Southern Man said:
The arguments aren't inseparable because on issue is of race and the other is of behavior.
Click to expand...
Whatever the reason you have to label somebody, whether it be because of skin color or because of religion, etc. The central theme is to keep a specific group of people from fully participating in the benefits and responsibilities that you supposedly "hold dear". The arguments are the same because the action is the same, specifically that action of the group trying to limit their participation and those groups trying to "gain" it.

These things are identical, regardless of the reason for the deliberate separation.
 
Damocles said:
Whatever the reason you have to label somebody, whether it be because of skin color or because of religion, etc. The central theme is to keep a specific group of people from fully participating in the benefits and responsibilities that you supposedly "hold dear". The arguments are the same because the action is the same, specifically that action of the group trying to limit their participation and those groups trying to "gain" it.

These things are identical, regardless of the reason for the deliberate separation.
Click to expand...

Sodomy is undesirable behavior according to the UCMJ. If SocTeaser had confessed to his sexual practices he would have been expelled too.
 
Damocles said:
These things are identical, regardless of the reason for the deliberate separation.
Click to expand...

Actually to the point he was making you are wrong. Laws are designed to regulate behavior. The law seprates out behavior and a persons race, religion or status has nothing to do with it.
 
Damocles said:
Whatever the reason you have to label somebody, whether it be because of skin color or because of religion, etc. The central theme is to keep a specific group of people from fully participating in the benefits and responsibilities that you supposedly "hold dear". The arguments are the same because the action is the same, specifically that action of the group trying to limit their participation and those groups trying to "gain" it.

These things are identical, regardless of the reason for the deliberate separation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The haters never really change tune. They just add a new verse for the next target.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Actually to the point he was making you are wrong. Laws are designed to regulate behavior. The law seprates out behavior and a persons race, religion or status has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

A just law can only attempt to regulate behavior. The DADT has little to do with behavior and certainly is not limited to just a regulation of behavior.
 
Southern Man said:
Sodomy is undesirable behavior according to the UCMJ. If SocTeaser had confessed to his sexual practices he would have been expelled too.
Click to expand...
The majority of single soldiers in the US Army brag weekly about getting blow jobs. NO ONE IS EVER removed for that. EVER.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top