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

Should we repeal this atrocity?

  • Total voters
    23
Yog-Sothoth said:
Not, not really. Otherwise my SgtMaj wouldn't have given us a speech about how much blowjobs rock.
Click to expand...
My section Sgt in Germany used to brag about all the public places he used to get blow jobs. When it was just male soldiers around, including our Company CO and first sgt.
 
The very fact that there are still Americans crying about gays serving in the military and that we're still fumbling over this issue defines us as a nation of morons.
 
Southern Man said:
They'd sing a different tune if put in front of a judge.
Click to expand...
There are no court's martial for consentual heterosexual sex in the military. Even adultry is treated with kid gloves. I know, several of my fellow soldiers slept with other soldiers wives while they were on deployment, were discovered and were merely subject to Summary Article 15's. Not ONE of them lost rank, and only one, out of 7 lost more than 2 weeks pay.
 
RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

WTFE hair splitter...All I said was that laws are specifically written to regulate behaviors...you added nothing there.

As to DADT; it IS about regulating behavior no matter how the fuck many hairs you want to split.

As to the law itself...I think the commanders in the field are the best judges on whether it serves a purpose or not. I have heard soldiers both pro and con on the issue.
 
PMP doesn't know who i am said:
zappas never begged me for points. I gave them to him with zero prompting after another member who doesn't like zappas very much asked me for max rep. i did it to balance things out.
Click to expand...


You do realize this probably means an end to their incessant whining about how "Zappa begged Grind for max rep".

Actually, I'd be willing to bet not a one of them will believe you and will just continue to piss and moan the same ridiculous lie even though they now know it is false.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You do realize this probably means an end to their incessant whining about how "Zappa begged Grind for max rep".

Actually, I'd be willing to bet not a one of them will believe you and will just continue to piss and moan the same ridiculous lie even though they now know it is false.
Click to expand...

I never said you begged for them fuck wad...I have always maintained that it was just Grind playing games...What I did say is that you whined about rep...whining and begging are two different animals porker boy.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I never said you begged for them fuck wad...I have always maintained that it was just Grind playing games...What I did say is that you whined about rep...whining and begging are two different animals porker boy.
Click to expand...

You and the other gash along with FreeDumb have long held the position that I begged Grind for rep and trying to pretend you never said so at this point is just sad.

But by all means continue to show everyone else just how phony you three really are...and feel free to keep stopping by and neg repping me, like the snaggletoothed bitches you and disloyal are.
 
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...
The easiest form of discrimination is to regulate things that a certain group does that is not usually done by the 'Select'...

Let's say I wanted to discriminate against Muslims and Jews. I'd outlaw the Kosher diet then say, "But eating is an action!" and "Religion is a Choice!"

Laws that regulate a behavior in order to single out a specific group for exclusion are like the latter example.

We all know that Sailors can hit a port and pay a hooker to sodomize them, so long as the hooker isn't of the same sex, the Navy will turn a blind eye in almost every case (not for married men with clearances), but if one were caught with somebody of the same sex doing exactly the same thing (since oral sex counts as sodomy) whether they paid for it or not they'd be thrown out.

Since the law does not provide equal protections, and is specifically designed and applied in such a discriminating fashion, it is most definitely and deliberately discriminating against a group of individuals that are for some reason declared "pariah"...

Now, where many disagree is whether or not this discrimination is the right thing to do. Some would say such discrimination is right, but to pretend that such things are not deliberately and directly discriminatory is preposterous.

The activity is the same, even though it isn't as easy to discern as skin color. You seek to deny access to the benefits of participation that those without this "pariah" status are allowed to access; and the military does it by applying this law in a discriminatory fashion.
 
17 pages of comment boiling down to people who never have, and never will serve in the armed forces telling other people who have served what's best for the military.

Interesting.
 
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...
Not true at all.

The military does not apply this in equal measure at all. Two different male sailors go and pay a hooker to do the same thing at the same time, one with a female, the other with a male. Only one of them would be thrown out for section 125.
 
Southern Man said:
They'd sing a different tune if put in front of a judge.
Click to expand...

What? No one is going to put them in front of a judge for getting a blowjob.

And I am willing to bet that plenty of them (if not most) would sing the same tune in front of a judge. They might be singing with fewer details, but it would be thee same tune.
 
charver said:
17 pages of comment boiling down to people who never have, and never will serve in the armed forces telling other people who have served what's best for the military.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

Well said, Charver!
 
Socrtease said:
There are no court's martial for consentual heterosexual sex in the military. Even adultry is treated with kid gloves. I know, several of my fellow soldiers slept with other soldiers wives while they were on deployment, were discovered and were merely subject to Summary Article 15's. Not ONE of them lost rank, and only one, out of 7 lost more than 2 weeks pay.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you associate with guys that screw each others wives like that. They sound like the type that should be removed.
 
Damocles said:
Not true at all.

The military does not apply this in equal measure at all. Two different male sailors go and pay a hooker to do the same thing at the same time, one with a female, the other with a male. Only one of them would be thrown out for section 125.
Click to expand...
Then the rules should be applied equally, not tossed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top