Don't Ask, Don't TELL

Fine then Immie. You tell us what will work to reduce cost and improve outcomes that will bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. You're argument is based on a false premise. Our elected officials answer to us, the people and if we want government to curb the accesses of the market to improve the quality and access to health care in this nation then by god WE THE PEOPLE have that right!

The simple truth is...WE THE PEOPLE have lost control of our government....THEY are making the rules as THEY see fit and in essence have said to we the people, fuck you.
 
Your reply shows the level of prejudice involved.

Can you imagine if straight members of the military were held to the same standards? Can you imagine if someone reporting that you had premarital sex was grounds for discharge?
I agree.....private sexual conduct is not the governments business....
Public conduct is....
DADT, if applied as it was meant .... was a reasonable way for the military to handle the conduct of its members....
The fact that is was not applied as it meant was the problem and throwing away the baby with bath water was not the way to solve it....

If you're looking for perfection in applying the law, you ain't gonna find it.

Are you trying to convince me that ALL disciplinary actions against homosexuals in the military was flawed or prejudiced...?
 
I agree.....private sexual conduct is not the governments business....
Public conduct is....
DADT, if applied as it was meant .... was a reasonable way for the military to handle the conduct of its members....
The fact that is was not applied as it meant was the problem and throwing away the baby with bath water was not the way to solve it....

If you're looking for perfection in applying the law, you ain't gonna find it.

Are you trying to convince me that ALL disciplinary actions against homosexuals in the military was flawed?

No, I am pointing out that there was discrimination based on sexual orientation. And there is ample evidence there was such discrimination.

Find me a bunch of examples of straight service personnel, with exemplary service records, who were discharged for having sex?
 
Immie,

It is the fact that they are no longer discriminated against, that they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be! If you go to Arlington, you can not tell which soldiers are hetro and which a homo, the tomb stones all look the same!

Good answer! :good4u:
 
I appreciate your belief that this is the reason, however, I don't see it as that. Is that really something they would be doing back flips over? They have been serving freely for decades even before DADT was passed. Now, when you say, "they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be!" that says to me, that they will be flaunting it openly in the military. What else can that possibly mean?

I believe your last sentences contain a false premise. You, bravo and others have used the word "flaunt" as if it's a given that gays who can now admit their sexuality will do it in a flamboyant, pushy manner. Why should this be the case? It only means that people living and working together can say they have a same-sex partner rather than an opposite-sex spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend. To say they'd be "flaunting" is just buying into an old, tired stereotype. I believe we all know friends, neighbors, acquaintances, colleagues and family members who may be homosexual and it hadn't made a bit of difference in the scheme of things. People shouldn't have to hide or be punished for something for which they had no choice. It's no different from discrimination based on color, race or gender.

Let me say this, I really don't care. I don't see a problem with homosexuals in the military as long as they are not involved in sexual activity while on duty.

I thought all sexual activity, not just homosexual, was forbidden on duty. People should be punished for breaking the rules because of their actions, not their preferences.

What bugs me is the attitude that I see taken here.

What bugs me is people defending discrimination and prejudice as if such an attitude is justified. Nothing but nothing legitimizes it, and I resent that my tax dollars help support a group that practices discrimination.

What bugs me is the knowledge that what happened with DADT the left expects to happen with HCR. I do not want Nancy Pelosi or her cohorts deciding what form of health care I can have now or in the future!

Apples and oranges.

One more question? What on earth was wrong with simply keeping their sexual preferences to themselves?

Because it forces people to be dishonest, it justifies haters, it's DISCRIMINATION, and discrimination is ILLEGAL.

Immie[/QUOTE]
 
Clinton's policy of DADT was working just as intended....Homosexuals were serving and no one was making waves about it.....
As long as no one 'flaunted' their sexual preferences, no one really cared what you did in you own bedroom.
Keep your private life private and mind your own business....that was the crux of DADT.....
It was like a football player making a TD and dancing like a jackass for the crowd...what did he get in return.... a penalty.....
That is the DADT of football....
Changing Clintons policy was not needed to allow homosexuals to serve....thousands were serving before this nonsense and only those that advertised their sexuality were penalized...and I seriously doubt that will policy will change.
So you guys can all get to your nearest recruiter and join up at your earliest convenience....I've already done my duty to give you the freedom to be the pinheads you are.

Were they allowed to be with someone they loved and cared for?
Were they allowed to be recognized as a couple, the same as a hetrosexual couple?

What does this hurt?
 
If evidence surfaced?
If you can't ask....and you don't tell.....then any evidence MUST have to do with a persons conduct in public....and that public conduct applies to everyone, hetro or homosexual....

You just can't reasonably accuse someone of something out of thin air.

The public conduct, huh.

So if a hetero couple is holding hands in public, it's okay if a homosexual couple holds hands in public also.
 
I appreciate your belief that this is the reason, however, I don't see it as that. Is that really something they would be doing back flips over? They have been serving freely for decades even before DADT was passed. Now, when you say, "they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be!" that says to me, that they will be flaunting it openly in the military. What else can that possibly mean?

Let me say this, I really don't care. I don't see a problem with homosexuals in the military as long as they are not involved in sexual activity while on duty. What bugs me is the attitude that I see taken here. What bugs me is the knowledge that what happened with DADT is exactly what the left expects to happen with HCR. I do not want Nancy Pelosi or her cohorts deciding what form of health care I can have now or in the future!

One more question? What on earth was wrong with simply keeping their sexual preferences to themselves?

Immie

Who in the hell said that they can now be involved in sexual activity while on duty.
No one is supposed to be involved while on duty; but the difference is, the hetrosexual will receive a reprimand or a review board and the homosexual will beceive a court martial and discharge.

Why aren't homosexuals expected to keep their sexual preferences to themselves?

You're a bigot and obviously adhere to the old racist principle of "Seperate but equal".
 
The simple truth is...WE THE PEOPLE have lost control of our government....THEY are making the rules as THEY see fit and in essence have said to we the people, fuck you.

The government was perfectly happy to take my taxes and share them with a group that discriminates.

So you're absolutely correct that they said "f*ck you" to taxpayers like me who are against such actions.
 
Unless, of course, those who are being discriminated against are conservative or worse yet, conservative Christians.

Immie

Sweeping generalization.

Some people would consider me to be a conservative Christian because I'm Catholic, but nothing could be further from the truth.
 
I agree.....private sexual conduct is not the governments business....
Public conduct is....
DADT, if applied as it was meant .... was a reasonable way for the military to handle the conduct of its members....
The fact that is was not applied as it meant was the problem and throwing away the baby with bath water was not the way to solve it....

If you're looking for perfection in applying the law, you ain't gonna find it.

Are you trying to convince me that ALL disciplinary actions against homosexuals in the military was flawed or prejudiced...?

Are you trying to imply that hetrosexuals weren't allowed to date, become involved with, and even get married; because not only is that public, but private?
Please explain how the homosexual had the same rights and/or opportunities.
 
Dixie, the good thing that comes out of this is that people do not have to hide their identity to advance their careers in the defense of this country. Its only "Bad" for this to happen if you don't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. But in your case its more simple, they scare you. Thus you'd rather not know about it.

Really? You think I am afraid of gay people? WOW! I never knew that! Help me to understand how I am afraid, I want to know about it. I have life-long friends who are gay, I have attended a gay wedding, I work closely with several gay people, I have numerous gay social friends... I've never noticed being nervous or anxious around them, how can I tell when I am fearing gay people?

Any time we defeat a blatant prejudice we all benefit.

Is that what you did? You defeated a prejudice? No one is prejudiced against gay people now that DADT has been repealed? Amazing!

Dixie, you could substitute race for sexual orientation in your rants and have the exact thing that was said when the US military was desegregated.

Well, except for the fact that race is not sexuality, so they are nothing even remotely similar to each other. You fuckwits continue to try and compare this to civil rights, and it's not a valid comparison. It's like claiming those who oppose illegal immigration are prejudiced against Hispanics.
 
Really? You think I am afraid of gay people? WOW! I never knew that! Help me to understand how I am afraid, I want to know about it. I have life-long friends who are gay, I have attended a gay wedding, I work closely with several gay people, I have numerous gay social friends... I've never noticed being nervous or anxious around them, how can I tell when I am fearing gay people?



Is that what you did? You defeated a prejudice? No one is prejudiced against gay people now that DADT has been repealed? Amazing!



Well, except for the fact that race is not sexuality, so they are nothing even remotely similar to each other. You fuckwits continue to try and compare this to civil rights, and it's not a valid comparison. It's like claiming those who oppose illegal immigration are prejudiced against Hispanics.

You made a lot of posts, expressing what you "think" will occur; but you have yet to provide any basis for those comments.
Why don't you answer those questions, that were posted to you?
 
I believe your last sentences contain a false premise. You, bravo and others have used the word "flaunt" as if it's a given that gays who can now admit their sexuality will do it in a flamboyant, pushy manner. Why should this be the case? It only means that people living and working together can say they have a same-sex partner rather than an opposite-sex spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend. To say they'd be "flaunting" is just buying into an old, tired stereotype. I believe we all know friends, neighbors, acquaintances, colleagues and family members who may be homosexual and it hadn't made a bit of difference in the scheme of things. People shouldn't have to hide or be punished for something for which they had no choice. It's no different from discrimination based on color, race or gender.



I thought all sexual activity, not just homosexual, was forbidden on duty. People should be punished for breaking the rules because of their actions, not their preferences.



What bugs me is people defending discrimination and prejudice as if such an attitude is justified. Nothing but nothing legitimizes it, and I resent that my tax dollars help support a group that practices discrimination.



Apples and oranges.



Because it forces people to be dishonest, it justifies haters, it's DISCRIMINATION, and discrimination is ILLEGAL.

In reference to the top part of this, if what you say is true, then why is the left singing the "Hallelujah Chorus" over this?

Your answers make no sense to me. Homosexuals had the right to be who they wanted to be before. Now they seem to have the right to go further than that. Winterborn provided a decent example, but as bravo indicated, it seems that the persecution of David Hall was beyond the scope of DADT and was wrong.

You may be right, I may be buying into an old stereotype, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out why if the left simply believe that homosexuals now have the same rights they had on November 30th why the left is acting like conservatism has just been dealt a death blow.

DADT forced no one to be dishonest. It forced no one to claim they were straight if they were gay. It simply said, "keep it to yourself".

Why do you think that keeping it to yourself a bad idea?

You know, I am actually surprised that the left is not stating that they are thrilled to death about this because it means that soon homosexuals in the service will be able to provide benefits to their significant others... something that should be granted anyway. (Boy is that going to get me in trouble with conservatives!) But, that does not seem to be what is important to them at all. The important thing they seem to be focusing on is how great it is that now homosexuals can let everyone else know that they are homosexuals... isn't that "flaunting it"?

Immie
 
In reference to the top part of this, if what you say is true, then why is the left singing the "Hallelujah Chorus" over this?

Your answers make no sense to me. Homosexuals had the right to be who they wanted to be before. Now they seem to have the right to go further than that. Winterborn provided a decent example, but as bravo indicated, it seems that the persecution of David Hall was beyond the scope of DADT and was wrong.

You may be right, I may be buying into an old stereotype, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out why if the left simply believe that homosexuals now have the same rights they had on November 30th why the left is acting like conservatism has just been dealt a death blow.

DADT forced no one to be dishonest. It forced no one to claim they were straight if they were gay. It simply said, "keep it to yourself".

Why do you think that keeping it to yourself a bad idea?

You know, I am actually surprised that the left is not stating that they are thrilled to death about this because it means that soon homosexuals in the service will be able to provide benefits to their significant others... something that should be granted anyway. (Boy is that going to get me in trouble with conservatives!) But, that does not seem to be what is important to them at all. The important thing they seem to be focusing on is how great it is that now homosexuals can let everyone else know that they are homosexuals... isn't that "flaunting it"?

Immie

"Homosexuals had the right to be who they wanted to be before."

So if they were seen in public holding the hand, of someone of the same sex, they weren't in any danger of any reprecussions?

"DADT forced no one to be dishonest. It forced no one to claim they were straight if they were gay. It simply said, "keep it to yourself"."

Obviously you've never been in the service; because otherwise you would now some of the "pressures" that service members place on each other.

"The important thing they seem to be focusing on is how great it is that now homosexuals can let everyone else know that they are homosexuals... isn't that "flaunting it"?"

Why aren't you campaigning for hetrosexual service members, to not "flaunt" their sexuality?

In closing, it is now apparent that you're an idiot.
 
"Homosexuals had the right to be who they wanted to be before."

So if they were seen in public holding the hand, of someone of the same sex, they weren't in any danger of any reprecussions?

"DADT forced no one to be dishonest. It forced no one to claim they were straight if they were gay. It simply said, "keep it to yourself"."

Obviously you've never been in the service; because otherwise you would now some of the "pressures" that service members place on each other.

"The important thing they seem to be focusing on is how great it is that now homosexuals can let everyone else know that they are homosexuals... isn't that "flaunting it"?"

Why aren't you campaigning for hetrosexual service members, to not "flaunt" their sexuality?

In closing, it is now apparent that you're an idiot.

In opening, you must be blind, because I am not an idiot. Nor will I throw away my arguments by stooping to your petty name calling. Oh and one more thing, if you are going to call someone an idiot online it would make sense to check your spelling.

Obviously you've never been in the service; because otherwise you would now some of the "pressures" that service members place on each other.

I was in the Coast Guard Reserves. Have you served? I felt no such pressure from the people I served with.

So if they were seen in public holding the hand, of someone of the same sex, they weren't in any danger of any reprecussions?

And that would not be "flaunting it"? Why is it that you believe it is appropriate to flaunt it?

Also, if two unmarried military personnel of different sex are seen in sexual contact they too can be in danger of repercussions (which is as it should be), especially if they are of differing ranks.

Why aren't you campaigning for hetrosexual service members, to not "flaunt" their sexuality?

Show me one case where a heterosexual was flaunting it. I am certain it happens that husband and wife probably hold hands in public. They should not be feeling each other up nor even french kissing in public. That simply is not appropriate in any situation regardless of sexual orientation. You show me an instance where this is happening and I will be right there beside you.

Nor would I have an issue if a homosexual couple was holding hands in public. Is that even necessary? I mean really, grown ups holding hands... ain't that cute? Really, holding hands is what teenagers do, please get serious. We are not talking about holding hands here.

Immie
 
USF has a point Dix...why do you keep avoiding him?

How about some SPECIFICS??

As USF has already asked...and it wasn't that tough a question...how about you SUPPORT your supposition and innuendo with some actual facts that support your reasoning?

You made a lot of posts, expressing what you "think" will occur; but you have yet to provide any basis for those comments.
Why don't you answer those questions, that were posted to you?

The question isn't that difficult and since Dix has all these concerns he "thinks" will occur, one would think he could answer a fairly straight-forward question...yet he's ducked it yet again...

WHY Dix...WHY won't you answer the question put to you?

You certainly expect others to answer you when you have questions...
 
Back
Top