Don't Ask, Don't TELL

Catering to that ignorance, or allowing that ignorance to set policy is giving it power. You want to give it the power to make policy. I do not.
Click to expand...

I supported the DEMOCRAT president Clinton's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because I thought it was a sensible way to handle this situation. It shouldn't matter what a person's sexuality is, when it comes to soldiering. They shouldn't have to tell, we shouldn't have to ask, no one should have to know, it doesn't make a difference, it's not anyone's business, and it doesn't have anything to do with why they are there.

So why do we need to alter policy to CATER to the homosexual community, Gay Rights advocates, and the liberal left?
 
Dixie said:
I supported the DEMOCRAT president Clinton's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because I thought it was a sensible way to handle this situation. It shouldn't matter what a person's sexuality is, when it comes to soldiering. They shouldn't have to tell, we shouldn't have to ask, no one should have to know, it doesn't make a difference, it's not anyone's business, and it doesn't have anything to do with why they are there.

So why do we need to alter policy to CATER to the homosexual community, Gay Rights advocates, and the liberal left?
Click to expand...

Then why aren't you pushing for hetrosexual soldiers to hide their preferences? :palm:
 
Dixie said:
Think what you will, I disagree. Openly gay soldiers are not likely to help bigots overcome their bigotry, and I doubt you can give me one singe solitary example of that ever happening in reality. Now, in a liberal pinhead fantasy bubble-world, it might be that way, I don't know? In the REAL world, you can't "force" people to not be prejudiced.
Click to expand...

No you cannot force people not to be prejudiced. Butthere is a reason why people call prejudice "ignorant". In order for it to continue, people have to accept stereotypes and ignore reality.

By getting to know those people (whom they have avoided prior) they will see the stereotypes are bullshit.

For example, the ignorant redneck who thinks all gay men are swishing flamers who will try and make passes at them and ogle them, will meet the plenty manly gay man in his unti who has no interest in the redneck. Viola, progress in the works.

In WWII and Korea, many white soldiers came back with new views and even respect for blacks. Again, its an easily researched fact.
 
Okay, but it has to apply to hetros, also! And if anyone finds out they are hetro, the rules apply to them, also! Fair is fair! Rules should apply to all members of the military! We shouldn't have to alter policy for anyone!
 
WinterBorn said:
No, you would not openly condone it. But you are willing to allow ignorance and prejudice to make policy for our military. That is just as bad. By refusing to help remove this official prejudice, you are helping to continue the bigotry and ignorance.
Click to expand...

I surmise bigotry and ignorance will persist, regardless of policy. Do you have any evidence the new policy will end bigotry or ignorance?

I have not said it was about race. Either you are an idiot or you are purposely ignoring what I am actually saying. I am not comparing racism with sexuality. I am comparing the reactions of those who opposed desegregating the military and those who oppose repealing DADT. And that is a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

You constantly pose the argument juxtaposed with civil rights, and racial discrimination. It's absolutely NOT a valid comparison in any aspect, and you've not demonstrated where anyone opposed segregating the military on this basis. You can "infer" that is the case, and you can believe it if you wish, but you've not proven it to be the case, and you simply can't.

I'm sorry you are unaware that there were warnings that black soldiers would be killed. It does not take much research to find examples of it.
Click to expand...

Present them.
 
WinterBorn said:
No you cannot force people not to be prejudiced. Butthere is a reason why people call prejudice "ignorant". In order for it to continue, people have to accept stereotypes and ignore reality.

By getting to know those people (whom they have avoided prior) they will see the stereotypes are bullshit.

For example, the ignorant redneck who thinks all gay men are swishing flamers who will try and make passes at them and ogle them, will meet the plenty manly gay man in his unti who has no interest in the redneck. Viola, progress in the works.

In WWII and Korea, many white soldiers came back with new views and even respect for blacks. Again, its an easily researched fact.
Click to expand...

There you go, comparing this to RACE again! Your example of how this will "change the hearts and minds" is weak and doesn't comport with reality. People who are bigoted and prejudiced toward gay people, are still going to be bigoted and prejudiced toward gay people, forcing them to accept a new policy, is not going to change those attitudes, in fact, it will probably make things worse.
 
WinterBorn said:
No you cannot force people not to be prejudiced. Butthere is a reason why people call prejudice "ignorant". In order for it to continue, people have to accept stereotypes and ignore reality.

By getting to know those people (whom they have avoided prior) they will see the stereotypes are bullshit.

For example, the ignorant redneck who thinks all gay men are swishing flamers who will try and make passes at them and ogle them, will meet the plenty manly gay man in his unti who has no interest in the redneck. Viola, progress in the works.

In WWII and Korea, many white soldiers came back with new views and even respect for blacks. Again, its an easily researched fact.
Click to expand...

Back in the mid-70's, I was working for an electronic company and there were a lot of Vietnam Vets that worked there.
At one of the after work drinking gatherings, in the parking lot, one who was had served as a Marine told the following story.

While stationed in California, him and a couple of buddies would troll the bars and try to hit on anyone that they thought was gay.
They would entice the person to leave with them and then roll them for whatever cash they had.
WEEEEEEEEEELL; the last time they tried this, they talked this guy into going into an alley.
When the "victim" figured out what was about to occur, he took off his shirt and said that the only thing he liked better then sucking dick, was kicking ass and he then preoceeded to pound the living shit out of all three of them.

After they recuperated, they all said they were just happy that the guy hadn't decided to fuck them also.

I'm not sure we ever let him forget that story. :)
 
It is the same way with race, you pinhead! People are still going to be racists, changing the policy to allow them in the armed forces did not change people who are ignorant, but it made it right that blacks should be able to serve in the same way as whites, since the only difference between them is skin color! It does not determine character!
 
Dixie said:
I supported the DEMOCRAT president Clinton's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because I thought it was a sensible way to handle this situation. It shouldn't matter what a person's sexuality is, when it comes to soldiering. They shouldn't have to tell, we shouldn't have to ask, no one should have to know, it doesn't make a difference, it's not anyone's business, and it doesn't have anything to do with why they are there.

So why do we need to alter policy to CATER to the homosexual community, Gay Rights advocates, and the liberal left?
Click to expand...

It is not a sensible way to deal with it. It was a chickenshit attempt to make the protestors be quiet.

Gays could still be discharged for being who they are. They still had to hide it. The military just stopped asking the questions at induction.


You are right that it shouldn't matter. But as long as the straight soldiers can come back from liberty and brag about the women they had, and the gay soldier has to hide that he has a long-term relationship, there is something wrong. And it is up to the rational, realistic, and intelligent people of this nation to right that wrong. This was the first step.
 
Dixie said:
There you go, comparing this to RACE again! Your example of how this will "change the hearts and minds" is weak and doesn't comport with reality. People who are bigoted and prejudiced toward gay people, are still going to be bigoted and prejudiced toward gay people, forcing them to accept a new policy, is not going to change those attitudes, in fact, it will probably make things worse.
Click to expand...

There you go being willfully ignorant again. I am not comparing it to race. I am comparing the reactions to gays with the reactions to blacks. And it is a valid comparison.

Racists use the same logic as gay-bashers do. It is based on ignorance and stereotypes.
 
Dixie said:
I surmise bigotry and ignorance will persist, regardless of policy. Do you have any evidence the new policy will end bigotry or ignorance?
Click to expand...

I doubt there will ever be a complete end to bigotry. But this is a start in lessening it.

Do you really think DADT was the final answer in the prejudice against gays in the military?

Dixie said:
You constantly pose the argument juxtaposed with civil rights, and racial discrimination. It's absolutely NOT a valid comparison in any aspect, and you've not demonstrated where anyone opposed segregating the military on this basis. You can "infer" that is the case, and you can believe it if you wish, but you've not proven it to be the case, and you simply can't.
Click to expand...

You continue to try and make my words say something other than what they say.

I have not compared sexual orientation with race. But I have indeed compared the reactions of racists with the reactions of gay-bashers. And they are the same. They base their arguments on ignorance and stereotypes, without bother to spend any effort to see if they are true.
 
From:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/pentagon-study-resistance_n_790473.html

"In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so ... By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80-90% ... Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion ..."



From: http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/html/exhibits.php?id=34

"Reaction to Executive Order 9981 was swift, widespread, and deeply felt. Opponents believed it would undermine military preparedness and result in racial conflict within the armed forces. Others felt the Federal Government should not be involved in matters concerning race relations."




From: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/304.aspx

"It [racism] was a major institution, it was a major sociological force, and by1954 we could look back and say that the integration of the armed services, while not complete and not perfect, went better than most detractors and most critics thought it would," Early said.

"By the end of the war, the military was the most integrated and racially advanced institution in the United States," Early said. "If for no other reason, this fact alone makes the Korean War one of the most important conflicts this country ever engaged in."
 
BTW, heteros aren't supposed to flaunt their sexuality in the military, as it is considered unprofessional and harms the workforce, just as it has been found to do in every other workforce.
 
WinterBorn said:
An armed force staffed by ThreeDee?
Click to expand...

I'm asexual? :shock:

images
 
Rana said:
It is the same way with race, you pinhead! People are still going to be racists, changing the policy to allow them in the armed forces did not change people who are ignorant, but it made it right that blacks should be able to serve in the same way as whites, since the only difference between them is skin color! It does not determine character!
Click to expand...

Black people have been in the armed forces since we first had an armed force! They certainly weren't ever prohibited from serving because they were black.

Why do you pinheads continue to try and compare homosexual behavior to race? One is a sexual behavior, the other is RACE... do you just not comprehend how those two things are completely and totally different?
 
WinterBorn said:
It is not a sensible way to deal with it. It was a chickenshit attempt to make the protestors be quiet.

Gays could still be discharged for being who they are. They still had to hide it. The military just stopped asking the questions at induction.

You are right that it shouldn't matter. But as long as the straight soldiers can come back from liberty and brag about the women they had, and the gay soldier has to hide that he has a long-term relationship, there is something wrong. And it is up to the rational, realistic, and intelligent people of this nation to right that wrong. This was the first step.
Click to expand...

But this policy doesn't change what straight soldiers will brag about, or the stigma a gay soldier is going to receive if he 'brags' about his sexual lifestyle. You act as though this legislation changes human behavior, and it doesn't. It's a totally ignorant and boneheaded way of looking at things, to believe a bill is going to somehow change the way people are. You didn't "right" anything, you didn't make a "first step" toward anything, other than destroying the integrity of the world's most superior fighting force.

And before all you gay butts get all excited and join the Navy or something, you might want to realize the military still has a pretty strict code of conduct, and I don't think they tolerate homosexual PDA while in uniform. I'm not sure about how this will effect that, or what will shake out from it... but, I doubt seriously this new policy will just quietly be implemented without ever encountering a problem. I think you will see a multitude of problems, probably some you haven't even thought of yet, in your tiny little non-thinking pinhead brain. But we shall see!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top