Don't Ask, Don't TELL

Dixie said:
Wow, all of that research and you still didn't come up with one single example of this ever happening! Oh, I see where this General and that General CLAIM it is a 'security risk' ...but I don't see the examples! I also note that in one instance, the military views homosexuals as a security risk because they tend to be emotionally unstable... did repealing DADT change their emotional stability?
Click to expand...

If you aren't going to read the links, don't pretend you did.

Yes, one of the link mentioned emotional instability as one reason. But, yet again, you are cherry picking quotes.
 
Dixie said:
I do believe there are bigots and haters who would do just that, and not think twice about it, Immie. I'm sorry, I don't believe in a world where everyone has the same morality standards as I do, or would react the same way I would. I don't think MOST would do this, and I didn't say MOST would, but there are some. I don't think it has anything to do with "professionalism" it has everything to do with bigotry and how that works. Yep, it's deplorable to think this could happen, but I bet, if gays are open about their homosexuality to their fellow comrades, this will indeed happen, it's inevitable.
Click to expand...
And there were back in the day when the Tuskegee Airmen were just starting to take up flying. The only way to change it is to change it.
 
Damocles said:
And there were back in the day when the Tuskegee Airmen were just starting to take up flying. The only way to change it is to change it.
Click to expand...

Watch out, Damo. Don't confuse race with sexual orientation. lol
 
"When President Obama signed the bill repealing the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it did not immediately end the military's 17-year ban on gays serving openly.

In fact, it will take a series of actions to make that happen, and no one at the Pentagon seems to know when the actual end date might be.

"I don't think anybody has any idea how long this will take," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters Monday.

Even gays currently serving, albeit quietly, had muted reactions to the Senate's vote to end the ban. Three such service members, speaking to CNN on the condition we wouldn't use their real names, all used the word "relief" when asked about the repeal.

Before the ban is completely lifted, the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have to certify that the repeal can move ahead without negatively affecting unit cohesion and military readiness.

And before that can happen, the Department of Defense will have to go through countless regulations and rules to see if they need to be changed to reflect the end of the ban. Clifford Stanley, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, will oversee that part of the process, with input from the individual services. He and his staff will be "reviewing and revising policies, directives, establishing the education and training materials, developing communication plans on how we are going to communicate with the force."

That's where the mystery begins as far as the timing.

"I can't put any kind of a timeline on it," Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said. ""We plan to move out carefully, deliberately and purposefully to implement it, but right now we are in the planning stages and I don't have any specifics for you."

The closest Lapan would come to predicting how long the ban might remain in effect was when he said the process "would not be slow-rolled."

So far, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is famous for setting hard deadlines and demanding that his subordinates meet them, has set no deadline for completion of this process.

Part of the problem is that so little has been done so far.

The Pentagon released an 87-page "Support Plan for Implementation" of the DADT repeal. It spells out how the Pentagon should handle a myriad of issues raised by the repeal, including:

• "prohibit the creation of separate bathroom and shower facilities based on sexual orientation";

• "prohibit berthing or billeting (housing) assignments based on sexual orientation";

• "no new procedures will be developed for the early separation of Service members based on opposition to repeal or to serving and living with gay and lesbian Service members."

But the plan is all recommendations -- nothing is set in stone. Even if each recommendation is accepted, there are few details in the plan and they'd all need to be worked out.



Steny Hoyer lauds DADT repeal
RELATED TOPICS
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Barack Obama
Gays in the Military
Even after Stanley finishes his portion of the process and the president, secretary and chairman certify it, the repeal still doesn't become law.

Another 60 days must pass before the repeal is official. Only then can a homosexual serve openly without fear of being discharged.

One gay active-duty service member said getting it all done quickly is important.

"The longer we drag this out, the more confused we get, and the more lack of clarity we have and the messier the situation happens," said "JD Smith" a military officer who is also a leader of OutServe, an advocacy group for gay troops.

The gay service members that CNN spoke to said when that day comes, don't expect anything dramatic.

"It's like Y2K. Everyone is making such a big deal out of it, but the next day ... everyone's going to be like, oh, this wasn't a big deal at all," "Smith" said.

"John" is a naval officer. "I don't have any big plans to come out now, and I think I probably speak for a lot of other service members in my same position. There's not going to be a huge rush to make big announcements just because the Senate has passed this law," he said.

"William" is an Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany. "I will be reserved about the subject, because I don't think the military needs to be in my personal life."

While the three men said the repeal of DADT won't have much short-term impact on their lives, they all agreed that in the long run, they'll likely stay in the military longer.

"Had this law not passed, I was seriously considering being done with the military. It's very hard to live under this policy," "Smith" said.

"I was not going to re-enlist unless this policy was taken away; now I have an open path. I love the military. I will definitely re-enlist."

Earlier this year, a Washington think tank invited military officers from countries that have long allowed gays to serve openly. Several of those officers said their countries adopted their rules almost overnight with no adverse effects. They recommended that the U.S. do the same.

But that won't be the case. It will be months, at least, before gays can serve openly in the U.S. military.

By then it's possible Gates will no longer be leading the Pentagon. He's already said he plans to retire next year, and Morrell said he doesn't know if Gates plans to stay until the process is complete."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/22/sweep.dont.ask.dont.tell/
 
Damocles said:
And there were back in the day when the Tuskegee Airmen were just starting to take up flying. The only way to change it is to change it.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note, they didn't become known as the Tuskegee Airmen until long after the war. Prior to that, they were just called black pilots. Racial discrimination against blacks, and our history of slavery, etc. makes the examples of race invalid compared to prejudice against homosexuals. Sorry, but the two examples are just not related, and the more people attempt to draw a parallel, the more pointless it becomes. If you just stubbornly want to believe it's the same thing, motivated by the same kind of bigotry, and perpetrated with the same motivations for the same reasons, that's up to you, but it's not the same thing, and never will be.
 
This will have no affect on the majority of the military. It will be neither beneficial nor harmful to the majority of the military. It in no way will HELP the military one way or the other.

But for a few units, units that actually depend on discipline, cohesion, and trust, this issue will create problems. Forced problems for no other reason than what Socrates so eloquently described, so that 2 soldiers of the same sexual orientation can date each other, fondle each other, and have sex with each other without fear of repercussion.

Such an important priority FOR US ALL!!

I know that during my tour we had very attractive female Marines that went on patrols with us, slept naked with us out in the field during offensive operations and performed sexual favors for all of us to keep us in a good mood... helped ferry ammunition to us during firefights, cooked our meals, carried out our wounded, sometimes they would sun tan topless and invite us to hold "who has the best tits" contests.

Just imagine the parties we'll have in combat now that the homosexuals problem of coming out of the closet has been solved!!!

Im so relieved.

SR
 
SR_ said:
I know that during my tour we had very attractive female Marines that went on patrols with us, slept naked with us out in the field during offensive operations and performed sexual favors for all of us to keep us in a good mood... helped ferry ammunition to us during firefights, cooked our meals, carried out our wounded, sometimes they would sun tan topless and invite us to hold "who has the best tits" contests.

Just imagine the parties we'll have in combat now that the homosexuals problem of coming out of the closet has been solved!!!

Im so relieved.

SR
Click to expand...


Some else read the article in The Onion, huh?
 
Dixie said:
Sorry you had to endure being bisexual during your tour, I know it must've been hard giving up the man meat while you served. I salute your sacrifice!
Click to expand...

Where the fuck do you come to the conclusion that Soc "had to endure being bisexual" or was "giving up the man meat"???

You have just regulated your stupid pinhead self, to the same ranks as all the trolls on this board.

Good job, dumbass.
 
Dixie said:
Immie has more intelligence in his big toenail than you will ever possess in your entire brain.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Soc didn't realize that you and Immie were such "soul mates".
I do applaud you, for standing up and protecting him/her and don't you ever let anyone tell you that there's anything wrong with that. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where the fuck do you come to the conclusion that Soc "had to endure being bisexual" or was "giving up the man meat"???

You have just regulated your stupid pinhead self, to the same ranks as all the trolls on this board.

Good job, dumbass.
Click to expand...
Thanks for having my back USF but don't sweat it. Once people get shown they are on the wrong side of history they become nasty, they become insulting, but they don't get any smarter.
 
Immanuel said:
Funny, in this entire conversation, I do not believe that I said that is not the way that it should be.

Maybe you need to read the entire conversation, start to finish?

When I entered this discussion, I asked a question. I asked why are the extremists so thrilled about this? To be totally honest with you, I asked because I was not completely sure how I felt about the issue. I tend to like to ask questions and then form my own opinion on a subject. Which is what I did here.

I do not think this will bring about much change in the long run. After all the hoopla is over; all the "Obama has destroyed the military" or "Now homosexuals can be all they want to be" is over nothing will change all that much. I happen to agree with much of what was brought up here. Neither the flamboyant gays nor the activists will be joining the military now that DADT is repealed, so as I think about it, my objection regarding flaunting is probably not going to be a problem. I also think that the fact that now those homosexuals who are in the military now or will be in the future will not have to be concerned that one slip up will cost them their career is a very good thing.

I wasn't sure how I felt about this at first which is why I asked questions when I came into the thread. I did not come out and say that I was opposed to the repeal, nor did I say that I was for it. I simply started with some questions and then went on with the discussion until I had decided how I felt about the issue.

I still think the outside activists are scum and don't really care about what happens to the US. All they care about is winning and forcing the rest of us to submit to their will. However, I do not believe that this particular issue is going to amount to very much in the long run. Which still leaves me with one unanswered question: why are the activists cumming in their shorts over this?

As for the experiences you relayed regarding your time in Germany. Thanks, I appreciate the fact that you see things differently than I do and I must say, if those experiences are truthful (and I have no reason to doubt you) then you seem to have more knowledge of that than I do so I will accept your point of view in that regard.

Immie
Click to expand...

And yet; when you're asked to validate your suppostions, you instead run like a little chicken shit and put posters on ignore.
Doesn't say much for your integrity or your intelligence.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You've had several.
Just because you dismiss their validity, doesn't mean that they were inaccuarate.
It just means you're a pinhead.
Click to expand...

There is no valid reason in dealing with military readiness, combat effectiveness, or unit cohesion to repeal DADT.

There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY.

There are valid arguments that deal with the negative effects of allowing openly gay individuals serve within small units, especially those that are tasked with actual combat operations.

This entire action on behalf of such a small minority of the population AND the military, that ALREADY had the ability to serve honorably was done to make a few politicians happy in terms of fundraising, and a few activists happy WHO WILL NEVER SERVE ANYWAY.

I dont know why some of you think that anything has been improved or any problem solved. This was just a special interest gift of which there will only be additional costs to EVERYONE and additional problems to the military (which is hardly anyone here).

Bravo... :good4u:

SR
 
The telling point here, is that people who are opposed to the repeal can not empathize with the people that DADT actually affected. There would be no one in the army if single soldiers could not be in relationships with other single soldiers. The need for human companionship AND sex are second only to eating in human drives. During Operation Desert Shield/Storm one of the first orders given in theater was "no sex". It was also one of the first orders violated. In my company we had 4 pregnancies to single soldiers that could have only happened in Kuwait. In my Battalion, we had 14 total pregnancies among single soldiers. Quite of few of them married the soldier that knocked them up in theater, many more took medical discharges. NO ONE was prosecuted for having sex in a combat theater where they were specifically ordered not to have sex. As I have related here once before, my roommate in Germany had sex with the wife of one of the guys in our Platoon. He was a super squared away soldier, who maxed his PT tests, was good at his job and LOVED being in the Army. Matter of fact he just retired this year. He was given an Article 15, which for you non military types, is non-judicial punishment. He was docked two weeks pay, and got two weeks confinement to barracks and extra duty. The CO was nice enough to let that start AFTER he came back from his 30 day leave which he spent with his parents in Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top