Don't Ask, Don't TELL

Mojo said:
Are you under the impression that name-calling validates your points?

Since you claim that valid arguments against the repeal of DADT are in this thread, why not produce them?

Please, while you're at it, provide links to my posts that are "insultive (I can't find that word in the dictionary, except as a neologism) towards others".

I am unable to understand your reference to "the Reserves". Do you know something you'd like to share?
Click to expand...

Wasn't it you, or was it your butt buddy Dixie, that claimed they were in the Reserves?

As to the rest of your pathetic bitching and moaning, go back and have an adult family member to explain the responses to your posts; seeing as how it is above your reading comprehension.

I'm sure that this, not only will you finally see that which you seek; but will also be able to notice your own hypocricy.

Had to come back and edit this post; because I found even more proof that you're an idiotic, dumbass, homophobic, bigotted, pinhead.

In Post #99, you made the following comment:
"I was in the Coast Guard Reserves."and now you are confused, regarding what I meant by the "Reserves".

You're a pathetic embarassement.
 
Last edited:
SR_ said:
There are several key points you touch upon. Most of everyone here will not understand why these were done or why they were so important.

The first point you mentioned is that while in theater there was an order, that order being "no sex". Im sure some of the readers of this will glance over it because such an order seems "normal" for a military deployed in a combat theatre. But there was a specific reason why that order was given. Would you like to explain to everyone the importance of this order, and why such an order is given?

The second thing you mentioned was the natural need for humans to have sex. Then you detailed a story about a solider having sexual relations with ANOTHER soldiers wife. Then you detailed that an NJP was given. Would you like to explain WHY such an action is against the UCMJ, and would require punishment.. why such a law exists in the first place.

I dont know why type of unit you were deployed with... but you do denote that a number of females did get pregnant. What kind of unit was this... and do you think that they type of unit you were in holds any type of importance to WHY you had females attached to it?

SR
Click to expand...

Sure, The primary reason for the "no sex" rule is because there are always less females than males in the military. So, necessarily, some males are going to be left holding themselves. This creates problems of jealousy and animosity which cause problems with unit cohesion. However, it still happened theater wide and was basically ignored.

In the instance of one of my buddies screwing another guys wife, it is again, morale, which was affected to the point that the guy who was cheated on got moved from our platoon to S-2 while the fornicator stayed in our platoon and was not long after promoted to E-5. Again, I KNOW the reasons why, but I also know that the military in general deplores getting rid of hard charging squared away soldiers, though you and I would both agree that cheating with your buddies wife does not a squared away soldier make. The laws are on the books to keep incidents like this from harming morale. In theory, all this should work but Indiscretions made off duty do not hold the same weight as they do if committed while on duty. My room mate was viewed as a serious soldier, a re-enlistment NCO's wet dream. Airborne, Air Assault, Pathfinder, Boots were always shiny and uniform always pressed. Never fired less than expert on the range, and always maxed his PT test. He was going no where. So the whole "it's for morale" argument falls flat. I know that he was not the only soldier sailor airman or marine that ever did this and escaped with hardly a scratch. Had he been a slug he would have been gone. So, what I learned, and I what I think you and everyone else knows is "good soldiers" can fuck up bad and not suffer for it.

I was in an MI unit. About 50/50 male to female ratio. But again this was not the only place this happened. When women started serving on Ships in the navy pregnancy while at see became commonplace.
 
Socrtease said:
Sure, The primary reason for the "no sex" rule is because there are always less females than males in the military. So, necessarily, some males are going to be left holding themselves. This creates problems of jealousy and animosity which cause problems with unit cohesion. However, it still happened theater wide and was basically ignored.
Click to expand...

Yes, situations that arise that could be within a specific chain of command or outside can cause jealousy and animosity and thus unit cohesion. Such distractions cause discipline problems. The "no sex" order is meant to save peoples lives. To keep them focused on specific tasks in order to accomplish the mission. Any actions taken by command to limit behavior that is seen as destructive to unit cohesion and discipline is not meant to be bigoted or mean spirited it is meant to maintain combat effectiveness.

Socrtease said:
In the instance of one of my buddies screwing another guys wife, it is again, morale, which was affected to the point that the guy who was cheated on got moved from our platoon to S-2 while the fornicator stayed in our platoon and was not long after promoted to E-5. Again, I KNOW the reasons why, but I also know that the military in general deplores getting rid of hard charging squared away soldiers, though you and I would both agree that cheating with your buddies wife does not a squared away soldier make. The laws are on the books to keep incidents like this from harming morale. In theory, all this should work but Indiscretions made off duty do not hold the same weight as they do if committed while on duty. My room mate was viewed as a serious soldier, a re-enlistment NCO's wet dream. Airborne, Air Assault, Pathfinder, Boots were always shiny and uniform always pressed. Never fired less than expert on the range, and always maxed his PT test. He was going no where. So the whole "it's for morale" argument falls flat. I know that he was not the only soldier sailor airman or marine that ever did this and escaped with hardly a scratch. Had he been a slug he would have been gone. So, what I learned, and I what I think you and everyone else knows is "good soldiers" can fuck up bad and not suffer for it.
Click to expand...

This is more than just for morale. This is also extremely geared towards unit cohesion. How can i follow the orders of my Plt Sgt if he's fucking my wife. How can he expect me to do what he says and trust his judgement if he's fucking my wife. What incentive is there other than training him in leadership qualities to discourage such behavior that might effect unit cohesion. The reason there is a law in the UCMJ specifically addressing fraternization and sexual behavior even for heterosexual individuals is all about unit cohesion, effectiveness and morale. Can a soldier fuck another soldiers wife and still be stellar? YES of course they can. But clearly there are ancillary reasons to control behavior of individuals in how it may affect OTHER parts of the unit.

Socrtease said:
I was in an MI unit. About 50/50 male to female ratio. But again this was not the only place this happened. When women started serving on Ships in the navy pregnancy while at see became commonplace.
Click to expand...

It is not commonplace in combat arm units because of the very things covered in this thread.

SR
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And "openly" means....................................what?? :awesome:
Click to expand...

It means not hiding their sexual orientation.

Does not mean (assuming the individual is male):

That they cannot keep themselves from raping other male members of their unit.
That they wear rainbow appearel to the field as their own kind of "camo"
That they comment on or stare down their fellow unit members physique while in the shower

Someone is openly gay, makes no secret of their sexual orientation.

SR
 
SR_ said:
There has to be some recognition in the difference between race and sex. Distraction and distrust are not reserved to some mythical fear of being raped... Ive never made that argument and never will.

If I served in combat with a Marine, and AFTER found out he was gay, it would be fine. It doesnt in any way change the brotherhood bond formed by going through these things together. But this example that you give me is based OFF the current DADT policy, meaning, he kept his homosexuality to himself, and only AFTER did he confide IN US, his family, that he indeed was gay. Thats fine.. there was no barrier to our ability to embrace him as one of us BECAUSE he didnt do anything or expect any right to special treatment or differential behavior BECAUSE of the code.

Now, pose the same scenario (as it will now happen), to an openly homosexual individual being INTRODUCED to the unit, meaning BEFORE the unit is put into a combat environment.

The challenges of race are not paramount to the challenges of sex. Are you saying that we discriminate against females since we do not allow them or include them in combat arm units... do you think its because we hate females, or dont trust them, or think theyll steal? or did you think my story was real?

SR
Click to expand...

No, the primary reason we keep females out of combat, historically, is we don't believe women should be exposed to the danger or the violence. Old stereotypes held from a long time ago. The other reason we keep them out of the combat arms units is, and this should get me blasted, they cannot perform at the same physical level that men can. Women are given different standards in passing the PT Test. In my whole time in I only ever saw 3 females that could max the PT test for their age in the Male category. In my opinion, a female should be allowed in the infantry only if she can perform at the same level and under the same standards as her male counterparts. That being said, there is NO REASON for a woman not to be in an artillery unit, or as a combat pilot, fixed or rotary wing.
 
Immanuel said:
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
Click to expand...

You seem confused. I'm not "Immanuel".

Got any other purported evidence of your repeated claims that valid arguments against repealing DADT exist in this thread, or will you resort to more name-calling?
 
SR_ said:
It means not hiding their sexual orientation.

Does not mean (assuming the individual is male):

That they cannot keep themselves from raping other male members of their unit.
That they wear rainbow appearel to the field as their own kind of "camo"
That they comment on or stare down their fellow unit members physique while in the shower

Someone is openly gay, makes no secret of their sexual orientation.

SR
Click to expand...

How is that any different then an individual being "openly hetrosexual"??
 
Mojo said:
You seem confused. I'm not "Immanuel".

Got any other purported evidence of your repeated claims that valid arguments against repealing DADT exist in this thread, or will you resort to more name-calling?
Click to expand...

Sorry about that.
It's just that you dumbass, stupid, homophobic, bigotted, pinheads are beginning to meld into a single unit.
 
Socrtease said:
No, the primary reason we keep females out of combat, historically, is we don't believe women should be exposed to the danger or the violence. Old stereotypes held from a long time ago. The other reason we keep them out of the combat arms units is, and this should get me blasted, they cannot perform at the same physical level that men can. Women are given different standards in passing the PT Test. In my whole time in I only ever saw 3 females that could max the PT test for their age in the Male category. In my opinion, a female should be allowed in the infantry only if she can perform at the same level and under the same standards as her male counterparts. That being said, there is NO REASON for a woman not to be in an artillery unit, or as a combat pilot, fixed or rotary wing.
Click to expand...

I never suggested the primary reason we keep females out of combat arms is only because they would be a distraction, but its connected in many ways to the primary reasons that you listed (which i agree with). Its not really about the physical ability, though thats part of it, its primarily because the role of woman in our society is seen as the "mother" figure and it being "honorable" to defend women... and children.. and those who cannot fight for themselves. Meaning, during combat the sight of a female unit member being slaughtered or mutilated is too much for the REST of the unit to reasonably accept and move on to continue to fight. But outside of these occasions (meaning combat) which are really very infrequent when compared to down time... the presence of female members in a combat unit degrades their ability to then perform effectively when required.

Im not familiar with the inner workings of the army artillery, but IM POSITIVE that USMC Arty could not sustain female presence and maintain effectiveness because of the way we utilize artillery units... as line units.

Air, logistics, admin, supply, etc... im not speaking to those. I dont think females or homosexuals would have any effect one way or the other.

SR
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I thought I had already explained that refering to you as a dumbass, stupid, homophobic, bigotted, pinhead was a an accurate fact.
Click to expand...

Did someone tell you that your statements must be automatically accepted as factual?

I'm still waiting for those valid arguments againt the repeal of DADT that you said exist in this thread.

While you're compiling that list of links, please include my "insultive" posts.

Thanks!
 
SR_ said:
I never suggested the primary reason we keep females out of combat arms is only because they would be a distraction, but its connected in many ways to the primary reasons that you listed (which i agree with). Its not really about the physical ability, though thats part of it, its primarily because the role of woman in our society is seen as the "mother" figure and it being "honorable" to defend women... and children.. and those who cannot fight for themselves. Meaning, during combat the sight of a female unit member being slaughtered or mutilated is too much for the REST of the unit to reasonably accept and move on to continue to fight. But outside of these occasions (meaning combat) which are really very infrequent when compared to down time... the presence of female members in a combat unit degrades their ability to then perform effectively when required.

Im not familiar with the inner workings of the army artillery, but IM POSITIVE that USMC Arty could not sustain female presence and maintain effectiveness because of the way we utilize artillery units... as line units.

Air, logistics, admin, supply, etc... im not speaking to those. I dont think females or homosexuals would have any effect one way or the other.

SR
Click to expand...
There is NO REASON why a female could not sit in the shelter of a MLRS and program grid coordinates, or I am sure GPS does that now, and push buttons to unleash massive death on ground targets many klicks away. I am not sure how much tube fire artillery is used in the Army any more.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How is that any different then an individual being "openly hetrosexual"??
Click to expand...

The difference between being openly homosexual and openly heterosexual is that a homosexual is sexually attracted to others who are of the same sex. So a boy would be sexually attracted to another boy if he were a homosexual.

A heterosexual is sexual attracted to others who are of the opposite sex. So a boy would be sexually attracted to a girl if he were heterosexual.

Both of them being open about it, means they are not hiding their sexual orientation.

That is the difference between being openly homosexual and openly heterosexual.

SR
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I apologize; because I was in error.
It appears that I got you and your butt buddy Dixie mixed up; seeing as how you two sound so much alike.
I admit that it's your butt buddy Dixie that has me on ignore; because he's a coward.

There now, do you feel better?
Click to expand...

Apology accepted.

Immie
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And once again; just because you dismiss them as being "invalid" doesn't mean they were wrong.
It just means that you're an ignorant, dumbass, homophobic, dumbass, pinhead.

And before you try to look down from your hypocritical high horse, you might want to take another look at some of your own posts; because it seems you find name calling insultive, but you don't seem to mind being insultive towards others.

I never knew the Reserves were able to claim someone as big a bitch, as you are.
Click to expand...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Insultive
 
SR_ said:
I dont think any performance will drop for such an individual. I dont think any performance will be enhanced either. Why would a homosexual somehow turn into a super soldier upon his/her ability to be OPENLY homosexual... which brings us back to my original statement "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."

is this somehow confusing to you?

SR
Click to expand...

Well, it would be better and improved because legal discrimination goes away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top