Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
And your years of experience in the military is how you came to this conclusion.
Don't Ask, Don't TELL
- Thread starter Phantasmal
- Start date
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Maybe it's his Christmas wish.
I wonder if he rants against the following part of a Christmas song?
"Don we now our GAY apparel
Tra-La-La-La-La-La-La-La-La"
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So by us saying this is just a start, you jump ahead to the conclusion that we all want laws allowing gays the rightto stick a cock in your mouth if you are riding a bus? Jeez, Dixie. Even for you that isoff the deep end.
Oh, so now Mr. Stereotype wants to go on a case by case basis? You have no problem lumping all liberals in one boat, but unless I know the details of every one of the 12,500 discharges, it doesn't matter? Thats quite a hypocrisy you have there.
The fact is that there have been 12,500 people discharged from the military for being homosexual. Plenty of them have been decorated, qualified, highly trained members of our military. But you have no problem with that because you don't know the details of every single case? Thats truly sad, Dixie.
Again you selectively quote what I linked. The same link showed that the Pentagon viewed homosexuals as a security risk because of the high risk of blackmail. It even referenced the large number of gays blackmailed into spying in the cold war.
Gay Marriage is not the issue. It is the next one, but not this issue.
But the fact that you think its fine for the government to discriminate based on sexual orientation, in a field in which sex has absolutely no bearing, is simply proof you want your way not the right way.
I don't give a shit what the approve of. They are in the military, not at the country club. If soldiers decided what to do based on their personal beliefs, they would get many more people killed. In the military you follow orders. If you can't follow orders you don't belong in. That is a simple concept that you have, apparently, missed. The people in the military don't get to decide. They get to follow orders.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Like what?
Name the "problem" there "might be", and provide some evidence that said "problem" exists.
Your feelings, prognostications, and unfounded apocryphal examples don't count.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't know what the fuck you'll want down the road, I just know how activism works, and if you are constantly pushing for more tolerance and more laws protecting homosexual behavior, where does logic dictate this will end up? Can someone tell this gay guy to get his cock out of my mouth? Sorry mister, no-can-do... they can do that now, it's the law, we have to accept it! Don't be such a bigot, enjoy it... it's a sign of flattery!
The only time I stereotype, is when it comes to how pinhead liberals act. I am the one who fights stereotypes, that's why I fly a Confederate flag in my avatar and go by Dixie, even though I am not racist and 1/16th African-American. Yes, I support taking things on a case by case basis, and not ASSUMING someone is the victim of bigotry because they are gay. What this has done, is make it nearly impossible to discharge anyone who is gay, because they can simply claim discrimination. They are only kicking me out because I am gay, it has nothing to do with this trunk of stolen documents under my bunk!
Again, I don't care how well-qualified or highly-decorated you are, when it comes to kicking people out of the military. That should never even be considered. I don;t know the details on ANY of those 12,500 cases, I don't even know what time period we're talking about... is that, for all the history of the military? Gays have never been allowed to openly serve... so, I guess so, right? Gee, 12,500 people for all the history of the military and all the millions of people who served... that doesn't seem to be a lot. Still, I'd like to know about each individual case, were they kicked out just because some person claimed they were gay? Or was there something else that happened in their case?
Right, they viewed them as a security risk because they tend to be emotionally unstable and therefore, easier to blackmail. Repealing DADT did not change human behavior. Gay people are no less emotionally unstable or less easy to blackmail now. The large number of gays blackmailed during the Cold War, leads me to think we don't need gays serving in the military.
That's ALL this was about! You're successfully lying your way around that, but... yeah, that's all it was about, not poor gay soldiers being singled out and picked on because they are gay.
I think it's fine for the military arm of the government to discriminate on whatever basis they need to, in order to ensure we have the best fighting force on the planet. If that means discriminating based on sexuality, or whatever, then so be it.
That's right, you don't give a shit about anything except what you want. Glad you admitted that for us, but I think most of us were already aware of that.
You forgot to add one part... They get to follow orders, unless they happen to be gay... then, maybe they don't have to follow orders? If it somehow interferes with their homosexual lifestyle, and they can't help they are gay... What do you pinheads believe is going to happen, when the first homosexual gets kicked out of the military for not following orders? Come on, I know you're not THAT dumb, are ya?
Well?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
This fight was about equality, not special privileges. That is a very easy line to draw. So save your sensationalistic fantasies for another website. It won't wash here.
No, you stereotype gays and gay activists. How else could you make the remark about turning the military into a "Gay Cabaret"?
The time period was, as I stated, from when DADT was inacted until the present day.
I quoted the actual name of a friend of my wife's who was discharged when someone reported he was gay. It was a competitive post in the US Air Force, and one of the other candidates found out and pushed the issue. There are numerous cases listed on one of the links I posted, of members of our military who were well qualified, had excellent service records, and no other marks against them, and yet they were discharged.
But I guess you are ok with that. Funny, first you say you aren't aware it happens much, now you claim that unless we look at each case the repeal is bad. lol Change your story much?
The cases listed in the links I posted were gays who had to hide their sexuality in order to serve. That provides a weak link that can be exploited. Numerous high ranking military officials and numerous Pentagon studies have shown that. But, of course, you know better than they do.
No, that is not what I said. If misquoting what I say is your only defense, you have lost the debate. I see these as separate issues. I have never said they were the same.
If you can show some reason why being gay would have a negative effect on the quality of our fighting force, you might have a point. But the simple fact is that we have not allowed discrimination in who we allow to serve and who we do not. If the person fits the requirements of the branch of the armed forces, they are allowed to serve unless there is some legitimate reason not to take them.
Is that what I said, Dixie? Really? Again, if all you can do is rewrite what I say and then rant against it, you really have no argument.
I said "I don't give a shit what the approve of. They are in the military, not at the country club. If soldiers decided what to do based on their personal beliefs, they would get many more people killed. In the military you follow orders. If you can't follow orders you don't belong in. That is a simple concept that you have, apparently, missed. The people in the military don't get to decide. They get to follow orders."
Just like it didn't matter whether they approved of blacks being allowed to serve alongside whites. They had to follow orders. And no Dixie, this is not a comparison of race and sexuality. It is a discussion about what personal approvals mean in the military.
Please show us where anyone said that gays did not have to follow the same orders that straights do??? Please point that out to us, Dixie??
You are absolutely lying and making shit up. And yes, if a homosexual refuses to follow orders they will be kicked out. Unless there are some other reasons involved, such as the order not being lawful under the UCMJ. But those same exceptions apply to all. No one is allowed to have a separate set of rules based on sexual orientation and no one except you has suggested that they will.
Last edited:
No ideas?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
sharing is caring
"In losing many of its gays, the U.S. military lost preparedness, a retired lieutenant colonel says....
So, how should we view the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"? I no longer believe it's something we should fear...
Integrating openly serving gay service members will not be easy, but integration is hardly new to the armed forces. Just consider the racial desegregation ordered on the eve of the Korean War, and more recently the integration of women into combat roles...."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brannon-dadt-20101225,0,3160780.story
So, how should we view the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"? I no longer believe it's something we should fear...
Integrating openly serving gay service members will not be easy, but integration is hardly new to the armed forces. Just consider the racial desegregation ordered on the eve of the Korean War, and more recently the integration of women into combat roles...."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brannon-dadt-20101225,0,3160780.story
apple0154
MEOW
Dixie. Really! Can you honestly say young men won't be "moved" by gals who look like the pictures ThreeDee usually posts?
We won't die off as a species. Not a chance. Even the sons of Gods, as noted in the Bible, couldn't resist the daughters of men.
Ain't gonna happen.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have been considering the evolution of this issue and maybe this is the place to share those thoughts...
I remember in 92' when President Clinton took on this issue. He made a campaign promise to end the practice of preventing Gays from serving in the military. When he took office he met with firece opposition from the military and he backed down. A compromise was hammered out that found universal scorn.
The policy of activly seeking out gays was ended, enlistees would no longer be asked if they were gay, and active members would not face any such questioning, but if it became known that members were gay, the military would continue to take action to remove them from service.
I felt at the time that while the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy a baby step that fell short of the Presidents campaign promise, at least it was progress. Many of my liberal friends were very angury at Clinton. Many of my conservative friends felt the new policy would severly weaken our nation.
Looking back, I belive I was right, changing the policy to DADT 17 years ago was a necessary first step toward what President Obama was able to accomplish last week. We are not done yet and more reform is necessary but would the shift in policy have occured had President Clinton not taken the baby step?
Some cultural shifts require time as many are slower at shifting norms than others. This is the way social progress comes,slowly. Its a two steps forward, one back kinda deal, but usually once its begun, there is no moving backward.
Sure some social conservatives will get elected once again, the Tea Party just made sure of that last election, but they cant go back, they can only slow the progress.
I remember in 92' when President Clinton took on this issue. He made a campaign promise to end the practice of preventing Gays from serving in the military. When he took office he met with firece opposition from the military and he backed down. A compromise was hammered out that found universal scorn.
The policy of activly seeking out gays was ended, enlistees would no longer be asked if they were gay, and active members would not face any such questioning, but if it became known that members were gay, the military would continue to take action to remove them from service.
I felt at the time that while the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy a baby step that fell short of the Presidents campaign promise, at least it was progress. Many of my liberal friends were very angury at Clinton. Many of my conservative friends felt the new policy would severly weaken our nation.
Looking back, I belive I was right, changing the policy to DADT 17 years ago was a necessary first step toward what President Obama was able to accomplish last week. We are not done yet and more reform is necessary but would the shift in policy have occured had President Clinton not taken the baby step?
Some cultural shifts require time as many are slower at shifting norms than others. This is the way social progress comes,slowly. Its a two steps forward, one back kinda deal, but usually once its begun, there is no moving backward.
Sure some social conservatives will get elected once again, the Tea Party just made sure of that last election, but they cant go back, they can only slow the progress.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
jarod...i'm a little amazed that you wrote this, its beyond your normal ken....well said and i agree with you
i remember my family arguing about this and the arguments were virtually identical to those you listed above....clinton's DADT was a compromise and a baby step...
A compromise and baby step that led to signifigant social progress.