Don't ask, don't tell (DADT).

Started by King Kandy10 pages

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's not true. Woman who serve are allowed to have long hair and wear earrings while on duty.

If DADT is ever lifted, I don't think it will really affect anything. We wont see thousands of gays rushing to the recruiting office.


Lol, you completely missed my point. I'm saying IF we treated women like we treated gays, they would have to pretend to be men. Because a gay person has to act straight, or else they were banned. I'm not saying that IS our policy with women right now.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Not to get off topic with this strawman argument, but there were more black people killed in the U.S. prior to the Civil Rights movement. If you consider the post Civil War reconstruction era and the introduction of Jim Crow laws, then you'll notice a heavier trend in violence toward African-Americans than during the Civil Rights movement itself. I'm sure there are hundreds, maybe thousands of instances where Negroes were just strung up by a noose because they drank out of a white water fountain..or were caught messing around with a white woman. Many were strung up without doing anything..other than just being Black. The Civil Rights movement was just the culmination of all of that. Yet, even after the Civil Rights movement, many people still consider blacks inferior to whites. Racial divisions will ALWAYS exist...it can not be permanately cleansed.

And your point is...? I was saying that just because protesting was dangerous never stopped people who truly desired to create change. You definitely were going off topic here.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
On the same note, homosexuality will NEVER be accepted by ALL of the population....even if forced by LAW. In fact, homosexuality is a more tender subject than African-Americans and the Civil Right's movement. Being black is not a sin...yet homosexuality IS considered to be sinful. As long as this country continue to has evangelistic roots, Civil Rights for gays will be much tougher to pass through legislation than it was to accept the equality of African-American's.

It may never be accepted, but it's going to have to be tolerated. And I think you much underestimate the number of beatings, deaths, and jailings the civil rights movement went through (and the Indian independence movement went through even more) in order to get the change passed. The important thing is that the attitudes will never change unless pressure is put on that FORCES it to change, both on the government and civilian levels.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In the Army..one of it's core values is to "Place the Mission First". If troop morale is put into jeapordy with any type of gay rights legislation, then the Army would view the "Mission" as being put in jeapordy. If you've ever served in the military, then you know what I'm talking about. If straight soldiers have a problem serving with gay soldiers, then the mission could be at risk..and the military will not have that. The Armed Forces care more about the success of a mission than the individuality of its ranks. They want a functional team. The only way gays could work right now is to separate "gay" companies or batallions, but then trouble would arise if they happen to be attached to another division as support personnel.

Again, this same logic was applied for why the military should be segregated by race. Nobody would support that policy or think it was anything but backwards, but somehow you see it fit to actually apply this same flawed argument and ignore the facts that history teaches us.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
There are too many variables...I don't see it succeeding right now..even with legislation.

And what do you see changing in the future, if the issue is not forced?

I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

-MLK Jr

Originally posted by King Kandy
And your point is...? I was saying that just because protesting was dangerous never stopped people who truly desired to create change. You definitely were going off topic here.

It may never be accepted, but it's going to have to be tolerated. And I think you much underestimate the number of beatings, deaths, and jailings the civil rights movement went through (and the Indian independence movement went through even more) in order to get the change passed. The important thing is that the attitudes will never change unless pressure is put on that FORCES it to change, both on the government and civilian levels.

Again, this same logic was applied for why the military should be segregated by race. Nobody would support that policy or think it was anything but backwards, but somehow you see it fit to actually apply this same flawed argument and ignore the facts that history teaches us.

And what do you see changing in the future, if the issue is not forced?

Why do you keep wanting to bring up MLK and the Civil Right's movement? What worked then will not work in this situation. It is a completely different issue. You have never served in the military, so you do not know how complicated something like this will be. If you knew anything about how the military operates, you wouldn't be so quick to entertain these ideas.

Originally posted by King Castle
most cant understand the "Good order and discipline" and what that implies.

they would knowingly destroy unit cohesion for their personal beliefs of equality while ignoring anothers.

jeopardizing overall morale, order and discipline.

they think it doesnt cost money to house male and females separately that there is infinite amount of money in the military for housing and can provide whatever is needed they view homosexuals as already serving and it wont cost any money or disrupt daily operations.

women regular women disrupt daily operations b/c a man cant keep it in their pants and chase after them crushing...

PFC's fighting with Sgts over women.. now a Homosexual may not have the same effect it may be the complete opposite. a military person does not want to work or room with him it makes him feel uncomfortable.. his feelings also matter not just one side of the issue.

he calls in sick or is slow to perform his duties.. the homosexual becomes annoyed at him and makes the issue worse.. this is just the mild response the not the violent problems that is more likely to occur.

good order and discipline is out the window.

you have marines accusing each other of sexual harassment b/c he over hears or the other is sharing his weekend conquest which neither should be doing anyways.

the claim is legitimate and now you have marines being punished gay and straight some shown the door depending on command..

its a logistical nightmare.


That is a stupid, stupid argument. If someone doesn't want to work next to a homosexual, that's just bigotry whether civilian or military. And if there are unfounded sexual harassment charges, then that individual would either be court martialed or be punished with NJP.

I really don't think that YOU understand the meaning of 'good order and discipline.' How long did you serve, and what was your termination rank?

DADT is stupid. Let homos serve. Let soldiers uncomfortable around homos transfer units. Problem solved.

What you just said shows a profound misunderstanding of everything military.

Originally posted by King Castle
all i know, that during uniform inspection and whatnot gay men should excel.

show up on monday with a nice fresh haircut, nice trim nails no scruff or missed shaving spots... fresh shirt, nicely ironed uniform...

clean boots.

man they would so rock when it came to making sure the their ribbons are at the right height and spacing, buttons on the uniform arent loose.(green alphas)

was their a point to this post other than to show your own ignorant and offensive stereotypes of gays?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Why do you keep wanting to bring up MLK and the Civil Right's movement? What worked then will not work in this situation. It is a completely different issue. You have never served in the military, so you do not know how complicated something like this will be. If you knew anything about how the military operates, you wouldn't be so quick to entertain these ideas.

AKA, you've run out of arguments and now are just going to say I don't know what i'm talking about, with no substantiation. Please, do explain why this situation is different from when the military was de-segregated? The feelings involved then were even harsher than those now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
AKA, you've run out of arguments and now are just going to say I don't know what i'm talking about, with no substantiation. Please, do explain why this situation is different from when the military was de-segregated? The feelings involved then were even harsher than those now.

I've already explained those things to you. You're too biased for one side of the issue to even research the effects it would have on the military. I don't argue with intransigence, so think what you wish.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I've already explained those things to you. You're too biased for one side of the issue to even research the effects it would have on the military. I don't argue with intransigence, so think what you wish.

You didn't explain anything, all you said was "it's a more sensitive issue" without explaining in any way why you thought so.

Killing DADT is just inviting more division within the American military. Troop morale will surely suffer. The fact of the matter is that not nearly enough people are acknowledging the homosexual lifestyle for it to be a non-issue.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Killing DADT is just inviting more division within the American military. Troop morale will surely suffer. The fact of the matter is that not nearly enough people are acknowledging the homosexual lifestyle for it to be a non-issue.

Yeah, i'm sure we really care about if bigots feelings get hurt.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0910-gays-military-20100910,0,3185943.story

Slapped down, for now.

go constitution now enforce it and watch the service rate drop as well as money being spend on sensitivity courses rather then training...

housing issue will now be the problem..

What will happen at first, openly gay soldiers will be targeted by the homophobes (aka angry closeted gays) and humiliated, harassed and abused to the point where they'll simply stop being openly gay.

Unfortunately, we'll see cases of "straight" soldiers ganging up to orally and anally rape the openly gay soldiers as a method to 'teach them they're wrong/gross for being gay.'

nah.. military discipline would never allow such abuse on such a large scale.

what will happen that you will see a lot of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct while on duty.

it will be reported by straight men to get rid of the homosexual.

why? b/c although he is allowed to serve openly gay he is not allowed to make sexual comments of any nature while on duty or anything that may offend another.

so NCO/SNco's will use this to get rid of them which is F#$$# up b/c it will be on their record as sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming .

You really think openly gay soldiers are going to be the ones doing the harassing? LoLz.

no i mistyped. i fixed it.

i meant that straight men will report inappropriate comments from the homosexual man to get rid of him.

not that the homosexual is hitting on them but is telling a homosexual story that is inappropriate while on duty.

it would be the same for the straight man when he talks about his friday Saturday night. it is inappropriate and should be reported and if it offends someone it can be viewed and written up under sexual harassment.

i do know that their will be a lot of chloroform missing then usual.

Ah, I can see that happening too, plus what I said.

Chloroform for knocking out who?

the ones who steal it now.. the military bogeyman the gay service man using it to rape straight men in the barracks.

most civilians dont know this b/c most men wont report it and when they do its confidential anyways and military really dont want to make it known anyways that this sh$# happens.