Rep Ellen Tauscher (D) wants to end 'don't ask, don't tell'

[XTankLt]

Sigh.... more insanity from the Chickenhawk Libs. The military is not a democracy.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_11825688?source=rss

Congresswoman wants to end 'don't ask, don't tell'

[Mobulis]

Good.

[ALBOB2]

I thought that was one of Obama's campaign promises.

[XTankLt]

Good.

OK, tell us in specific details, if you were a General, how you are going deal with the specifics of accomidating PVT Shemale?

[Broseph]

OK, tell us in specific details, if you were a General, how you are going deal with the specifics of accomidating PVT Shemale?

Tell us, if you were a general, how you would justify discriminating against a person based upon their sexual preference, and infringing upon their civil liberty?

The military is taxpayer funded, but running as if its a private corporation.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and gays made up a large portion of the military, straight people wouldn't like being discriminated against by the gays. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

[USAF Medic]

Sigh.... more insanity from the Chickenhawk Libs. The military is not a democracy.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_11825688?source=rss

Congresswoman wants to end 'don't ask, don't tell'

Thank God I'll be retired on 1 Jun 09.

[USAF Medic]

I can't stand it when civilians, without a day of military service under their belt, think they know what is best for the service.

[MasterBlaster]

Step 1 is going to have to be separate accomodations, just like male and female. When this step is taken then openess can be addressed.

[USAF Medic]

Step 1 is going to have to be separate accomodations, just like male and female. When this step is taken then openess can be addressed.

Not gonna fly MB.
The proponents for lifting the ban have already argued that accomodations is based on gender not orientation and thus does not apply.
Load of horse crap IMO but that is how it will be argued.

Again thank God I'll be retired

[MasterBlaster]

Good.
This is part of the reason it may never happen, no intelligent debate.

[MasterBlaster]

Not gonna fly MB.
The proponents for lifting the ban have already argued that accomodations is based on gender not orientation and thus does not apply.
Load of horse crap IMO but that is how it will be argued.

Again thank God I'll be retired
What doesn't fly is the way this issue is mimimalized. It is in fact the biggest reason, and the liberals know it, and they bring forth no defense against it. We cannot allow the "proponents" mask the true issues and replace them with phony ones. The 99.9% heterosexual men and women have "rights" issues in this also.

[USAF Medic]

Tell us, if you were a general, how you would justify discriminating against a person based upon their sexual preference, and infringing upon their civil liberty?

The military is taxpayer funded, but running as if its a private corporation.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and gays made up a large portion of the military, straight people wouldn't like being discriminated against by the gays. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

Oh please.
The military discriminates on any number of issues and are held to FAR higher standards than ANY civilian but you're not out there trumpeting our cause on those.
Go cherry pick your social engineering issues somewhere else.

[USAF Medic]

What doesn't fly is the way this issue is mimimalized. It is in fact the biggest reason, and the liberals know it, and they bring forth no defense against it. We cannot allow the "proponents" mask the true issues and replace them with phony ones. The 99.9% heterosexual men and women have "rights" issues in this also.

Some folks won't be content to see the military as honorable until we have finally addressed and done away with the fact that we discriminate against pre-op transgendered Asian midgets.
Once we have included them in our ranks, then we will be a force America can be proud of.
:rolleyes:

[MasterBlaster]

Some folks won't be content to see the military as honorable until we have finally addressed and done away with the fact that we discriminate against pre-op transgendered Asian midgets.
Once we have included them in our ranks, then we will be a force America can be proud of.
:rolleyes:
Sometimes I ask myself if these people really care about the gays? Or just trying to destroy the morale of the existing military.

[ArmyCowboy]

It's coming, so everyone better get ready for it and get used to it.

IMO, what will happen is that many in the military will dig in their heels and claim it will destroy the military, moral, etc, etc. Some will claim that they are retiring or ETSing because of this and make it a huge deal.

The bottom line, and what a lot of anti-gay in the military types don't want to admit is that there are many gay people in the military right now. Gay people who don't exactly hide their sexual orientation, if you know what I mean. Yet they do a fine job and there is no problems in their units.

Yes, "don't ask-don't tell" will end and just as when the military was desegregated, 20 years later everyone will be wondering what the big deal was.

[Dem]

I'm going to have to agree with 28 retired Generals and Admirals who say that we should repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

It's not like gays aren't serving in the military right now.

[Mobulis]

OK, tell us in specific details, if you were a General, how you are going deal with the specifics of accomidating PVT Shemale?


I would talk to to generals of militarys that have homosexuals that serve openly such as Israel and Briton and find out what they do.

[Amallek]

Polls say that 75% of American's favor letting gays in the military, and so do 66% of conservatives. Admiral Mullen, head of the joint chiefs, says it is not a military decision, it is up to congress.

Frankly, I have been in a fight with a gay man, and he would make one hell of a warrior.

[rhet 2]

Just one question:

what happens to the person who gets "funny" in the barracks?

Bad enough when you encounter one in a public bathroom. Having to share a bedroom with one, an open shower, etc.

Legal and moral are not the same thing -- and people have ways of dealing with predators, whether they're legal or not.

[USAF Medic]

Polls say that 75% of American's favor letting gays in the military, and so do 66% of conservatives. Admiral Mullen, head of the joint chiefs, says it is not a military decision, it is up to congress.

Frankly, I have been in a fight with a gay man, and he would make one hell of a warrior.

great point considering less than 5% of able bodied Americans have ever served in the military. :rolleyes:

[ALcard]

You people have no idea how detrimental that would be to people's health if this ban were lifted.

[Blarb]

Good, it's about time.

Most of the negative things being said about integration of Americans of all sexual orientation now were being said about racial integration in the 40's and 50's. The military has the proud lineage of being almost two decades ahead of the rest of the nation on race; In the 50's one of the only places you could find a white man working for a black man was in the military.

I find the "what if they get funny on me" homophobia to be pretty sad. If a gay service memeber makes an unwanted advance on a straight service member there is already an Article in the UCMJ for that: sexual harrassment. The military doesn't put up with that from any service member, period. End of story.

I spent just over five years, active duty, in the Marines and did 2 combat tours. I knew, worked with, fought with and lived with gay Marines. A few of my friends are gay/bi-sexual Marines. They're not perverts or degenerates, they're usually good people and usually good Marines they just happen to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. So what?

When the military brings down this last barrier there will be problems, no doubt a lot of problems. When the military was racially intergrated the it had a lot of problems, still does in fact, but we're better for it in the end. People even left over it but it was still the right thing to do. When the military lost its racists it was better off. Just the same when the military losses its homophobes.

[USAF Medic]

Good, it's about time.

Most of the negative things being said about integration of Americans of all sexual orientation now were being said about racial integration in the 40's and 50's. The military has the proud lineage of being almost two decades ahead of the rest of the nation on race; In the 50's one of the only places you could find a white man working for a black man was in the military.

I find the "what if they get funny on me" homophobia to be pretty sad. If a gay service memeber makes an unwanted advance on a straight service member there is already an Article in the UCMJ for that: sexual harrassment. The military doesn't put up with that from any service member, period. End of story.

I spent just over five years, active duty, in the Marines and did 2 combat tours. I knew, worked with, fought with and lived with gay Marines. A few of my friends are gay/bi-sexual Marines. They're not perverts or degenerates, they're usually good people and usually good Marines they just happen to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. So what?

When the military brings down this last barrier there will be problems, no doubt a lot of problems. When the military was racially intergrated the it had a lot of problems, still does in fact, but we're better for it in the end. People even left over it but it was still the right thing to do. When the military lost its racists it was better off. Just the same when the military losses its homophobes.

Yes just because because heterosexuals do not want to be billeted and share shower facilities with homosexual members makes us homophobes. :rolleyes:
Perhaps we should desegregate the service all together.
Pvt Sally will just have to get used to showering with the guys.
Her privacy be damned in the interest of social evolution.
Perhaps you think it's a good idea for high school girls to shower with high school boys after gym?

[Blarb]

Yes just because because heterosexuals do not want to be billeted and share shower facilities with homosexual members makes us homophobes. :rolleyes:
Perhaps we should desegregate the service all together.
Pvt Sally will just have to get used to showering with the guys.
Her privacy be damned in the interest of social evolution.
Perhaps you think it's a good idea for high school girls to shower with high school boys after gym?

Not a homophobe but immature. I don't know how you roll in the Air Force and I don't want to get too graphic but I've seen women defecate, I've been on all day convoys and had the female in the back of my humvee drop trow and yank tampons, I've had a female Corpsman strip me stark ass naked. We get over these things. Most hygene facilites in the military are not open anymore anyway. In the Marines we had open shower bays in bootcamp and shower tents for long field traning ops but 95% of the time I wasn't showering next to anyone.

My platoon in boot started with 90 odd guys. Chances are at least one was gay. Did I care? No. I used open shower tents with guys in my unit I knew were gay but I didn't care. They were professionals and they didn't lear or meat gaze because they're not out of control sex fiends. My response to the "OMG, he might look at my penis" is to grow up man.

I do find it odd though that you'd reference children in this discussion. How are high school girls in particular a relevent analogy?

[USAF Medic]

Not a homophobe but immature. I don't know how you roll in the Air Force and I don't want to get too graphic but I've seen women defecate, I've been on all day convoys and had the female in the back of my humvee drop trow and yank tampons, I've had a female Corpsman strip me stark ass naked. We get over these things. Most hygene facilites in the military are not open anymore anyway. In the Marines we had open shower bays in bootcamp and shower tents for long field traning ops but 95% of the time I wasn't showering next to anyone.

My platoon in boot started with 90 odd guys. Chances are at least one was gay. Did I care? No. I used open shower tents with guys in my unit I knew were gay but I didn't care. They were professionals and they didn't lear or meat gaze because they're not out of control sex fiends. My response to the "OMG, he might look at my penis" is to grow up man.

I don't know how long you where/are in but in my nearly 26 years as a medic believe me there is NOTHING you have seen that I have not.
Are there times when privacy can't be afforded...yeah, of course.
If gays are going to serve openly fine but allowances for privacy should at least be considered when practicle.
I don't understand why homosexuals can't get behind this idea.
Seems to me not only do they want to serve openly (ok fine then) but they also insist on being able to bunk and shower with the gender to which they are sexually attracted to.
If a male Marine told the billeting officer at Camp Lejune he wanted to be billeted with the females he'd be told to go take a flying ****.
Why? Can't he be trusted to be professional?

And a female medic stripping you naked is hardly a good point to make if she was exposing you for physical examination.

[Blarb]

I don't know how long you where/are in but in my nearly 26 years as a medic believe me there is NOTHING you have seen that I have not.
Are there times when privacy can't be afforded...yeah, of course.
If gays are going to serve openly fine but allowances for privacy should at least be considered when practicle.
I don't understand why homosexuals can't get behind this idea.
Seems to me not only do they want to serve openly (ok fine then) but they also insist on being able to bunk and shower with the gender to which they are sexually attracted to.
If a male Marine told the billeting officer at Camp Lejune he wanted to be billeted with the females he'd be told to go take a flying ****.
Why? Can't he be trusted to be professional?

And a female medic stripping you naked is hardly a good point to make if she was exposing you for physical examination.

My point on the female medic was that in the course of our duties I was exposed to a person who found my body type sexually appealing (although maybe not mine in particular, lol) but I got over it. I'm not sure what homosexuals you are talking about that demand that privacy not be taken into consideration be practicle. Who are these people? No one yet knows how the details of barracks conditions are going to be arraigned but if anything I think the potential cohabitation will spur much needed barracks improvemnts. Chances are the whole military wil start moving to one man rooms with common areas like the Air Force.

You're a medic, you know that often times you just have to suck it up. A lot of guys don't like females being in their units in the field, it makes it hard to be modest and the reply from the wartime military is and should be "tough ****". They have a right to serve and we need them. With gays we're not allowing them in, we're just being open and honest with each other about what's already happening.

To be honest I'm more worried about heterosexual reproductive issues in the field and at sea than my modesty in front of gay guys.

[USAF Medic]

My point on the female medic was that in the course of our duties I was exposed to a person who found my body type sexually appealing (although maybe not mine in particular, lol) but I got over it. I'm not sure what homosexuals you are talking about that demand that privacy not be taken into consideration be practicle. Who are these people? No one yet knows how the details of barracks conditions are going to be arraigned but if anything I think the potential cohabitation will spur much needed barracks improvemnts. Chances are the whole military wil start moving to one man rooms with common areas like the Air Force.

You're a medic, you know that often times you just have to suck it up. A lot of guys don't like females being in their units in the field, it makes it hard to be modest and the reply from the wartime military is and should be "tough ****". They have a right to serve and we need them. With gays we're not allowing them in, we're just being open and honest with each other about what's already happening.

To be honest I'm more worried about heterosexual reproductive issues in the field and at sea than my modesty in front of gay guys.

Hmm well OK I guess.
Over the weekend I talked about this with a couple Marine friends of mine on the volunteer fire department I serve on.
They are both AD, one an NCO the other a Major.
I told them it seems there is a large culture of straight Marines who have no problem showering with openly homosexual Marines and I wanted their take on it.
They basically said "who the **** told me that?".
I told them a Marine with what sounded like fairly recent combat deployment time.
They said basically well that SOB doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[rhet 2]

Hmm well OK I guess.
Over the weekend I talked about this with a couple Marine friends of mine on the volunteer fire department I serve on.
They are both AD, one an NCO the other a Major.
I told them it seems there is a large culture of straight Marines who have no problem showering with openly homosexual Marines and I wanted their take on it.
They basically said "who the **** told me that?".
I told them a Marine with what sounded like fairly recent combat deployment time.
They said basically well that SOB doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Having served with a predatory female who made life in the barracks a living hell for everyone, I fully concur with your Marine brothers.

[danmrrty53]

If the ban on don't ask don't tell is lifted what are they going to replace it with? How does the government tend to tell the military that they have to redo the one policy that Bill Clinton proposed that was good. Anyways if they revoke don't ask don't tell then it will go back to the way it was and that will anger even more people.

[Blarb]

I'm not sure if you're implying I'm a liar or just crazy but I can deal with crazy. Like I said, opinions differ. For the record I was in the Marines, a combat vet and an NCO myself. Most guys are not going to admit that they're cool with gays, esp when you get into showering and the such. Think of it like a giant high school (which is in many ways what the military is). You don't want to be the "queer lover" so many just keep their mouth shut about the whole thing or tow the party line. It's why more former military admit supporting integration of open homosexuals than currently serving ones do. Standing up for it in the military takes serious balls.

I also wanted to (and thought I did) make clear that a lot of guys in the Marines are NOT cool with the integration. At all. I also said some might leave and others might never join but I honestly do think that just like racial integration that, as the opinions of the civilian world in which the military draws from changes and guys come to realize its not that big of a deal, the world will continue to turn and the military will be just fine.

I've seen a big change in the military just in the time I was in ('03-'08) because kids are different now than at the start of the Bush administration, just because of the politics of youth in this country.

Hmm well OK I guess.
Over the weekend I talked about this with a couple Marine friends of mine on the volunteer fire department I serve on.
They are both AD, one an NCO the other a Major.
I told them it seems there is a large culture of straight Marines who have no problem showering with openly homosexual Marines and I wanted their take on it.
They basically said "who the **** told me that?".
I told them a Marine with what sounded like fairly recent combat deployment time.
They said basically well that SOB doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[rhet 2]

If the ban on don't ask don't tell is lifted what are they going to replace it with? How does the government tend to tell the military that they have to redo the one policy that Bill Clinton proposed that was good. Anyways if they revoke don't ask don't tell then it will go back to the way it was and that will anger even more people.

For every problem, there is a solution.

Sometimes the solution is up front and legal -- and sometimes you just have to work around the weasels at the top of the Power Pig Pile of Human Filth to solve the problem despite them.

[Hereintheusa]

I can't stand it when civilians, without a day of military service under their belt, think they know what is best for the service.

Because thats how the system is set up. We have a civillian CINC.

I think "dont ask dont tell" is shameful and I have 13 years military experience.

Someones sexuality has no bearing on their ability to soldier or carry out their chosen profession in the military.

If you have a problem with their sexuality then that is your problem.

[MasterBlaster]

I don't know how long you where/are in but in my nearly 26 years as a medic believe me there is NOTHING you have seen that I have not.
Are there times when privacy can't be afforded...yeah, of course.
If gays are going to serve openly fine but allowances for privacy should at least be considered when practicle.
I don't understand why homosexuals can't get behind this idea.
Seems to me not only do they want to serve openly (ok fine then) but they also insist on being able to bunk and shower with the gender to which they are sexually attracted to.
If a male Marine told the billeting officer at Camp Lejune he wanted to be billeted with the females he'd be told to go take a flying ****.
Why? Can't he be trusted to be professional?

And a female medic stripping you naked is hardly a good point to make if she was exposing you for physical examination.
It appears the liberal parallel is now integration. So not only are you a homophobe, your racist. Can I be entertained between similarities between race and sexual orientation? Nobody is doubting the abilities or professionalism of gays, or making any kind of inferior cannotations as was the the claims against integration in the 1950s. Most men, including myself want separate accomodations for them. Where are those peoples rights to be "appeased"?

[rhet 2]

It appears the liberal parallel is now integration. So not only are you a homophobe, your racist. Can I be entertained between similarities between race and sexual orientation? Nobody is doubting the abilities or professionalism of gays, or making any kind of inferior cannotations as was the the claims against integration in the 1950s. Most men, including myself want separate accomodations for them. Where are those peoples rights to be "appeased"?

Precisely so.

Nothing wrong with Gays at all -- they have the right to be whatever they like --

We just don't have to live with them.

Won't have one in my home -- and won't force their company on troops who are forced to live in open barracks, either.

Wouldn't have a heterosexual freaked out predator in the house, either -- not the sort of behavior and attitude I want to be around.

If they can keep their mouths shut and their pants zipped, who cares what they do when they're ELSEWHERE and I don't have to know what they're doing?

Just not around me and mine.

[Rhonda]

I can't stand it when civilians, without a day of military service under their belt, think they know what is best for the service.

That must be really frustrating... always and forever using the Military for political ladder climbing...pretending to care...when all they care about is their little political careers and what politically correct agenda they can use in concert with the Military

[Hereintheusa]

I agree with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Mature homosexuals have been successful for years under this policy. They, as we, believed that what you do on your own time is your own business. They understood "mission first". Sexual orientation should not be an issue. What straight soldiers, and many homosexuals themselves despise, are those who would make sexual orientation their main goal. Nobody wants open, frivilious, and plain silly theatric homosexual activities thrown in our face, especially in the barracks. Do we next need "Straight Pride Day" to balance the scales? As far as the homosexuals that I knew in the military, I considered them as soldiers, same as me. They did their jobs well, did not bother anybody, and everybody got along. They were respected, and many highly decorated. I hope that my four plus decades with the USA and DOD will add credibility to my opinion.

You say you may have considered them as soldiers same as you but I bet they couldnt show pictures of their family or talk about their partners open and freely like hetrosexuals can talk about their wives and families.

"Did not bother anybody" What exactly do you mean by that?

[kenpoman]

DADT is the best solution to the current issue. altering it at this time is stupid.

sexual orientation should have no bearing on how one does their job, provided they (gay or straight) leave the sexuality where it belongs - at home.

I understand and appreciate the value of civilian control of the military. however it is infuriating to see folks who have no idea of how their actions will effect it making stupid and balently (sp) political decisions.

IMO I'd like to see only vets be able to serve on committees of military oversight. there are enough Kerrys, Murthas, ect floating around to make
sure there is a left-right political balance.

when the totally/willfully uninformed make political decsions, the innocent
and the bystanders pay the price.

[kenpoman]

It's coming, so everyone better get ready for it and get used to it.

IMO, what will happen is that many in the military will dig in their heels and claim it will destroy the military, moral, etc, etc. Some will claim that they are retiring or ETSing because of this and make it a huge deal.

The bottom line, and what a lot of anti-gay in the military types don't want to admit is that there are many gay people in the military right now. Gay people who don't exactly hide their sexual orientation, if you know what I mean. Yet they do a fine job and there is no problems in their units.

Yes, "don't ask-don't tell" will end and just as when the military was desegregated, 20 years later everyone will be wondering what the big deal was.


I'm inclined to agree.

regardless of the right or wrong of it, under the current congress/admin it
almost certainly gonna happen.

IMO the military brass would be better spent using their time to get
ready for it than fighting it.

the one good thing in all this is while the military seems the most reluctant
and resisitant part of our society to change, they do the best with it when
they do.

I have faith the military will come out of this even stronger once the smoke
clears.

[Hereintheusa]

I'm inclined to agree.

regardless of the right or wrong of it, under the current congress/admin it
almost certainly gonna happen.

IMO the military brass would be better spent using their time to get
ready for it than fighting it.

the one good thing in all this is while the military seems the most reluctant
and resisitant part of our society to change, they do the best with it when
they do.

I have faith the military will come out of this even stronger once the smoke
clears.

What an excellent and realistic POV. You are spot on that the military is the most reluctant when it comes to changes but once on board nobody embraces change and runs with it 110% more than anyone else.

If serving military personnel feel the need to resign over this then perhaps they do not have the character that we really need in the military.

[kenpoman]

What an excellent and realistic POV. You are spot on that the military is the most reluctant when it comes to changes but once on board nobody embraces change and runs with it 110% more than anyone else.

If serving military personnel feel the need to resign over this then perhaps they do not have the character that we really need in the military.


myself, I think mucking with DADT at this time is stupid and overreaching.
and will probably do much more harm than good.

but I also think there is nothing the military can realistically can do to stop it.
pragmatism says its better to be driving an even than driven by it. and
human nature says you have more control assisting than resisting.

[rhet 2]

myself, I think mucking with DADT at this time is stupid and overreaching.
and will probably do much more harm than good.

but I also think there is nothing the military can realistically can do to stop it.
pragmatism says its better to be driving an even than driven by it. and
human nature says you have more control assisting than resisting.

Let it ride, yes.

And let the troops deal with it one-on-one in back alleys.

And God have mercy on the Sexual Predators determined to force their disgusting moral depravity and total desent into pure animalism that even rabid hyenas wouldn't commit.

There is more than one way to enforce Don't Tell.

And when government serves predators and rapists and monsters of gross inhumanity, then citizens MUST enforce moral norms as best they may, ignoring the servants of endless socio-cultural predations.

[Blarb]

Let it ride, yes.

And let the troops deal with it one-on-one in back alleys.

And God have mercy on the Sexual Predators determined to force their disgusting moral depravity and total desent into pure animalism that even rabid hyenas wouldn't commit.

There is more than one way to enforce Don't Tell.

And when government serves predators and rapists and monsters of gross inhumanity, then citizens MUST enforce moral norms as best they may, ignoring the servants of endless socio-cultural predations.

"Deal with it in the back alleys"? Hahahaha.

It's pretty obvious you've never been in the miltary. You don't know very many gay people either, do you?

[rhet 2]

"Deal with it in the back alleys"? Hahahaha.

It's pretty obvious you've never been in the miltary. You don't know very many gay people either, do you?

Wrong on both counts

Know what a "blanket party" is?

And I won't tell you what happened to the aggressive thug lord who thought she was too tough to take down because she had a black belt.

But two weeks after she was discharged from the hospital, she was also discharged from the Corps -- dishonorably, as a matter of fact -- and a few months later, she was convicted on multiple counts of attempted rape -- in the barracks.

When the Shirt refused to deal with her vicious brutality, we DID take care of the problem ourselves.

[FirmHand135]

Wrong on both counts

Know what a "blanket party" is?

And I won't tell you what happened to the aggressive thug lord who thought she was too tough to take down because she had a black belt.

But two weeks after she was discharged from the hospital, she was also discharged from the Corps -- dishonorably, as a matter of fact -- and a few months later, she was convicted on multiple counts of attempted rape -- in the barracks.

When the Shirt refused to deal with her vicious brutality, we DID take care of the problem ourselves.

Interesting....it seems as though you are saying that you were involved in a felony assualt on a person.
Doesn't that kind of take away your moral standing???

[WhiteHatBobby]

Just restore the pre-Clinton ban on homosexuals serving, bar none, with that question again and force sexual deviants out. They are the problem, and we should not be rewarding such stupid behaviour.

[FirmHand135]

Just restore the pre-Clinton ban on homosexuals serving, bar none, with that question again and force sexual deviants out. They are the problem, and we should not be rewarding such stupid behaviour.

Can you give examples how they are the problem? IF you take all the devients out then your military will be greatly reduced!

[rhet 2]

Interesting....it seems as though you are saying that you were involved in a felony assualt on a person.
Doesn't that kind of take away your moral standing???

Since when is defending someone from rape a felony -- oh, wait, yeah, the Devotees to Criminal INJUSTICE on the Left do love rapists and punish the rape resistor.

But, then, legal and moral are not the same thing -- and we've got a hell of a lot of IMMORAL LEGALITY being shoved down our throats in the interest of destroying all hope of common human decency in our society.

Down with Justice, Truth, and Honor.

Long live the Bestiality of Imperial Rome.

That IS the Demongod Left's motto: the 4th century BC and the 1st century AD were such MARVELOUS ways for the rich and powerful to be happy-happy-happy. And the common man doesn't really matter, since the NOT powerful and NOT rich are just a bunch of worthless garbage for Pigs at the Top to feed on.

How could we nasty worthless nothings DARE defy the will of a rapist bitch who didn't give a **** about anything except getting her own jollies off, regardless of the destruction she caused to worthless nothing animals created to serve her pleasure?

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Just a bunch of rebellious little animals, us Straights are, when we refuse to obey the orders of Sexual Predators and submit to humiliation and physical and psychological abuse from the More Enlightened in the Roman Elite.

[FirmHand135]

Since when is defending someone from rape a felony -- oh, wait, yeah, the Devotees to Criminal INJUSTICE on the Left do love rapists and punish the rape resistor.

But, then, legal and moral are not the same thing -- and we've got a hell of a lot of IMMORAL LEGALITY being shoved down our throats in the interest of destroying all hope of common human decency in our society.

Down with Justice, Truth, and Honor.

Long live the Bestiality of Imperial Rome.

That IS the Demongod Left's motto: the 4th century BC and the 1st century AD were such MARVELOUS ways for the rich and powerful to be happy-happy-happy. And the common man doesn't really matter, since the NOT powerful and NOT rich are just a bunch of worthless garbage for Pigs at the Top to feed on.

How could we nasty worthless nothings DARE defy the will of a rapist bitch who didn't give a **** about anything except getting her own jollies off, regardless of the destruction she caused to worthless nothing animals created to serve her pleasure?

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Just a bunch of rebellious little animals, us Straights are, when we refuse to obey the orders of Sexual Predators and submit to humiliation and physical and psychological abuse from the More Enlightened in the Roman Elite.

It becomes a felony assualt when you stated that it was a blanket party. There was not acts of rape or attempted rape occuring. If there was they needed to be reported to the authorities. Everybody has the right to defend themselves but you nor any gang have the right to tie one down and beat them...simply a lack of morals and human descency!

[rhet 2]

It becomes a felony assualt when you stated that it was a blanket party. There was not acts of rape or attempted rape occuring. If there was they needed to be reported to the authorities. Everybody has the right to defend themselves but you nor any gang have the right to tie one down and beat them...simply a lack of morals and human descency!

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, because I REFUSE TO LIVE IN THE FIRST CENTURY BC ROMAN EMPIRE OF ETERNAL BESTIALITY.

Social predators with their damned pants unzipped and their damned sex freak hormones on fire, craving fresh blood to satisfy their vampire lusts, can go to hell -- with or without approval from LEGALIZED SPECIALISTS IN BESTIALITY ENABLEMENT.

Got it?

When it comes down to a choice between LEGAL and MORAL, people generally choose MORAL -- because the LEGAL is generally a guarantee of death and destruction.

Legalized bestiality or illegalized human decency.

Take your choice and live with the consequences.

Me, I refuse to get stuck living in Augustus' Roman Empire where the only way to survive was to submit to Elitist Brutality and hope like hell you could kiss ass to please the masters.

"Don't ask, don't tell" -- and don't shove your sexual PERVERSIONS down the throats of others -- and nobody's ever going to give a **** what you do on your own time where we don't have to watch little animals ****ing each other because they are so dysfunctional and worthless, they don't dare even try to form normal DIVERSITY BASED relationships.

The whole point of STRAIGHT SEX is that men and women are DIFFERENT and a successful relationship requires unification between TWO DIFFERENT CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES.

So stop shoving MONOCULTURAL STAGNATION on the rest of humanity. We value DIVERSITY and reject Locked Down MEMEMEMEisms of the Roman Empire of ancient barbarities.

Don't shove the BOXED WORLD of SAME AS ME ******** down the throats of other people.

[FirmHand135]

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, because I REFUSE TO LIVE IN THE FIRST CENTURY BC ROMAN EMPIRE OF ETERNAL BESTIALITY.

Social predators with their damned pants unzipped and their damned sex freak hormones on fire, craving fresh blood to satisfy their vampire lusts, can go to hell -- with or without approval from LEGALIZED SPECIALISTS IN BESTIALITY ENABLEMENT.

Got it?

When it comes down to a choice between LEGAL and MORAL, people generally choose MORAL -- because the LEGAL is generally a guarantee of death and destruction.

Legalized bestiality or illegalized human decency.

Take your choice and live with the consequences.

Me, I refuse to get stuck living in Augustus' Roman Empire where the only way to survive was to submit to Elitist Brutality and hope like hell you could kiss ass to please the masters.

"Don't ask, don't tell" -- and don't shove your sexual PERVERSIONS down the throats of others -- and nobody's ever going to give a **** what you do on your own time where we don't have to watch little animals ****ing each other because they are so dysfunctional and worthless, they don't dare even try to form normal DIVERSITY BASED relationships.

The whole point of STRAIGHT SEX is that men and women are DIFFERENT and a successful relationship requires unification between TWO DIFFERENT CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES.

So stop shoving MONOCULTURAL STAGNATION on the rest of humanity. We value DIVERSITY and reject Locked Down MEMEMEMEisms of the Roman Empire of ancient barbarities.

Don't shove the BOXED WORLD of SAME AS ME ******** down the throats of other people.


A gang of people assaulting one some one who has been tied down, assaulting them to the point of putting them in the hospital for two weeks...the ones who did that have no moral standing. Those same people that beat the person...they are the ones telling everyone that you have to live by their rules...their values..if they even have any. If the person did rape people..she should have received military discipline...sounds like she did...the ones who put her in the hospital should have received the same.....Welcome to Leavenworth...break those big rocks into little rocks!

[rhet 2]

A gang of people assaulting one some one who has been tied down, assaulting them to the point of putting them in the hospital for two weeks...the ones who did that have no moral standing. Those same people that beat the person...they are the ones telling everyone that you have to live by their rules...their values..if they even have any. If the person did rape people..she should have received military discipline...sounds like she did...the ones who put her in the hospital should have received the same.....Welcome to Leavenworth...break those big rocks into little rocks!

She shouldn't have first assaulted a Straight who rejected her FORCED advances.

Stop shoving the sexual LIMITATIONS of the few down the throats of wiser and more adept, diversified people, please.

Don't ask. Don't tell.

And don't try turning the barracks into a bordello for the sexually handicapped

and no problem occurs.

Only problems occur when the handicapped demand compliance with their own bestial proclivities and attempt to turn the military into a sexual hunting preserve for their personal hunting pleasure games.

[FirmHand135]

She shouldn't have first assaulted a Straight who rejected her FORCED advances.

Stop shoving the sexual LIMITATIONS of the few down the throats of wiser and more adept, diversified people, please.

Don't ask. Don't tell.

And don't try turning the barracks into a bordello for the sexually handicapped

and no problem occurs.

Only problems occur when the handicapped demand compliance with their own bestial proclivities and attempt to turn the military into a sexual hunting preserve for their personal hunting pleasure games.

Thank you for providing an outstanding example of intolerance and hipocracy. Wow..now if they don't have your same values and moral standards, they are handicapped......keep digging the hole.!

[rhet 2]

Thank you for providing an outstanding example of intolerance and hipocracy. Wow..now if they don't have your same values and moral standards, they are handicapped......keep digging the hole.!

Those who tolerate EVIL become evil even more destructively brutal than those they enable through tolerance.

There is ZERO difference between a heterosexual child rapist and a homosexual child rapist like the NAMBLA eaters of baby boy hearts and minds.

There is ZERO difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual social predator, either.

BOTH are predators -- and BOTH are equally intolerable to anyone who seeks a safe environment in which individuals are able to PERSONALIZE their lives according to their own POTENTIALITIES.

And Gays who shove their sexual proclivities down the throats of an entire society are totally anti-social selfish little animals who seek to force their will on everyone else -- which makes them sexual predators just like the vicious beasts who use physical and socio-economic FORCE to enslave women to their pornography and prostitution profiteering brutalities.

And the Holly Freaking Weirdos who prey on "actresses" to force them to prostitution and pornography disguised as "art" are just as predatory and vicious as the pimps driving through the streets of downtown LA in their Pimp Mobiles to ensure their whores are earning their next drug fix.

There is only ONE appropriate place for sexuality to occur: A PERSON'S OWN BEDROOM BEHIND CLOSED DOORS where others are not FORCED to think about what the hell that person is doing with his/her own body.

DO NOT FORCE PERSONAL SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES ON OTHERS: "don't ask, don't tell" -- and nobody's going to give a damn what anybody does in the privacy of their own bedrooms, since their sexual self-indulgences will not infringe on everybody else's right to equal privacy.

Works for Straights who'd better damned well not bring their sexual proclivities into my office, my classroom, or my home -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

And applies equally to Gays.

DO NOT IMPOSE YOUR SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES ON OTHERS, if you don't want to behave like the most vulgar, brutal, and disgusting PIMP on earth.

[USAF Medic]

I'm not sure if you're implying I'm a liar or just crazy but I can deal with crazy. Like I said, opinions differ. For the record I was in the Marines, a combat vet and an NCO myself. Most guys are not going to admit that they're cool with gays, esp when you get into showering and the such. Think of it like a giant high school (which is in many ways what the military is). You don't want to be the "queer lover" so many just keep their mouth shut about the whole thing or tow the party line. It's why more former military admit supporting integration of open homosexuals than currently serving ones do. Standing up for it in the military takes serious balls.

I also wanted to (and thought I did) make clear that a lot of guys in the Marines are NOT cool with the integration. At all. I also said some might leave and others might never join but I honestly do think that just like racial integration that, as the opinions of the civilian world in which the military draws from changes and guys come to realize its not that big of a deal, the world will continue to turn and the military will be just fine.

I've seen a big change in the military just in the time I was in ('03-'08) because kids are different now than at the start of the Bush administration, just because of the politics of youth in this country.

No I was not implying you wherre lying at all about your service. Only that your posts indicated what sounded like recent combat experience.
No assumption here that you're not on the up and up.

[USAF Medic]

Because thats how the system is set up. We have a civillian CINC.

I think "dont ask dont tell" is shameful and I have 13 years military experience.

Someones sexuality has no bearing on their ability to soldier or carry out their chosen profession in the military.

If you have a problem with their sexuality then that is your problem.

My only problem with it has ever been that if you're going to allow openly homosexual troops then make allowances for privacy, to the greatest extent possible, for those who are going to be uncomfortable with it.
I'm refering of course to billeting and showering situations.
Period!

[USAF Medic]

What an excellent and realistic POV. You are spot on that the military is the most reluctant when it comes to changes but once on board nobody embraces change and runs with it 110% more than anyone else.

If serving military personnel feel the need to resign over this then perhaps they do not have the character that we really need in the military.

Well while I am not retiring over this issue it is probably a good thing that I am.
Old NCO's like myself are tired of the progressive social engineering issues being more and more frequently pushed on military personnel.
None of which mind you has anything to do with increasing combat effectiveness.
And because someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle does not say ANYTHING negative about their character.
I might equally argue that those who support the homosexual lifestyle are not the character we need in the service.

[rhet 2]

Well while I am not retiring over this issue it is probably a good thing that I am.
Old NCO's like myself are tired of the progressive social engineering issues being more and more frequently pushed on military personnel.
None of which mind you has anything to do with increasing combat effectiveness.
And because someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle does not say ANYTHING negative about their character.
I might equally argue that those who support the homosexual lifestyle are not the character we need in the service.

For decades, we have fought to remove heterosexual predatory behaviors from the workplace.

Now, because it's homosexuality, we're supposed to tolerate the same behavior that we've worked to restrict from Straights?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- keep your sexuality out of the workplace and strictly private -- that is normative policy in civilian offices -- why should military offices and military barracks be any different than those of the civilian workplace?

Sexuality is just not something people should bring into the workplace. Period.

Because this reverses decades of struggle, opening the door to even the return to sexual harassment of women wearing the uniform, too.

[Mobulis]

Well while I am not retiring over this issue it is probably a good thing that I am.
Old NCO's like myself are tired of the progressive social engineering issues being more and more frequently pushed on military personnel.
None of which mind you has anything to do with increasing combat effectiveness.
And because someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle does not say ANYTHING negative about their character.
I might equally argue that those who support the homosexual lifestyle are not the character we need in the service.

Homosexuals will be more effective when they don't have to lie about who they are.

[rhet 2]

Homosexuals will be more effective when they don't have to lie about who they are.

Do you lie about your sex life when you're at work?

Or do you like everybody else do the work and keep the sex at home in the bedroom?

Nobody's saying pretend to be straight.

We're saying Keep Sex out of the workplace, where it has ZERO to do with getting the job done.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Tell us, if you were a general, how you would justify discriminating against a person based upon their sexual preference, and infringing upon their civil liberty?

The military is taxpayer funded, but running as if its a private corporation.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and gays made up a large portion of the military, straight people wouldn't like being discriminated against by the gays. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

One does not have a right to serve in the US military. There is no "civil liberty" involved.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I would talk to to generals of militarys that have homosexuals that serve openly such as Israel and Briton and find out what they do.

They accepted a mediocre military.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Polls say that 75% of American's favor letting gays in the military, and so do 66% of conservatives. Admiral Mullen, head of the joint chiefs, says it is not a military decision, it is up to congress.

Frankly, I have been in a fight with a gay man, and he would make one hell of a warrior.

Argumentum ad populum. When 75% of the gen pop and 66% of conservatives are serving in the military, you might have a point. Of course theat will never happen. Less than 1% actually serve.

[FirmHand135]

For decades, we have fought to remove heterosexual predatory behaviors from the workplace.

Now, because it's homosexuality, we're supposed to tolerate the same behavior that we've worked to restrict from Straights?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- keep your sexuality out of the workplace and strictly private -- that is normative policy in civilian offices -- why should military offices and military barracks be any different than those of the civilian workplace?

Sexuality is just not something people should bring into the workplace. Period.

Because this reverses decades of struggle, opening the door to even the return to sexual harassment of women wearing the uniform, too.


Interesting...so when I walked into my room and the room mate was going at it with his girlfriend, he should have been what??

Now, if I would have walked in on a gay room mate...should the results have been the same?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

This is nothing more than another symptom of the problems with the current military. Namely that the organization is focused on people rather than mission.

[rhet 2]

Interesting...so when I walked into my room and the room mate was going at it with his girlfriend, he should have been what??

Now, if I would have walked in on a gay room mate...should the results have been the same?

Was this going on in his office -- or in HIS bedroom?

Keep sex anything OUT OF THE WORKPLACE.

Which "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does -- for Straights and for Gays.

And if you share a bedroom with somebody else -- and the barracks are the most crowded shared bedroom on earth -- keep it out of there, too, unless the other roommates agree to let you turn THEIR bedroom into a damned whorehouse.

Because one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Your roommate's right to a sex life END where your rights to a bedroom begin. And your's END where his begin.

Sex distracts from and minimizes workplace efficiency, where the entire focus of the brain MUST be on getting the end results mandated for whatever job you're doing.

ESPECIALLY when guns and ammo and killing the enemy is the focus of the job.

Goes for the architect and the engineer and the lawyer -- and goes DOUBLE for combat troops, who need every ounce of energy and skill and ATTENTION for staying alive and making the enemy dead that they can get.

And God help the man who whispers ******** in my ears, rubs and makes nasty snide innuendos, and lets his GONADS get in the way of my teaching efficacy -- and God help the woman, too. He wouldn't be the first male who got a sharp elbow in his ribs -- and a high heel right down on the arch of his stupid FREAKED OUT selfish little screwed up foot -- or the crotch of his OUT OF CONTROL pants. Ditto the female who tries the same DISTRACTIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE AND PREDATORY get-in-the-way of the job ********.

We've forced Don't Ask, Don't Tell on males in the workplace for decades -- because NOBODY needs their damned hormones distracting and disabling their focus on the more important task at hand.

And Gays can damned well live with the same basic SELF CONTROL we've mandated to keep Straights from letting their own gonads get in the way of Job Focus.

And this ******** is just authorization for SEXUAL HARASSMENT from Gays who let their freaked out addiction to sexual highs dominate their freaking lives -- the same way some Straights get so freaked out over their dumb sex hormones, that's just about the beginning and the end of everything they're able to think about -- totally dominated by what IS NOT the center of the entire damned universe.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be and IS the norm for all human work environments -- because the work place is just NOT the place for rampant out of control chemical freakd out brain cells. And sex IS a chemical reaction, where chemical produced by the brain to cause sexual behaviors flood the brain and make concentration on other non-sexual behaviors damned near impossible.

If you can't keep the damned chemicals under control, you've got no business trying to do anything else, because your flipping brain IS working with half or more of its brain cells concentrated on breeding fun-fun-fun instead of designing that bridge -- especially when training with your squad to get across that bridge without an IED making one of your Brothers dead or disabled should be the entire focus of every brain cell you've got.

The work place is NO PLACE for half-brained nitwits with their gonads on fire -- or for the anger, the resentments, and all the rest of the emotional ******** that always go with "unrequited LO-UVE" -- and the jerk/jerkette who refuses to take No! for an answer.

Nobody needs a Sex Freaked Out NITWIT with half his/her brains focused on getting/not-getting laid instead of 200% focused on the job, 200% able and ready to move out and get that job done with maximum performance capacity.

Same damned thing as a buddy who shows up to work on Monday still spaced out and half dysfunctional from his/her Sunday nite "blow out" -- and the chick or chuck who can't get his/her skull off their marriage or dating problems and persists in burying everybody they work with under the gory details of their personal lives -- mega NOT work distractions everybody is forced to deal with just out of human kindness and in the interests of keeping things "civil" -- but they sure as hell DO get in the way of the job, distracting attention, time, and energy to stuff that should NEVER be brought into the work place.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was and is the compromise that let's people FOCUS on the job without sex getting in the way.

And that includes a bedroom and a bathroom shared with 100 other people.

Just SHUT UP and STAYED FOCUSED on the job.

If straights can do it, so can gays.

Or are gays such weak little whimpies, DADT is beyond their capacity, physically and mentally impossible, so they NEED exemption from the general principle that guides ALL working environments, civilian as well as military?

As Sneaky said: FOCUS ON THE MISSION

Goes for architects, engineers, "administrative assistants," and teachers, too -- AND Presidents sitting in the damned Oval Office.

[troy]

I retired from the military back in 2005 after 22 years. I served with homosexuals as did every person who has served past and present. I also worked through the policies of several administrations and found that in my experience, the homosexual issue being an issue was a rare occurence...even in the close quarters onboard ships. I never witnessed nor did I ever have to deal with a "homosexual" "problem" during my career.

I can say that I dealt with numerous problems regarding inappropriate male/female relationships and a couple fraternization cases involving senior and junior enlisted male/females in the same chain of command or where the junior worked for the senior. I also knew of a few officer and enlisted fraternization cases.

All of the above were rare and by no means representative of the Navy or military.

I'm not sure what the answer is with regard to a homosexual policy or if there should be a policy. I do have a problem with the military being used as a social engineering project, but the military does answer to civilian leadership.

Regardless of what your views are, the military will eventually follow suit with society as things change even if we don't agree.

It will be interesting to watch this one.

[Xena]

FirmHand? :think:

[mitchrapp2008]

I retired from the military back in 2005 after 22 years. I served with homosexuals as did every person who has served past and present. I also worked through the policies of several administrations and found that in my experience, the homosexual issue being an issue was a rare occurence...even in the close quarters onboard ships. I never witnessed nor did I ever have to deal with a "homosexual" "problem" during my career.

I can say that I dealt with numerous problems regarding inappropriate male/female relationships and a couple fraternization cases involving senior and junior enlisted male/females in the same chain of command or where the junior worked for the senior. I also knew of a few officer and enlisted fraternization cases.

All of the above were rare and by no means representative of the Navy or military.

I'm not sure what the answer is with regard to a homosexual policy or if there should be a policy. I do have a problem with the military being used as a social engineering project, but the military does answer to civilian leadership.

Regardless of what your views are, the military will eventually follow suit with society as things change even if we don't agree.

It will be interesting to watch this one.

I am currently in my 22nd year in the US military. The majority of that time was spent as a proud member of the US Navy. During my time on active duty, I am aware of three incidents of a homosexual sailor causing problems. Two of them involved a sailor being caught masterbating as he stared through a ventilation grate into the showers. The sailors who had been watched in the shower, had just come off a 14 hour day on the flight deck. Needless to say, they were not amused after hearing what had happened. The gay sailors, ended up walking around with black eyes and split lips...saying they had fell down a ladderwell. The third incident, which happened on a ship a buddy of mine was on, I never knew exactly what occured and only offer this as a rumor, I only knew the end result of the story, the sailor in question was missing from muster the next day and as far as I know never set foot upon that ship again.

[USAF Medic]

Homosexuals will be more effective when they don't have to lie about who they are.

:rolleyes:
That would imply they are not very effective now.
something I am sure you don't believe since so many have said that serving homosexuals are doing so with distinction as we speak.

[Antrel]

If I can deal with SPC. Dip**** spitting his brown saliva into a coke bottle and routinely leaving it next to my cup of noodles, or PFC. Virgin leaving his used fleshlight next to my bunk, or PVT. Racist going off about sand-******s, SGT. Homophobe can deal with PVT Flameon openly liking men.

It's such a non-issue built on a mountain of speculation that it's not even funny anymore. And people will see it soon enough as it is inevitable.

[Mobulis]

:rolleyes:
That would imply they are not very effective now.
something I am sure you don't believe since so many have said that serving homosexuals are doing so with distinction as we speak.



Ah no it doesn't, it simple states that they're enviroment will be better and as a consequence they're work will improve. Homosexuals are already doing great job.

[Mobulis]

Was this going on in his office -- or in HIS bedroom?

Keep sex anything OUT OF THE WORKPLACE.

Which "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does -- for Straights and for Gays.

And if you share a bedroom with somebody else -- and the barracks are the most crowded shared bedroom on earth -- keep it out of there, too, unless the other roommates agree to let you turn THEIR bedroom into a damned whorehouse.

Because one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Your roommate's right to a sex life END where your rights to a bedroom begin. And your's END where his begin.

Sex distracts from and minimizes workplace efficiency, where the entire focus of the brain MUST be on getting the end results mandated for whatever job you're doing.
ESPECIALLY when guns and ammo and killing the enemy is the focus of the job.

Goes for the architect and the engineer and the lawyer -- and goes DOUBLE for combat troops, who need every ounce of energy and skill and ATTENTION for staying alive and making the enemy dead that they can get.

And God help the man who whispers ******** in my ears, rubs and makes nasty snide innuendos, and lets his GONADS get in the way of my teaching efficacy -- and God help the woman, too. He wouldn't be the first male who got a sharp elbow in his ribs -- and a high heel right down on the arch of his stupid FREAKED OUT selfish little screwed up foot -- or the crotch of his OUT OF CONTROL pants. Ditto the female who tries the same DISTRACTIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE AND PREDATORY get-in-the-way of the job ********.

We've forced Don't Ask, Don't Tell on males in the workplace for decades -- because NOBODY needs their damned hormones distracting and disabling their focus on the more important task at hand.

And Gays can damned well live with the same basic SELF CONTROL we've mandated to keep Straights from letting their own gonads get in the way of Job Focus.

And this ******** is just authorization for SEXUAL HARASSMENT from Gays who let their freaked out addiction to sexual highs dominate their freaking lives -- the same way some Straights get so freaked out over their dumb sex hormones, that's just about the beginning and the end of everything they're able to think about -- totally dominated by what IS NOT the center of the entire damned universe.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be and IS the norm for all human work environments -- because the work place is just NOT the place for rampant out of control chemical freakd out brain cells. And sex IS a chemical reaction, where chemical produced by the brain to cause sexual behaviors flood the brain and make concentration on other non-sexual behaviors damned near impossible.

If you can't keep the damned chemicals under control, you've got no business trying to do anything else, because your flipping brain IS working with half or more of its brain cells concentrated on breeding fun-fun-fun instead of designing that bridge -- especially when training with your squad to get across that bridge without an IED making one of your Brothers dead or disabled should be the entire focus of every brain cell you've got.

The work place is NO PLACE for half-brained nitwits with their gonads on fire -- or for the anger, the resentments, and all the rest of the emotional ******** that always go with "unrequited LO-UVE" -- and the jerk/jerkette who refuses to take No! for an answer.

Nobody needs a Sex Freaked Out NITWIT with half his/her brains focused on getting/not-getting laid instead of 200% focused on the job, 200% able and ready to move out and get that job done with maximum performance capacity.

Same damned thing as a buddy who shows up to work on Monday still spaced out and half dysfunctional from his/her Sunday nite "blow out" -- and the chick or chuck who can't get his/her skull off their marriage or dating problems and persists in burying everybody they work with under the gory details of their personal lives -- mega NOT work distractions everybody is forced to deal with just out of human kindness and in the interests of keeping things "civil" -- but they sure as hell DO get in the way of the job, distracting attention, time, and energy to stuff that should NEVER be brought into the work place.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was and is the compromise that let's people FOCUS on the job without sex getting in the way.

And that includes a bedroom and a bathroom shared with 100 other people.

Just SHUT UP and STAYED FOCUSED on the job.

If straights can do it, so can gays.

Or are gays such weak little whimpies, DADT is beyond their capacity, physically and mentally impossible, so they NEED exemption from the general principle that guides ALL working environments, civilian as well as military?

As Sneaky said: FOCUS ON THE MISSION

Goes for architects, engineers, "administrative assistants," and teachers, too -- AND Presidents sitting in the damned Oval Office.


Wouldn't you agree that having to hide your sexual orientation to keep your job is a distraction?

[ArmyCowboy]

Precisely so.

Nothing wrong with Gays at all -- they have the right to be whatever they like --

We just don't have to live with them.

Won't have one in my home -- and won't force their company on troops who are forced to live in open barracks, either.

Wouldn't have a heterosexual freaked out predator in the house, either -- not the sort of behavior and attitude I want to be around.

If they can keep their mouths shut and their pants zipped, who cares what they do when they're ELSEWHERE and I don't have to know what they're doing?

Just not around me and mine.

I have a feeling that bigots of old substituted "blacks" for "gays" in tirades of old. Seperate but equal.....they're allowed to live, just not around me....

Does all of this sound familiar?

Guess bigotry never dies, it just changes shape.

[rhet 2]

Wouldn't you agree that having to hide your sexual orientation to keep your job is a distraction?

No

Because, if you're thinking about the need to hide your sexual orientation, you're not thinking about the job at all, now are you?

The entire idea of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is to neither hide nor to flaunt sexual proclivities regardless of orientation because YOU FOCUS ON THE JOB, not on your sex life.

[rhet 2]

I have a feeling that bigots of old substituted "blacks" for "gays" in tirades of old. Seperate but equal.....they're allowed to live, just not around me....

Does all of this sound familiar?

Guess bigotry never dies, it just changes shape.

Would YOU welcome David Duke or any other blatant racist into your home?

NOT an acceptable behavior, not in my world. LOTS of behaviors I don't accept -- like rape, murder, racism, sexism, etc.

What you term "bigotry" is NOT bigotry -- it's demanding a set of behaviors that do not foster destructive and anti-social environments.

I do not accept sexual promiscuity and lack of self-control in any form or fashion, because I find such behaviors weak and counter-productive -- which also includes Straights who can't keep their own pants zipped and hyper-focus on their sexual hormone drug fixes instead of on being strong, reliable members of society in general.

Gays who flaunt their sexuality are just as anti-social as Straights like the Hyper-Sexed Freakies of Holly Weird who can't keep their marriages together, can't control their own sex drives, sell that sex drive as "entertainment," etc.

Sexuality -- ANY FORM OF -- does NOT belong in the middle of a tv screen, a computer screen, an office, a motor pool, a hospital room, a Congressional meeting, the Oval Office, or ANYPLACE EXCEPT A BEDROOM where two people are ALONE with each other.

And, if you can't control that sex drive to keep it limited to the ONE PERSON you've sworn to cherish FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, forget it.

Sexual promiscuity OF ALL FORMS is both socially and personally degrading, turning humanity into nothing but little wild beasts "in season" 24/7.

And that goes for Brad Pitt and Angolina Jolie as well as Michael Jackson and all the rest of those poor sick slobs who are fixated on their own 24/7 always ready to BREED for FUN AND GAMES who think that SEX is the center of the known universe because their gonads rule their brains and their sexual "performance" is their primary center of Self Identity.

The person who defines him/herself in terms of sexual proclivities instead of all the other thousand and one things that make up human existence is a weak and shallow as the White who defines his entire Self Worth in terms of his skin color.

When, in terms of strong, secure, stable self identity, the perception of sexuality should be Huh? SO WHAT? Insignificant and nothing to do with my value to my friends and family and the rest of society.

THAT's what I'm saying: Straight or Gay, WHO GIVES A ****? INSIGNIFICANT, except when you're alone with the ONE person you've EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY BONDED WITH, become totally unified with in tight unbreakable union that transcends the physical, goes way beyond friendship, so that the two actually share a 24/7 awareness of the other ONE PERSON in their lives.

That ALONE TIME WITH THE ONE BOND MATE is the ONLY time when sex should matter a hill of beans -- every other minute of the vastly complex and intricate details of human existence should be FOCUSED on what is relevant to the issue of the moment, having ZERO ZIP NADA to do with sexuality at all.

ONE TO ONE SOUL BONDING is the basis of a healthy constructive sex life -- and that goes for Gays as well as Straights.

And sexuality of ANY form becomes counter-productive and socially destructive whenever it is expressed in group activities.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- don't even think about it -- except when ALONE WITH THE ONE SOUL BONDED LIFE COMPANION.

And that Not Welcome goes for the female Sex Freak who walks through the door to look at a boy and go GA GA with lust and for the female Sex Freak who walks through the door to look at a girl and go GA GA with lust -- and ditto males doing the same damned SOCIAL PREDATOR dances.

Keep GA GA lust freak games to the ONE PERSON YOU LIFE BOND WITH, homosexual or heterosexual BONDING TO ONE, same thing -- keep sex ANYTHING out of group societal interactions, family life or work life, either one.

[Antrel]

Would YOU welcome David Duke or any other blatant racist into your home?

NOT an acceptable behavior, not in my world. LOTS of behaviors I don't accept -- like rape, murder, racism, sexism, etc.

What you term "bigotry" is NOT bigotry -- it's demanding a set of behaviors that do not foster destructive and anti-social environments.

I do not accept sexual promiscuity and lack of self-control in any form or fashion, because I find such behaviors weak and counter-productive -- which also includes Straights who can't keep their own pants zipped and hyper-focus on their sexual hormone drug fixes instead of on being strong, reliable members of society in general.

Gays who flaunt their sexuality are just as anti-social as Straights like the Hyper-Sexed Freakies of Holly Weird who can't keep their marriages together, can't control their own sex drives, sell that sex drive as "entertainment," etc.

Sexuality -- ANY FORM OF -- does NOT belong in the middle of a tv screen, a computer screen, an office, a motor pool, a hospital room, a Congressional meeting, the Oval Office, or ANYPLACE EXCEPT A BEDROOM where two people are ALONE with each other.

And, if you can't control that sex drive to keep it limited to the ONE PERSON you've sworn to cherish FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, forget it.

Sexual promiscuity OF ALL FORMS is both socially and personally degrading, turning humanity into nothing but little wild beasts "in season" 24/7.

And that goes for Brad Pitt and Angolina Jolie as well as Michael Jackson and all the rest of those poor sick slobs who are fixated on their own 24/7 always ready to BREED for FUN AND GAMES who think that SEX is the center of the known universe because their gonads rule their brains and their sexual "performance" is their primary center of Self Identity.

The person who defines him/herself in terms of sexual proclivities instead of all the other thousand and one things that make up human existence is a weak and shallow as the White who defines his entire Self Worth in terms of his skin color.

When, in terms of strong, secure, stable self identity, the perception of sexuality should be Huh? SO WHAT? Insignificant and nothing to do with my value to my friends and family and the rest of society.

THAT's what I'm saying: Straight or Gay, WHO GIVES A ****? INSIGNIFICANT, except when you're alone with the ONE person you've EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY BONDED WITH, become totally unified with in tight unbreakable union that transcends the physical, goes way beyond friendship, so that the two actually share a 24/7 awareness of the other ONE PERSON in their lives.

That ALONE TIME WITH THE ONE BOND MATE is the ONLY time when sex should matter a hill of beans -- every other minute of the vastly complex and intricate details of human existence should be FOCUSED on what is relevant to the issue of the moment, having ZERO ZIP NADA to do with sexuality at all.

ONE TO ONE SOUL BONDING is the basis of a healthy constructive sex life -- and that goes for Gays as well as Straights.

And sexuality of ANY form becomes counter-productive and socially destructive whenever it is expressed in group activities.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- don't even think about it -- except when ALONE WITH THE ONE SOUL BONDED LIFE COMPANION.

And that Not Welcome goes for the female Sex Freak who walks through the door to look at a boy and go GA GA with lust and for the female Sex Freak who walks through the door to look at a girl and go GA GA with lust -- and ditto males doing the same damned SOCIAL PREDATOR dances.

Keep GA GA lust freak games to the ONE PERSON YOU LIFE BOND WITH, homosexual or heterosexual BONDING TO ONE, same thing -- keep sex ANYTHING out of group societal interactions, family life or work life, either one.I agree completely. But that's not the standard for heterosexuals. I heard more stories about tag-teaming and (probably fake) reverse-cowgirls than I cared to listen to. But if I ever went up to my SFC complaining about it, he'd just look at me like I took the wrong bus to boy scouts. Eventually you get to the point where you say "I'm going to punch you in the ****ing face if you keep telling me stupid stories about where your (expletive form of 'penis') has been." So yes, things like that do damage "unit cohesion" in non-combat settings.

However, the UCMJ defines homosexual conduct beyond that of simple public display. You talk about keeping things between partners, gay or straight, but the simple act of a gay servicemen *having a partner* is illegal. Getting a marriage or civil union, even if it's legal in your state, is illegal. Humping a guy in your bedroom inside your off-base residence is illegal. Confiding in a soldier you trust about your homosexual relationship is illegal. It's not just about overt conduct.

[Mobulis]

No

Because, if you're thinking about the need to hide your sexual orientation, you're not thinking about the job at all, now are you?
The entire idea of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is to neither hide nor to flaunt sexual proclivities regardless of orientation because YOU FOCUS ON THE JOB, not on your sex life.


Well if you don't have to hide your sexual orientation then your not going to be thinking about it WILL YOU.:rolleyes:

[.daniel]

Would YOU welcome David Duke or any other blatant racist into your home?

NOT an acceptable behavior, not in my world. LOTS of behaviors I don't accept -- like rape, murder, racism, sexism, etc.

What you term "bigotry" is NOT bigotry -- it's demanding a set of behaviors that do not foster destructive and anti-social environments.

I do not accept sexual promiscuity and lack of self-control in any form or fashion, because I find such behaviors weak and counter-productive -- which also includes Straights who can't keep their own pants zipped and hyper-focus on their sexual hormone drug fixes instead of on being strong, reliable members of society in general.

Gays who flaunt their sexuality are just as anti-social as Straights like the Hyper-Sexed Freakies of Holly Weird who can't keep their marriages together, can't control their own sex drives, sell that sex drive as "entertainment," etc.

Sexuality -- ANY FORM OF -- does NOT belong in the middle of a tv screen, a computer screen, an office, a motor pool, a hospital room, a Congressional meeting, the Oval Office, or ANYPLACE EXCEPT A BEDROOM where two people are ALONE with each other.

And, if you can't control that sex drive to keep it limited to the ONE PERSON you've sworn to cherish FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, forget it.

Sexual promiscuity OF ALL FORMS is both socially and personally degrading, turning humanity into nothing but little wild beasts "in season" 24/7.

And that goes for Brad Pitt and Angolina Jolie as well as Michael Jackson and all the rest of those poor sick slobs who are fixated on their own 24/7 always ready to BREED for FUN AND GAMES who think that SEX is the center of the known universe because their gonads rule their brains and their sexual "performance" is their primary center of Self Identity.

The person who defines him/herself in terms of sexual proclivities instead of all the other thousand and one things that make up human existence is a weak and shallow as the White who defines his entire Self Worth in terms of his skin color.

When, in terms of strong, secure, stable self identity, the perception of sexuality should be Huh? SO WHAT? Insignificant and nothing to do with my value to my friends and family and the rest of society.

THAT's what I'm saying: Straight or Gay, WHO GIVES A ****? INSIGNIFICANT, except when you're alone with the ONE person you've EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY BONDED WITH, become totally unified with in tight unbreakable union that transcends the physical, goes way beyond friendship, so that the two actually share a 24/7 awareness of the other ONE PERSON in their lives.

That ALONE TIME WITH THE ONE BOND MATE is the ONLY time when sex should matter a hill of beans -- every other minute of the vastly complex and intricate details of human existence should be FOCUSED on what is relevant to the issue of the moment, having ZERO ZIP NADA to do with sexuality at all.

ONE TO ONE SOUL BONDING is the basis of a healthy constructive sex life -- and that goes for Gays as well as Straights.

And sexuality of ANY form becomes counter-productive and socially destructive whenever it is expressed in group activities.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- don't even think about it -- except when ALONE WITH THE ONE SOUL BONDED LIFE COMPANION.

And that Not Welcome goes for the female Sex Freak who walks through the door to look at a boy and go GA GA with lust and for the female Sex Freak who walks through the door to look at a girl and go GA GA with lust -- and ditto males doing the same damned SOCIAL PREDATOR dances.

Keep GA GA lust freak games to the ONE PERSON YOU LIFE BOND WITH, homosexual or heterosexual BONDING TO ONE, same thing -- keep sex ANYTHING out of group societal interactions, family life or work life, either one.


While I respect your opinion, it isn't yours or the government's place to legislate those standards onto people. That's called oppression.

[rhet 2]

I agree completely. But that's not the standard for heterosexuals. I heard more stories about tag-teaming and (probably fake) reverse-cowgirls than I cared to listen to. But if I ever went up to my SFC complaining about it, he'd just look at me like I took the wrong bus to boy scouts. Eventually you get to the point where you say "I'm going to punch you in the ****ing face if you keep telling me stupid stories about where your (expletive form of 'penis') has been." So yes, things like that do damage "unit cohesion" in non-combat settings.

However, the UCMJ defines homosexual conduct beyond that of simple public display. You talk about keeping things between partners, gay or straight, but the simple act of a gay servicemen *having a partner* is illegal. Getting a marriage or civil union, even if it's legal in your state, is illegal. Humping a guy in your bedroom inside your off-base residence is illegal. Confiding in a soldier you trust about your homosexual relationship is illegal. It's not just about overt conduct.


If what you say is true -- and I have no cause to doubt it -- then those are IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL legal restrictions that need to be changed. A person's sex life is NOT anybody's business except his/her own. And any attempt to legislate pro- or con- is an abuse of power.

Which is why I ardently oppose heterosexual marriage where the preacher proclaims "By the power of the state of ......." as abusive and tyrannical abuse of power -- none of the state's damned business PERIOD.

Legal contracts for commonly held property and mutual responsibilities -- civil contracts ONLY, please.

Marriage -- and sexuality itself -- should be the result of emotional and psychological bonding that transcends the biological to a much deeper, lasting interconnectedness that lasts a lifetime, because the bonding is worth the struggle to resolve interpersonal conflicts that threaten the bond.

And THAT is nobody's business except the two people who seek such a bond -- emotional and mental, as well as physical.

Trying to legislate sexual norms -- either pro or against -- is utter damned archaic and STUPID abuse of government power. NOT enforceable and NOT GUBMIT GOONIE BIRD business, PERIOD, save in the case of rape and/or forced sexual submission, because there the government DOES have the obligation to protect the victim from aggression and violence.

But I was of the understanding that Don't Ask Don't Tell is about keeping sexuality PRIVATE and out of the public sphere of group interactions.

[ArmyCowboy]

Would YOU welcome David Duke or any other blatant racist into your home?

.....

Big difference.

Racism is a voluntary behavior, one's sexuality (whether heterosexual or homosexual) is not.

You can no more control who you're attracted to than you can control the colour of your skin.

[rhet 2]

Big difference.

Racism is a voluntary behavior, one's sexuality (whether heterosexual or homosexual) is not.

You can no more control who you're attracted to than you can control the colour of your skin.

Actually, you're wrong.

The URGE to eat is not the same thing as actually eating, you know.

And a diabetic who yields to the urge to swallow sugary garbage by the gallon has no one to blame for YIELDING TO TEMPTATION except himself.

The URGE to sex is not the same thing as indulging that urge -- and the child rapist has no more excuse -- "I can't help it" -- than the heterosexual predator who acts on his own temptations to rape a little girl -- and the homosexual who says "I can't help it" is just as weak and socially incompetent as anyone else who refuses to CONTROL THEIR BASE URGES.

And I refuse to denigrate the entire Gay community by reducing them to animals controlled by base instincts beyond their capacity to control by rational self-discipline.

Yes, Gays CAN control their sexual urges to limit their activities to the privacy of their own bedrooms with a single life-bonded mate. And so the hell can a Brad Pitt and a Britany Spears.

Because the Gay is JUST AS CAPABLE OF SELF_CONTROL AND TRUE HUMAN NOBILITY as any other human being. HONOR begins with "Say No" to all the urges and temptations that surround every single human being when Say Yes becomes destructive to self and to general society.

And the Gay or the Straight who brings sex into the workplace IS a self-indulgent miserable little weakling preying on society to satisfy his own selfish little pig needs, regardless of the damage he/she does to others forced to work with the spoiled little beast.

Sex of ANY type does not belong in group social situations and sure as thunder does not belong in the workplace.

[mdk190]

Good for Rep. Tauscher! It is a silly and discriminatory policy.