Dont Ask Dont tell

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

so me and my roomate got into a pretty heated conversation about the "dont ask dont tell" being lifted from Military Standard.

what do the rest of you for see happening down the road because of this and explain why.

[acolyte_to_jippity]

i don't give a shit if you're gay or not. shouldn't have any bearing.

[BladeTwinSwords]

i don't give a shit if you're gay or not. shouldn't have any bearing.

^ pretty much.

[Clone]

a gay soldier can shoot just as well as a straight soldier... whats the difference?? just cause he checks out your junk in the showers doesn't mean he wont take a bullet for ya :D

Clone

[Fluffy Frufflebottoms]

It's high time that American military branches join the parts of the 21st century that don't revolve around shooting things or blowing them up. American soldiers serve with openly gay allied troops, and those troops are part of militaries that haven't disintegrated because of homosexuality. Why should the U.S. be taking up the rear, so to speak, in issues pertaining to tolerance and personal freedoms?

[acolyte_to_jippity]

It's high time that American military branches join the parts of the 21st century that don't revolve around shooting things or blowing them up. American soldiers serve with openly gay allied troops, and those troops are part of militaries that haven't disintegrated because of homosexuality. Why should the U.S. be taking up the rear, so to speak, in issues pertaining to tolerance and personal freedoms?

although, to be fair, it's less "we don't want you" but more "we don't want to hear about it." basically "don't make a huge deal about it kthxbai!"

[Fluffy Frufflebottoms]

That would really only fly if personnel were also instructed to stop talking about their heterosexual relationships, but I'm sure that most people would find that pretty preposterous. If you don't want to hear about it, just don't listen to it. That's all there is to it.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

i dont really want this to be a debate.... BUT.. it is not much of an issue with new stright soldiers and new gay soldiers as it is with soldiers who are already in, dealing with soldiers who are gay, joining.

now do not get me wrong, plenty of units out there know of gay soldiers in the military already. but those particular homosexual soldiers joined understainding that they lost the right to be openly gay in the military. they joined soloey to join the military. then hid the fact that they were gay.
the people in those units knew about it and accepted that and kept it secret as well. Trusting there life along side one another.

im not saying gays are going to be bad soldiers but the amount of new "gay soldiers" who are completly able are going to end up pushing out other completely able soldiers from there jobs, making such soldier retire early.

(fyi, the Military has a quota, to go over that quota is not a good thing... "fed taxs pay for those soldiers, alot of money goes into those soldiers (including myself) thus there being a limit to the size of our military)

other soldiers who may have a prejudice arnt going to want these openly gay "i can finnaly be openly gay in the military" Soldiers around let alone in there SAME barracks.

do you think, they will organize and spend the extra money on spreate barracks?

[SCRIBBLE]

this thread is gay

[Solarsoul]

i think mikey is scared that he will loose out cause a gay soldier can do better than him :)

[Hai]

Although I understand where your coming from with the leaving because of new gay members, my question to you is this. Since when was the military about your own personal feelings or how you felt individually? The military is supposed to be the protecters of this fine country, why shouldn't someone be allowed to defend it just because they enjoy something different from the "Norm"? The only thing that should matter is are you willing to defend the country you believe in.

[StarsMine]

It really isnt anyones business however if one is found to be gay, they get kicked out of the army, and that is really stupid.
It needs to be lifted

[&&toasties]

i don't give a shit if you're gay or not. shouldn't have any bearing.

Agreed.

That shit is stupid and is next to racism.

If gay people aren't allowed, then blacks or asians or mexicans shouldn't be either.

[OMGBEARS]

If they're willing to die for their country- why SHOULDN'T they have the right to do whatever they would wish with their personal life? I've always been against the DADT policy that the military holds here in the USA. It's 100% discrimination against homosexuals and hearkens back to a time when non-white soldiers were kept to their own outfits within the army due to prejudice. Did those same soldiers not die for the very rights they weren't able to fully enjoy? America has always been racist, and discriminatory. Last week it was non-white, yesterday it was women, and today it's homosexuals. People need something to hate/be afraid of or they do stupid things like live their own lives rather than choosing to dictate to others what is acceptable.

Truly, it's deplorable that in this day and age such a thing still exists in a first-world country.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

If they're willing to die for their country- why SHOULDN'T they have the right to do whatever they would wish with their personal life? I've always been against the DADT policy that the military holds here in the USA. It's 100% discrimination against homosexuals and hearkens back to a time when non-white soldiers were kept to their own outfits within the army due to prejudice. Did those same soldiers not die for the very rights they weren't able to fully enjoy? America has always been racist, and discriminatory. Last week it was non-white, yesterday it was women, and today it's homosexuals. People need something to hate/be afraid of or they do stupid things like live their own lives rather than choosing to dictate to others what is acceptable.

Truly, it's deplorable that in this day and age such a thing still exists in a first-world country.

it has nothing to do with a prejudice but has everything to do with the fact that if a gay person felt likle he wanted to join the military he understood his "loss" and gain at the same time JUST to do what was right. implying as a Homosexual person he was willing to give up his rights in the military as a gay person to protect and serve his country. what the rest of you dont understand who dont know anything other then what CNN tells you.. EVERYONE WHO JOINS THE MILITARY GIVES UP there rights in there contract, PART OF WHICH is vocally saying your gay. (why? not because of some prejudice but because of YOUR GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS! ... do you want pay 5 dollars more just to make sure homosexual MALEs and FEMALEs have there one barrackes to sleep in because they can vocally announce that they are gay and think so and so in your unit is sexy????? FUCK NO!)

with the new law, (and im almost positive we will be having a mass turnout with recruits after this) would EVEN A HOMOSEXUAL VETERAN want another homosexual who is only joining because he can VOICE a GAY opinion now, in the military... that is the WRONG IDEA entirely. that isnt even the JIST of the issue the rest of the military has.. but looking at a libral point of view...i guess it is.

take some military history or ask a fucking veteran wht he thinks... THEN reply

i have nothing against gays.. personally.. but me being a soldier and knowing that others may be affected by this.. AFFECTS ME and MY performance when the OTHER component dosnt work because of its NEW enviorment.

[StarsMine]

WHY THE HELL SHOULD YOUR ENVIRONMENT CHANGE? They dont need separate barracks

All dont ask dont tell did was kick out a gay person when people found out the dude was gay.

Also I would pay 5 bucks more in taxes, we are one of the least taxed contries, and I dont see any good reason why.

[Tickle Me Emo]

Also I would pay 5 bucks more in taxes, we are one of the least taxed contries, and I dont see any good reason why.

Because we're not a socialist state, but don't worry, Obama is on your side.

:icon_mrgreen:

[StarsMine]

Because we're not a socialist state, but don't worry, Obama is on your side.

:icon_mrgreen:

I actually am quite republican, however considering all the spending we have done between the stimulis and the 10 year war, the goverment needs to repay some of its debt, but this is not part of the dont ask dont tell discussion

[Tickle Me Emo]

I actually am quite republican, however considering all the spending we have done between the stimulis and the 10 year war, the goverment needs to repay some of its debt, but this is not part of the dont ask dont tell discussion

Oh I absolutely agree our government has fucked us over financially, and we'll almost certainly have to pay for it in tax raises. The reason we don't have high taxes currently is because we're not a socialist state; our massive debt is a recent issue (most of it). The Obama part was mainly a joke (though true enough).


As for DADT, in my opinion that rule is protecting the gays more than it's harming them. If suddenly everyone who is in the military now and is gay were exposed as being gay, I wonder how many of them would actually want to stay in. You think DADT is discrimination? Wait until you see the discrimination that will come from everyone knowing who's gay. I don't care how many policies you put into place to protect them, they will catch shit for being gay, and that is reality whether you like it or not.

Still, I suppose if they want to give gays the option to take a ton of shit for their sexuality, why not? I guess if they decided they needed separate barracks for some reason or another that's a perfectly fine reason not to, we certainly don't need to pile more money on to the national debt.

[OMGBEARS]

it has nothing to do with a prejudice but has everything to do with the fact that if a gay person felt likle he wanted to join the military he understood his "loss" and gain at the same time JUST to do what was right. implying as a Homosexual person he was willing to give up his rights in the military as a gay person to protect and serve his country. what the rest of you dont understand who dont know anything other then what CNN tells you.. EVERYONE WHO JOINS THE MILITARY GIVES UP there rights in there contract, PART OF WHICH is vocally saying your gay. (why? not because of some prejudice but because of YOUR GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS! ... do you want pay 5 dollars more just to make sure homosexual MALEs and FEMALEs have there one barrackes to sleep in because they can vocally announce that they are gay and think so and so in your unit is sexy????? FUCK NO!)

with the new law, (and im almost positive we will be having a mass turnout with recruits after this) would EVEN A HOMOSEXUAL VETERAN want another homosexual who is only joining because he can VOICE a GAY opinion now, in the military... that is the WRONG IDEA entirely. that isnt even the JIST of the issue the rest of the military has.. but looking at a libral point of view...i guess it is.

take some military history or ask a fucking veteran wht he thinks... THEN reply

i have nothing against gays.. personally.. but me being a soldier and knowing that others may be affected by this.. AFFECTS ME and MY performance when the OTHER component dosnt work because of its NEW enviorment.

Congress approved a military-defense spending budget of $1.121 trillion for this coming year (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf). I was never under the impression that the USA cuts its military budget so that a single demographic can be singled out and restrained. Also, I don't watch CNN. What I do watch are congressional reports, as well as the statistics coming out of the courts as DADT is passed along.

If soldiers are allowed to be openly "straight" in the military, then homosexuals should be allowed to be openly "gay" in the military. It's truly as simple as that. As of now, simply coming out of the closet as gay will get you a Court-martial. Since 1994, over 13,000 of our soldiers have been discharged from the military as a result of this. They joined to protect their country, and they were discharged because the country for which they were ready to die didn't like their sexual orientation. That sounds like discrimination to me.

On separate note, now that DADT has been repealed, I bet either Agnostic/Atheists or Illegal Immigrants will be the next groups to be discriminated against. I mean, it's not like Agnostics or Atheists already cannot run for office in eight states (AR, MD, MA, NC, PA, SC, TN & TX), or that people who responded on the day of the 9/11 attacks who weren't citizens are denied the health coverage offered to other first-responders.

Truly, I'm not even sure why I am forced to pay taxes to entities which force discrimination against specific demographics. In addition- who says the government will raise our taxes to make up for lack of discrimination when we've not raised taxes since the 90's, and have tacked on a global (let me repeat that for emphasis- GLOBAL) war on terror. What on earth is Terror? We declared war on an idea? What?

In any case- I digress: I feel as though the repeal of DADT was a good thing.

[mag36]

This guy pretty much says exactly what I feel about gays in general....

Whether its in the military or not
6Fqm32gRaqc

[Jeimuzu]

Has no one come to the conclusion that the gay race will die as they cannot reproduce? Even if you somehow rationalize it morally, biologically it does not work, and if you choose to be gay that pretty much also makes you an idiot.

Chemical imbalances are a different story however, but it's nothing steroids and testosterone shots can't fix, right?

[SCRIBBLE]

Has no one come to the conclusion that the gay race will die as they cannot reproduce? Even if you somehow rationalize it morally, biologically it does not work, and if you choose to be gay that pretty much also makes you an idiot.

Chemical imbalances are a different story however, but it's nothing steroids and testosterone shots can't fix, right?

Reproduction is subjective. Steroids and testosterone won't change a thing except cause health issues.

There is no such thing as a "gay" race.

As far as everyone's opinion on homosexuality... let it be. Live your life and let the homosexual live his.

I have heard, however, that ignorance is bliss.

[Jeimuzu]

scribble[nuke];92351']Reproduction is subjective. Steroids and testosterone won't change a thing except cause health issues.

There is no such thing as a "gay" race.

As far as everyone's opinion on homosexuality... let it be. Live your life and let the homosexual live his.

I have heard, however, that ignorance is bliss.

I'm not out to kill them or anything, just merely speculating on the possibilities of changing a mental condition if needed or wanted.

And I refer to social categories as "races."

[SCRIBBLE]

And I refer to social categories as "races."

I do want to point out that reproduction is no longer a necessity for our species. We have become over populated and it would be an awful world to live in if everyone made proper use of their reproductive systems (not only that, but rape would be even more rampant).

[Jeimuzu]

scribble[nuke];92353']Got ya.

I do want to point out that reproduction is no longer a necessity for our species. We have become over populated and it would be an awful world to live in if everyone made proper use of their reproductive systems (not only that, but rape would be even more rampant).

I completely understand how our race is overpopulated for this planet, but that still doesn't make logical sense. Unless these people are Christians, or believe that something else is to come for them after this life, then it doesn't make much sense as to why they wouldn't want to continue to pass down their genes. Or maybe that can relate to some of their self esteems being incredibly low (or one of the other million reasons out there).

[Fluffy Frufflebottoms]

You're suggesting that people with low self-esteem become homosexual to avoid procreating?

[SCRIBBLE]

I completely understand how our race is overpopulated for this planet, but that still doesn't make logical sense. Unless these people are Christians, or believe that something else is to come for them after this life, then it doesn't make much sense as to why they wouldn't want to continue to pass down their genes. Or maybe that can relate to some of their self esteems being incredibly low (or one of the other million reasons out there).

The only logic you can apply to homosexuality is that which you create within your own mind to rationalize something you don't understand.

The more plausible explanation for homosexual's "low self-esteem" could be chalked up to conditioning as a child and an ignorant, prejudice society.

[OMGBEARS]

There are heterosexuals who don't want children. This in no way relates to self-esteem, but instead to genes, and DNA. Specifically it relates to the gene which influences the desire to reproduce (at least in mice- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has-gay-gene-been-found-female-mice). Homosexuals have been found in close to 1500 species, from penguins to gut worms, and these relationships don't only include sex- but also involve the courtship, bonding, etc that is found in male/female pairs.

They aren't idiots- they are human beings who simply wish to live their lives as you wish to live yours. We as humans have moved past the idea of "we must procreate or we die" as we as a race are becoming less concerned with procreating, and more concerned with self-enlightenment. Even if it was a choice- who decides what is right or what is wrong? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to all Americans?

And no, they are not a race; your definition of "race" is incorrect. In addition, homosexuals might not be able to reproduce in homosexual partners, but they aren't required to do so. There will always be a chance for heterosexual couples to have homosexual children. This should be obvious, as if heterosexual couples only produced heterosexual children, we would not be having this discussion.

Think of it this way, James- take someone who cannot see the color blue. They simply cannot see it, no matter how hard you try to make them. It might not make sense to you why they can't see the color blue, but no matter what they will simply not be able to. Ever.

[StarsMine]

Doesn't the Constitution guarantee "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to all Americans?

No, that's the declaration of independence, and that is not a lawful(would that be the write word?) document

Anyways... I dont know what I wanted to say other then that :/

[OMGBEARS]

Ah, yes. Similar to the content of the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution which declare that the rights of "life, liberty and property" cannot be threatened by any government without due process of law. Ironically, congress passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Following the Constitution is hard, isn't it? Several congressmen have wished to pass into the Constitution an Amendment barring homosexuals from being married, but such an amendment that limits and restricts the rights of a specific group of individuals has never succeeded.

This is not mentioning the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (in which the United States signed) states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

Ah, yes. Similar to the content of the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution which declare that the rights of "life, liberty and property" cannot be threatened by any government without due process of law. Ironically, congress passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Following the Constitution is hard, isn't it? Several congressmen have wished to pass into the Constitution an Amendment barring homosexuals from being married, but such an amendment that limits and restricts the rights of a specific group of individuals has never succeeded.

This is not mentioning the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (in which the United States signed) states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

sorry, but this isnt what this thread is about =/

99% of you are basing your ideas from an outside prespective.. try thinking about what you might think if you are or where PREVIOUSLY in the army before hand. Try to understand the struggles that may come for people like myself who do there jobs perfectly having this massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual.

[mag36]

Try to understand the struggles that may come for people like myself who do there jobs perfectly having this massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual.

So what is being changed? A few more guys join are gay....... plenty join already. If your feeling uncomfortable in the shower and possibly gay guy looks at your junk? Hell you might as well take it as a compliment.

My point gay or straight in the military it doesn't really matter they are human they all know or can learn how to shoot a gun and even possibly save your life in battle. The only gays I have a problem with it is the ones that make a big deal about it, like they deserve to have a metal for taking it up the ass.....
but thats few and far between

If people want equal rights fine... just act equal
problem with any cultural differences is when they try to segregate them selves.

[StarsMine]

even possibly save your life in battle.


Like that show Shit My Dad Says, Dad - "hey! a lesbian saved my life."

[Jeimuzu]

scribble[nuke];92356']The only logic you can apply to homosexuality is that which you create within your own mind to rationalize something you don't understand.

The more plausible explanation for homosexual's "low self-esteem" could be chalked up to conditioning as a child and an ignorant, prejudice society.

Like I may have said, there are millions of reasons and possibilities. When dealing with individuals you can usually put them in broad categories, but looking into it deeper and deeper, the possibilities are seemingly endless.


There are heterosexuals who don't want children. This in no way relates to self-esteem, but instead to genes, and DNA. Specifically it relates to the gene which influences the desire to reproduce (at least in mice- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has-gay-gene-been-found-female-mice). Homosexuals have been found in close to 1500 species, from penguins to gut worms, and these relationships don't only include sex- but also involve the courtship, bonding, etc that is found in male/female pairs.

They aren't idiots- they are human beings who simply wish to live their lives as you wish to live yours. We as humans have moved past the idea of "we must procreate or we die" as we as a race are becoming less concerned with procreating, and more concerned with self-enlightenment. Even if it was a choice- who decides what is right or what is wrong? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to all Americans?

Self-esteem was just to exemplify one of many reasons for such a thing. Scribbles mentioned a few other ones; such as society, and parenting. And I said something along the lines of "If their beliefs consist of--" to also give an example as to what might effect one's reasoning.

Anex hates people who prevent the advancement of human kind, and I hate when I don't see any reason for something, so naturally I'll try to rationalize it.

I suppose the original issue was "Gays in military, good or bad?"

They have to pass training in order to be on the field. If they pass, good. If they're distracted by my sexiness, that's bad. My problem is that I can't leave it at that. I want to know and discuss more and come up with the possibilities mentioned.

"A conclusion is only the point at which someone stops thinking."


And no, they are not a race; your definition of "race" is incorrect. In addition, homosexuals might not be able to reproduce in homosexual partners, but they aren't required to do so. There will always be a chance for heterosexual couples to have homosexual children. This should be obvious, as if heterosexual couples only produced heterosexual children, we would not be having this discussion.

Think of it this way, James- take someone who cannot see the color blue. They simply cannot see it, no matter how hard you try to make them. It might not make sense to you why they can't see the color blue, but no matter what they will simply not be able to. Ever.

It isn't in the dictionary, it's my way of referring to social categories as I explained. I'm sure if you looked around on the forums you would find me using it in that context.

Funny thing is, when I refer to idiot race, you say "They aren't idiots, they're human," as if they were a race.. Or maybe being human is a social category. In that case, I sacrificed my humanity for the sake of those not human long ago.

I had a conversation with a family member the other day and I was trying to explain the difference between concepts and actualities. We can understand the concept of infinity but when it comes to actually visualizing it my mind starts to overheat and I knock myself out, or something along those lines. Though one could argue that infinity simply stands for a number uncountable by us but is in fact a value that is not endless.

That kind of relates to your "Seeing Blue" concept. They might not be able to see blue, but they could understand that there is another color out there that they aren't seeing.

But I have to say, what does being gay have to do with seeing blue? I mean, I can understand what you're saying, but literalism sets better with me.

[OMGBEARS]

Like I may have said, there are millions of reasons and possibilities. When dealing with individuals you can usually put them in broad categories, but looking into it deeper and deeper, the possibilities are seemingly endless.

Yes, you certainly can. However, calling them the "idiot race" is horrifyingly bigoted.


Self-esteem was just to exemplify one of many reasons for such a thing. Scribbles mentioned a few other ones; such as society, and parenting. And I said something along the lines of "If their beliefs consist of--" to also give an example as to what might effect one's reasoning.

Anex hates people who prevent the advancement of human kind, and I hate when I don't see any reason for something, so naturally I'll try to rationalize it.

The only thing that a homosexual cannot do to "advance human kind" is reproduce. Though they cannot reproduce, they are still human- and they hold all of the intelligence and cunning that you do. They hold positions as defense contractors, and research or finance research to improve conditions for the Military, they are scientists and are researching lifesaving technology, and they are countless other professions who all make life better for heterosexuals who refuse to allow them equality. In this sense, are they working for their own children? No. They are working for the next generation, and they are working to make tomorrow better than today.

The issue of using that quote by Anex and in this context is that you are saying that reproduction and propagating the human race is the only way of advancing it. Are you then suggesting that when humans become infertile, they be euthanized or otherwise removed from society?


I suppose the original issue was "Gays in military, good or bad?"

They have to pass training in order to be on the field. If they pass, good. If they're distracted by my sexiness, that's bad. My problem is that I can't leave it at that. I want to know and discuss more and come up with the possibilities mentioned.

"A conclusion is only the point at which someone stops thinking."

Yes, back to the original topic.

They do have to pass training, just like anyone. You assume that homosexuals are simply overcome with all members of the same sex. That they are constantly distracted by members of their same sex. I have news for you- they are not. Heterosexual men work with heterosexual women every day, and some work with members of the opposite sex who are vastly more attractive than they, and while they might be distracted, they are still able to do their job. Men and women may be biological compliments, but we are not driven by our desire for sex, and can still function in the presence of the opposite sex.


It isn't in the dictionary, it's my way of referring to social categories as I explained. I'm sure if you looked around on the forums you would find me using it in that context.

Funny thing is, when I refer to idiot race, you say "They aren't idiots, they're human," as if they were a race.. Or maybe being human is a social category. In that case, I sacrificed my humanity for the sake of those not human long ago.

I said "They aren't idiots, they're human," to say that they are a part of the same exact race to which you belong. I wasn't classifying them as their own race, as you were. I would suggest to not use words outside of their accepted definitions- you sounded horrifyingly bigoted, and extraordinarily close minded. Being human is a race in regards to biological similarities, and has little to do with societal issues, or groupings. Calling them their own race separates them and makes them inhuman.


I had a conversation with a family member the other day and I was trying to explain the difference between concepts and actualities. We can understand the concept of infinity but when it comes to actually visualizing it my mind starts to overheat and I knock myself out, or something along those lines. Though one could argue that infinity simply stands for a number uncountable by us but is in fact a value that is not endless.

That kind of relates to your "Seeing Blue" concept. They might not be able to see blue, but they could understand that there is another color out there that they aren't seeing.

But I have to say, what does being gay have to do with seeing blue? I mean, I can understand what you're saying, but literalism sets better with me.

I am saying that they might very well know that there is a color blue out there in the world, just as they know that heterosexuals are sexually and romantically attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they can see the color blue, or be sexually and romantically attracted to members of the opposite sex. They simply are not able to do so. Similarly, there are females who hold additional color receptors. They can see a greater area of the light spectrum. Can you? No. Does that make either of you inhuman? No.

[OMGBEARS]

sorry, but this isnt what this thread is about =/

99% of you are basing your ideas from an outside prespective.. try thinking about what you might think if you are or where PREVIOUSLY in the army before hand. Try to understand the struggles that may come for people like myself who do there jobs perfectly having this massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual.

I am not homophobic. I wouldn't mind. In fact a majority of america wouldn't mind- this poll says that since 2005, consistently 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly in the military. (http://people-press.org/report/679/)

I actually work with gays almost on a daily basis. Can they do their job just as well as I can? Yes.

And who says that there will be a sudden "massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual." rather than a large number of the men and women with which you serve coming out finally as openly homosexual. Homosexuals join the military each day- repealing DADT won't really increase those numbers. Those openly serving, however, that will change.

So it really comes down to this: don't be so scared that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military. Things won't change unless you do it. If you turn around after seeing more gays in the military and refuse to accept them as soldiers as you would a straight person- you are taking a toll on moral.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

I am not homophobic. I wouldn't mind. In fact a majority of america wouldn't mind- this poll says that since 2005, consistently 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly in the military. (http://people-press.org/report/679/)

I actually work with gays almost on a daily basis. Can they do their job just as well as I can? Yes.

And who says that there will be a sudden "massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual." rather than a large number of the men and women with which you serve coming out finally as openly homosexual. Homosexuals join the military each day- repealing DADT won't really increase those numbers. Those openly serving, however, that will change.

So it really comes down to this: don't be so scared that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military. Things won't change unless you do it. If you turn around after seeing more gays in the military and refuse to accept them as soldiers as you would a straight person- you are taking a toll on moral.


are you in the military?
you dont have to be afraid of gays to think that this is a bad move.

at first gays could still join the military and conform to the MILITARY by not expressing there sexuality, even though some did and units found it perfectly fine because they spent the time with him.

after DADT is lifted its more like the MILITARY conforming to gays then everyone conforming to the military.

in the military.. Units are like tight knit groups of people you would die for and do anything to save. All im saying is that i dont think the "excepting" rates are going to be what congress expected.

[StarsMine]

all DADT does is kick out a person if some higher up hears that the dude is gay.
straight people can say they are straight, so mikey, why cant gays?

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

all DADT does is kick out a person if some higher up hears that the dude is gay.
straight people can say they are straight, so mikey, why cant gays?

you obv never thought this threw.. not every gay man gets booted for asying he is a homosexual. i dont expect you to know any of that because you arnt in the service.

Try to look at it from a service mens point of view.

do stright guys go around bragging and flaunting to the world that they are stright? NO because it is normal and accepted.
the military has a very stern set of standards, how is it fair to the soldiers who are already servering completly confortable with the high military standards now.

this DADT lift will cause issues and i dont think it is the best time for change considering we are in a war and potentially in another with North Korea.

[StarsMine]

sure some openly gay people are in the servise, as they are still able to keep it a secret to the higher ups

and do gay guys run around flauting there gayness? no.

[&&toasties]

Who cares if people are gay.

God made us in his image, didn't he?

Why are gay people excluded?

[Mrs. Xen_Warrior]

a gay soldier can shoot just as well as a straight soldier... whats the difference?? just cause he checks out your junk in the showers doesn't mean he wont take a bullet for ya :D

Clone

:lmao: +1