Don't Ask Don't Tell going Away? How do you feel

Originally Posted by perna

You seem to think that because of this change that gays are all going to tell others that they are gay, not going to happen because they already know what will happen if they do.

If this will be the case, then again, WHAT IS THE DAMN POINT OF THE CHANGE?!!!?!?!?

Please don't answer because there is no point other than to say we have openly gay men in our military. WHIPPEEE!

Originally Posted by jman4427

If this will be the case, then again, WHAT IS THE DAMN POINT OF THE CHANGE?!!!?!?!?

Please don't answer because there is no point other than to say we have openly gay men in our military. WHIPPEEE!

The point of the change is that what someone does when they are off-duty is none of your business. "dont ask, dont tell" is not being changed into "we are going to ask, and you are going to tell".

Originally Posted by perna

The point of the change is that what someone does when they are off-duty is none of your business. "dont ask, dont tell" is not being changed into "we are going to ask, and you are going to tell".

But it's already been verified that service members are never off duty until they separate permanently. They may be off shift, but they aren't off duty.

While 99.5% of gays would not make their sexual orientation known, you know darned good and well that a few would. It's happened before. The difference will be that the military will no longer have an option to separate them. They will cause strife, tension and disharmony in the unit. There will be harassment and potentially violence because of the situation.

Can you describe how any of these things support the mission?

Didn't think so.

Originally Posted by RogerinTPA

I thought that I already made that quite clear, so I'll say it again. "They" already have equal rights and protections under the law. I do not appreciate "Them" trying to use Civil Rights for "Their" cause, not in the slightest. Not the ****in same. I do not appreciate, support, or condone homosexuality or the behavior that goes along with it. Especially when trying to force "Their" opinions down other peoples throats. Get it?

Homophobic? Nah, not in the slightest. A phobia denotes a fear. Homo disgusted or the lifestyle makes me want to projectile vomit, would be an accurate assessment. You bet.



No, I don't live in LA LA land like you. If there was some way to ID "Them" without the behavior, it would be a level playing field, but you can't.

"They" do not belong in the military unless "They" are identified, given separate facilities, given a badge (A letter "G" added to "Their" name tape, a G tattoo on "Their" forehead, a bell on "their" combat boot or around the neck, GPS Tracker, or other signaling device to alert the "hetero" population about "Their" location), and other hetero military members are asked, if serving in close quarters with "Them" offends their beliefs AND restrict them to Combat Service Support units. Way too much if you ask me.

The simple solution is to serve and STFU about "Their" degenerate lifestyle.

Glad to see you being so objective. It's sad to see (or read as the case may be) that you have so much contempt for your fellow human beings. Moving on!

Originally Posted by perna

The point of the change is that what someone does when they are off-duty is none of your business.

Well, then in that case the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would work perfectly.

I WON'T ASK them what they do on their own time and I DON'T want them to TELL me what they do on their own time. See how that works?

You just said so yourself that if the policy changed to open, the gays won't say anything about it anyway because they know what will happen to them.

You seem to think that because of this change that gays are all going to tell others that they are gay, not going to happen because they already know what will happen if they do.

So again you have just said that there won't be a different reaction from the gays despite policy change.

So please explain what will change?

Don't say that if someone says they are gay they will no longer be thrown out of the military because this is impossible since "the gays won't say anything because they already know what will happen if they do."

So please explain what will change?

Don't say that if someone says they are gay they will no longer be thrown out of the military because you just told us that "the gays won't say anything because they already know what will happen if they do."

Ok I wont say that. Right now someone can get kicked out because someone else outs them, even if they have never told anyone and no one had a clue they are gay.

For example, a soldier can have a perfect career, a chest full of medals, saved the lives of other soldiers. He goes home on leave and someone from his hometown sees him holding hands with some guy and calls his commander, which ends his career with a dishonorable discharge.

That is the exact thing that gay rights groups are using to get the rule changed. The military has brought this on itself by giving those rights groups the ammunition to use against the military.

Originally Posted by perna

Ok I wont say that. Right now someone can get kicked out because someone else outs them, even if they have never told anyone and no one had a clue they are gay.

For example, a soldier can have a perfect career, a chest full of medals, saved the lives of other soldiers. He goes home on leave and someone from his hometown sees him holding hands with some guy and calls his commander, which ends his career with a dishonorable discharge.

That is the exact thing that gay rights groups are using to get the rule changed. The military has brought this on itself by giving those rights groups the ammunition to use against the military.

The leftists who want to see open gays in the military will always find something to bitch about. The feminists have been upset over no females in combat arms for years. The anti-war crowd protests outside military bases if the military is ordered to do what its mission is (to kill people). They protest when the military charges people who refuse to follow orders to deploy (I know about this one because I had to take some riot control courses at Ft. Lewis when that LT refused to deploy to Iraq).


If the military bowed down to the left's bitching they wouldn't carry guns, people could refuse orders at will, gays taking showers with straight males, female infantry, etc. Im sure that military would be so much better than what we have now....

Originally Posted by Sry0fcr

Glad to see you being so objective. It's sad to see (or read as the case may be) that you have so much contempt for your fellow human beings. Moving on!

ONLY in the case of homosexuals, and especially when it comes to voluntary service in the military. "They" don't like it, "They" don't have to join. There are other ways to serve the country, like being congressional pages, Peace Corps, jobs along the west coast, the Obama administration, places that don't care if it affects unit cohesion or morale, or violates a hetero's rights to not serve with homosexuals, where hetero's don't have to literally "watch their asses" while "they" are around.

Originally Posted by Sry0fcr

Glad to see you being so objective. It's sad to see (or read as the case may be) that you have so much contempt for your fellow human beings. Moving on!

No more contemptuous then homosexuals show society through their in your face behaviors.

Originally Posted by perna

Right now someone can get kicked out because someone else outs them, even if they have never told anyone and no one had a clue they are gay.

How is that possible?

Originally Posted by perna

For example, a soldier can have a perfect career, a chest full of medals, saved the lives of other soldiers. He goes home on leave and someone from his hometown sees him holding hands with some guy and calls his commander, which ends his career with a dishonorable discharge.

I mean really, how often has this occurred?

Also, are you absolutely sure that a military supervisor has the authority to terminate a soldiers career based on a phone call from a civilian? I would presume there would have to be evidence.