View Full Version : "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been repealed
DeusExMachina
12-18-2010, 14:54
It just passed Senate and off to Obama's desk, so its as good as done.
[Pop]
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/18/senate.dadt/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
I thought that DADT needed to go, but not the way they did it. They don't even have a plan for the future. It was way rushed and poorly executed in my opinion.
Now that its repealed who cares? The open gays are going to be in danger of being beat up and then there will be a protect class in the military. Its the same in here. Just more busy work.
All that really changes is the ability of the command to discharge people based on their sexual preferences. It would be ridiculous to think that there are not thousands of homosexuals currently serving honorably in the services, and their squadmates generally know. I may be naive, but if I were in the military, I would rather serve with a skilled, brave, and dedicated homosexual, than an undisciplined, hung over straight individual that is a danger to themselves and everyone around them. What people do in private is their business, as long as it doesn't interfere in the performance of their duties.
2ndAmendment
12-18-2010, 16:03
"One time, in Basic Training, I took my m-16 and shoved it up my a$$" What!!!!!!............................[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3][LOL][Tooth][Ban1][Ban3]
OneGuy67
12-18-2010, 19:42
The general opinion of those in the combat arms portions of the military do not go along with the repeal of DADT. It may be fine for the majority of the military who's job entails an office, but the boots on the ground are not entirely thrilled. As a former Infantryman, I did not want to see DADT go away. As a current MP in the National Guard, we already have some lesbians in the unit.
Unless you've been in the combat arms, in the close confines it requires, the utter trust you must have in your buddy next to you, I truly don't think you have the right to make the decision for them.
Some will equate the repeal of DADT to the desegregating of the military, of allowing females into more and more MOS's, but it really isn't comparable. The military told you up front that you cannot serve if you are gay or lesbian, you lied to get in, and now you want the law to change to suit you.
I've never been a Marine, but I wish I was one given their Commandant is vocal in his opposition, citing his combat arms people and their opinions. The Army Chief of Staff is wishy washy on it, even though his combat arms people have raised their disagreement to the repeal.
I have 2-1/2 years left until I can retire from the military with a pension and I can't wait to get out. The military is changing, has been changing, and it isn't for the better.
Who's coming out? It only matters once you come out. Common sense.Don't come out if you don't want it to matter.
They should change it to "Don't tell, Don't Care."
ChunkyMonkey
12-19-2010, 13:39
Who said you cannot repeal a congress act that easily.... let's repeal obamacare now!
SA Friday
12-19-2010, 14:06
Who's coming out? It only matters once you come out. Common sense.Don't come out if you don't want it to matter.
No offense, but that is incorrect. Any act or homosexuality, regardless of the circumstances, found to have been committed while in service is grounds for expulsion from the military. So, someone who commits an 'overt act or utterance' that comes to light within the command has to be addressed and can lead to dismissal. So, it doesn't matter if they come out of the closet or not under the DADT. The command only needs an allegation.
DADT is just as much of a burden to the command structure as the possible complications as no DADT issues will be, even in a combat unit. The difference is there won't be a policy in place forcing people to lie to serve. Guess the homophobes will just have to face their fears. Personally, in 21 years of service I never feared serving with a homosexual male or female, in or out of combat. I did fear serving with/for idiots and those not willing to pull their weight.
Byte Stryke
12-19-2010, 14:27
No offense, but that is incorrect. Any act or homosexuality, regardless of the circumstances, found to have been committed while in service is grounds for expulsion from the military. So, someone who commits an 'overt act or utterance' that comes to light within the command has to be addressed and can lead to dismissal. So, it doesn't matter if they come out of the closet or not under the DADT. The command only needs an allegation.
DADT is just as much of a burden to the command structure as the possible complications as no DADT issues will be, even in a combat unit. The difference is there won't be a policy in place forcing people to lie to serve. Guess the homophobes will just have to face their fears. Personally, in 21 years of service I never feared serving with a homosexual male or female, in or out of combat. I did fear serving with/for idiots and those not willing to pull their weight.
+1
6 straight guys and a single female was more of a burden than 2 gay guys
Time for this once again......
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/funnies/fightingsodomites.jpg
What if they are the worst person in the service and gay? Do you have to walk through the tulips because you don't want to be called a homophobe.
theGinsue
12-19-2010, 21:29
As with any bad troop, document the behavior until you have enough to take action.
I thought that DADT needed to go, but not the way they did it. They don't even have a plan for the future. It was way rushed and poorly executed in my opinion.
I have to partially disagree with you Stuart. The U.S. already has a "How-To Guide for a New Military" {page A15 NYT, Monday, Dec. 20, 2010.}
Scenarios and their solutions- are outlined in a detailed and at times explicit 87-page Defense Department plan for carrying out the repeal of the "DADT" law.
On Sunday, General Amos said in a statement that "the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy."
A combat commander in Afganistan on the condition of anonymity said "They were kicking people out for being homosexual, and now they will be kicking people out for picking on homosexuals," The sergeant said.
I have to agree with the NYT that "Senator John McCain disgraced his distinguished military career by flailing against the vote, claiming it would be celebrated in Georgetown salons."
Erno
OneGuy67
12-20-2010, 19:17
wow!!
BushMasterBoy
12-21-2010, 00:35
See above title.
See below for prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
The law barring homosexuals was not based on logic, but rather experience.
Of course politicians want your vote, so I guess anything goes. I opposed this legislation and am not active duty.
Only time will tell. God Bless America.
I really have to question your claim that the law was based on experience. Bitch Bradley Manning is a pretty poor example to make your point.
OgenRwot
12-21-2010, 01:24
I thought that DADT needed to go, but not the way they did it. They don't even have a plan for the future. It was way rushed and poorly executed in my opinion.
They've been working on this for about 16 years. I wouldn't call it rushed.
Unless you've been in the combat arms, in the close confines it requires, the utter trust you must have in your buddy next to you, I truly don't think you have the right to make the decision for them.
So are you saying you don't trust gay people and because they are gay you wouldn't do what you can to protect them?
Some will equate the repeal of DADT to the desegregating of the military, of allowing females into more and more MOS's, but it really isn't comparable. The military told you up front that you cannot serve if you are gay or lesbian, you lied to get in, and now you want the law to change to suit you.
It's discriminatory plain and simple. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't have honor or love of country or the ability to kick some ass
Who said you cannot repeal a congress act that easily.... let's repeal obamacare now!
This is completely off topic but...We have the house. So they vote to repeal it and the Senate kills it. Even if the Senate passed it Obama would veto it and then it would have to go back to get an override vote. We don't have the votes in the Senate to get that done even if the wild ass chance that it passed in the first place.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is, but I've never been in the military either. I have nothing against gays or lesbians, we have a couple of gay friends that are great guys that would do anything for ya. They took in my stepson and helped him get clean and sober, really turned his life around. Now he's married with a good job, probably going to have a kid within a couple of years.
Now, the "flaming" gays are rather disturbing, but I think they're more of a minority. But I don't think a person's sexual orientation should have anything to do with them serving in the military, and they certainly shouldn't get any special considerations because of it. It's a job, and as long as the man/woman does it properly, who cares what they do on their own time? If they don't do the job properly, discipline them just like anybody else.
It pisses me off far more that Muslims and Hindus in our military get the special ass-kissing that they are given. "I pray with my ass in the air to a different God, so I have the right to wear a beard and a towel on my head". I always thought that everybody in the Army was green and government property, and the rules applied to everyone?
And of course Obama will sign the bill, he's more interested in keeping the moonbats happy so they'll keep voting Democrat.
ghettodub
12-21-2010, 12:49
See above title.
See below for prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
The law barring homosexuals was not based on logic, but rather experience.
Of course politicians want your vote, so I guess anything goes. I opposed this legislation and am not active duty.
Only time will tell. God Bless America.
That has nothing to do with being gay... That's being a traitor, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation...
BushMasterBoy
12-21-2010, 15:41
As Demi Moore said in the movie "G.I Jane" and I quote "Suck my dick"
and this is the end of my posting in this thread
ghettodub
12-21-2010, 15:48
As Demi Moore said in the movie "G.I Jane" and I quote "Suck my dick"
and this is the end of my posting in this thread
No need to get all butthurt dude. I respect that you have your own opinion on this... cheers
"Just tell those reluctant Marines: This is how it's going to be. Get with it. If you're a homophobe, we won't ask and you don't tell."
OneGuy67
12-21-2010, 18:50
Originally Posted by OneGuy67 http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=274415#post274415)
Unless you've been in the combat arms, in the close confines it requires, the utter trust you must have in your buddy next to you, I truly don't think you have the right to make the decision for them.
So are you saying you don't trust gay people and because they are gay you wouldn't do what you can to protect them?
Some will equate the repeal of DADT to the desegregating of the military, of allowing females into more and more MOS's, but it really isn't comparable. The military told you up front that you cannot serve if you are gay or lesbian, you lied to get in, and now you want the law to change to suit you.
It's discriminatory plain and simple. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't have honor or love of country or the ability to kick some ass
No, I'm saying that unless you've walked the walk, you don't get to tell those who have or those who currently do, what to do. For all the wannabe's and the neverbe's in society who have never been in the combat arms to understand the bonds, the utter need to trust the guy next to you, you don't get a say. You can be gay all day in an office setting, go home to your significant other and there is peace on earth. Under the specific conditions the actual fighting men deal with daily, that frankly, most just can't comprehend, it just isn't conducive.
The military is allowed to discrimate, plain and simple. They won't take you if you are too fat, too short, too many tattoos, too stupid, too smart, asthmatic, too lazy, a criminal, several types of medical conditions, too old, too young, handicapped, etc, etc, etc. Being gay was one of those conditions for non-acceptance. Has nothing to do with honor, love of country or the ability to kick some ass, as you say. I'm waiting for the next round of people who feel they are second class citizens and want special treatment, special laws, special protection just for their situation. I figure it will be the overweight that will be next. "I wanna be SeAL! You can't exclude me because I weigh 300 pounds, that's discriminatory!"
So, OgenRwot, you can call me whatever you like, I'll support my guys in the field when they say they do not want DADT to end and do not want gay men in their companys, their platoons, their squads, their teams. I understand why.
OneGuy, I fully understand and respect your stance on "If you haven't been, you don't get an opinion." I just don't understand the big deal. No one seems to want to take the time to try and explain the big deal either. I realize that while it would be impossible to describe the beautiful sounds of a full orchestra to Helen Keller; I'd think that she could at least understand that placing a dirt bike in the violin section and wrapping it up to 8,000 rpms every once in a while might ruin the whole experience.
OneGuy67
12-22-2010, 10:15
Your analogy is pretty interesting, Stuart. I wouldn't do it justice in words to attempt to have you understand the experience. Just like someone couldn't make me understand the greek experience they participated in college and why they are still considered "brothers", I can't explain the bond, the reason why I am still close friends with some of the guys I was stationed with and deployed with and in those experiences with, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years later.
I love the sound of finely tuned engine. Orchestras are remind me of J.G. Wentworth comercails where they sing about needing cash now!
I love the sound of finely tuned engine. Orchestras are remind me of J.G. Wentworth comercails where they sing about needing cash now!
Uh oh... you're about to unleash the Bear on this thread.... John Cage actually did a musical experiment where he revved engines at certain intervals of time to certain rpms and cycle the tracks to create music... it was stupid, but interesting. kind like his (in)famous piece "4:11"
I think the issue with gays serving is human respect and trust. Meaning, that a sterotype exists for gays and that sterotype is not conducive to a military lifestyle. There is a lack of respect for fags, not matter how "nice of a person they are". The guys in the holes with 500 bullets flying at them are wondering if that fag will have the balls to stand up in fire and use his weapon. Will that homo be able to kill another man who he thinks may be "sexy". Will that gay dude not hit on me or act all flaming when he has an order he doesn't agree with. Will that dude watch his back without "watching his back". It goes on and on... to me talking with some friend who have been in combat, that seems to be the reasoning.
I personally think that gays should NOT serve and that homo tendecies should be treated as a disease... flame suit on, I know, I know.
To serve in teh military in any capacity takes a certain mindset and dedication that some people just don't possess. I think the military is too lax on their requirements...
I deeply desire with all my heart that I could serve but I can't. I'm just the now fat ass who aced the ASVAB and other tests but has stupid medical problems distancing me from joining the military because I was too invincible to wear my seatbelt when I was a kid in a wreck.
Hu-ah, story time: In high school I made a Marine recruiter flinch when I shook his hand! And I didn't even squeeze, lol. "Wow son, quite a grip there, you a football player?" "No Sir, I'm a musician." "ohh...." "Raised on a farm though Sir." "Ah, good boy." HAHAHA.
ghettodub
12-22-2010, 10:47
Here are my only thoughts on the issue:
Do I think gays should be allowed to serve: yes
Do i think they should be allowed to serve openly: yes
Should I really have a say on this: no...
Since i'm not serving, I really don't think I get to have a say in the issue. My opinion is that I think it's silly that people get so weirded out by gays service, and I believe that a bit of it has to do with some preconceived notions and discrimination. But again, I'm not serving, and the military should have their own rules, because it's a different world. They shouldn't have to deal with the PC-ness of the rest of the country.
I personally think it's fine if someone is gay and open about it, and I don't think you would see flamers serving, and if they were, it shouldn't be allowed, as there are certain standards for our troops in that regard with professional conduct.
Again, I don't think the type of gay that would sign up for the military would be this guy
http://thomasdolina.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Big_Gay_Al.gif
but if they did try to do that, then the military could say no, because they have standards on how to act, dress, etc...
I'm torn on this issue, because as mentioned, i'm fine with gays serving, but because of many beliefs against gays, we're going to see possibly more attacks and crimes against them, so in that regard, I think DADT should stick around.
Someone mentioned above compared this to letting fat people join, which is a totally different thing than someone being gay. You can be gay and in good shape and ready to fight. A big tubby, on the other hand, is someone with a physical limitation which would make it so they couldn't serve.
But since I'm not serving, it's not up to me, and should strictly be a military decision, not the people or the government.
Just my .02, cheers [Beer]
Not trying to start anything, just figured I would toss out my opinion.
Well, if a 300lb. tubby wants to be a SEAL or any other SF, he should have the right to apply for it and try out. He'll figure out very quickly on his own that it was a bad idea. But if he does make it through the training and qualifies for the position, then he should have the right to be a team member. Same with gays, IMO. If a person can do what's required for a job efficiently without jeopardizing anyone else, I just don't think they should be excluded because they like to smooch goobers or munch carpet.
The attitude that being in a foxhole with a gay soldier means you're liable to get fudgepacked when you're asleep is just crazy.
I just don't think it should be a protected class of person when its easier and better for morale to just kick them out of the service. Soon we are going to have lawsuits against the military for discrimination. Which is something we would all like to avoid. But other than that I don't care. Let them serve and be proud to do it.
Reminds me of a joke. What do you think of gays in the military? Kiss me and I'll tell you.
The Navy will never hear the end of it.
The Navy is great what other service is there where a ship can leave 2000 people and come back with 1000 couples.
It goes on and on.
Once again, Bear, there have been homosexuals in the U.S. military since 1776. Many have served with distinction. As for security risks, I would say that the chances of a straight soldier being seduced by a spy and either inadvertently or deliberately revealing sensitive information are far greater than a gay soldier, just based on the overwhelming number of straight soldiers as compared to gay ones. Also, the policy may be gone, but the social stigma will remain for generations, so an openly gay soldier may have less opportunity to access such sensitive info.
OneGuy67
12-22-2010, 12:41
Ahh, but now, we've opened up the can of worms of the "I didn't get a good evaluation because I'm being discriminated for being gay" argument and subsequent lawsuits and over protection. The same was/is used for females. Evaluations are subjective and count heavily in promotions.
And no, you shouldn't be a SeAL if you weigh 300 + pounds because you are weight liability for your teammates who may have to carry your fat ass out of a zone.
Soon we are going to have lawsuits against the military for discrimination.
We very well may soon!!
Let them serve and be proud to do it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are gay folks out there serving better (and prouder/more honorably) than some of the lowlife straight dudes who think the military is akin to being in their streetgang back home.
Once again, Bear, there have been homosexuals in the U.S. military since 1776. Many have served with distinction.
Rgr that, I do understand that.
Also, the policy may be gone, but the social stigma will remain for generations, so an openly gay soldier may have less opportunity to access such sensitive info.
Agreed, unless with our out of control PCness, a certain intelligence MOS will be opened only for gays to fight the stigma! HAHA. [Beer]
Ahh, but now, we've opened up the can of worms of the "I didn't get a good evaluation because I'm being discriminated for being gay" argument and subsequent lawsuits and over protection. The same was/is used for females. Evaluations are subjective and count heavily in promotions.
And no, you shouldn't be a SeAL if you weigh 300 + pounds because you are weight liability for your teammates who may have to carry your fat ass out of a zone.
Agreed.
One thing this repeal will stop is all those pussies that get out early by saying they're gay when they're clearly not. I knew a few, mostly in boot camp and SOI since it's the easiest time to pull it off. It sucks they have a nice easy way out and you got 4 more years of this crazy shit.
I don't know if this repeal is a good or bad thing, but I served in combat with a few homosexuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are good people, they did their jobs just as good as any one else.
I think the important part of this OneGuy, is not that people can come out, that they should come out; but more that, in the unfortunate event that someone finds out, your career isn't immediately over.
And my analogy was interesting because the first one I thought of was trying to explain the joys of explicit bedroom behaviors to a minor. It was just so inappropriate however, that I sat here and racked my brain, and at one point even deleted my entire post until I could come up with a more suitable one. I like the orchestra analogy better anyway.
I'd say that GhettoDub expressed my thoughts on the matter pretty well.
OneGuy67
12-22-2010, 23:44
I think the important part of this OneGuy, is not that people can come out, that they should come out; but more that, in the unfortunate event that someone finds out, your career isn't immediately over.
It was a career conceived in a lie, based on a lie and coming out isn't what should have happened. Ever see Tootsie? Old movie with Dustin Hoffman. He is an out of work actor who can't get work as a man, so he becomes a woman and gets work. The same here. As a gay person, you aren't supposed to be able to join the military, but you lie, you hide, and once in, now want to be able to come out and to do that, you have to change the rules to suit you.
Some thought my fat guy comments were funny, but seriously, I am waiting for the ACLU or some other 'tard group to sue the military on behalf of all the fat people who want cuishy careers with an ADA lawsuit.
Everyone wants the rules changed to suit their particular circumstance, behavior, lifestyle, belief system. I'm waiting for gay marriage to pass here in Colorado, and after that, plural marriages.
Ghettodub (I'm not picking on you, my friend. Your post is what Stuart is agreeing with) talks about standards and being removed for violating those standards. The military is changing standards to fit specific groups. They are allowing beards, headresses and long hair to the Sikhs in the military. It is part of their religion. One set of rules for one specific set of people. Physical fitness standards being lowered for females. Another set of standards for one specific set of people.
Unfortunately, Ghettodub's post is simplistic. I have a gay cousin. Good guy. I used to hang out with him a lot when he
lived in Denver. I've worked with gays in an office setting. No big deal. You come to work, go to your cubicle, do your thing, chat at the coffee machine and go home. No big deal. A lot of the military is just like this. That is why there was no large pushback on this issue, with the exception of the combat arms. A lot of the military go to an office each day, and the only difference between them and someone in the private sector doing the exact same thing is that uniform they wear instead of a suit. Those in the combat arms are not happy with the loss of DADT; it is a BIG deal to them. Why? They live a different life and I wish I could properly put words to paper that would adequately describe the living situations, the bonds developed in the combat arms, the total and utter need to trust each other.
Sorry. I'm getting angry and writing at the mouth. Rant off.
You don't come across angry. Thanks for trying to explain, it's certainly a lot better than gay bashing (not saying that's what you are doing).
On a side note, you know what organization needs more lesbians? Habitat For Humanity. I volunteered a few times and every day it was a new group of high school girls that couldn't hold a hammer correctly and just wanted to chat with their friends. Then, one day some lesbians showed up and they GOT SHIT DONE! It was amazing. If there was a list letting me know when lesbians were going to be volunteering, those would be the days I'd show up.
OgenRwot
12-23-2010, 01:10
The whole notion of non-military folks can't tell military folks what to do is ridiculous. Almost everything the military does is handled by civilians (think Congressional oversight). Hell the Sec of Defense is a civilian so that there is oversight, it was designed that way. If the military could do whatever the hell they wanted whenever the hell they wanted things would get ugly quick. Yeah, I have a lot of respect for those that have served and those that are serving. But that doesn't give you an automatic "fuck you" to those that haven't and I'm seeing a lot of that here and frankly it pisses me off.
I'm not for homosexuals pushing themselves on people. But I'm also not for discrimination. The Declaration of Independence does not say "All men are created equal except for homosexuals". Remember when blacks weren't allowed to serve? Yeah that whole integration thing worked out just fine didn't it. Gays serve in almost every single major military in the world including some of the finest. There are rules and regs against all kinds of sexual activities in the military. If a gay guy does something wrong they will get the proper disciplinary actions. And don't tell me that now DADT was repealed we will see lawsuits left and right. We already have seen lawsuits in the past with DADT in place, Google it.
I promise the American military will remain the most powerful in the world from now until the demise of the United States of America. A few openly gay guys in the military isn't going to bring the country crashing down. This is mostly homophobic immaturity. Not every single woman on the planet hits on you, neither will every single gay guy. Hell, how many of you have been hit on by a gay guy? Probably not very many, usually they can tell if you're gay. So I guess if you have been hit on you might want to rethink your style and demeanor cause you're giving off the wrong vibes.
ghettodub
12-23-2010, 09:56
Sorry. I'm getting angry and writing at the mouth. Rant off.
You posted that well, man! [Coffee]
HBARleatherneck
12-23-2010, 15:05
evidently my comments are too offensive. so they are withdrawn.
and if you havent served in a combat unit, this conversation about gays in the military is completely out of your grasp.
OneGuy67
12-23-2010, 15:59
Thank you, HBARleatherneck. Well said.
If my memory serves me correctly, a Washington Post Poll questioned adult males about there sexual fantasy's about 25 years ago. They ask them on a rating of 1 {being the best} thru 4th {being the least} ; what are your sexual fantasy's?
At least 1 in 4 adult males listed there 4th least sexual fantasy as homosexual.
HBARleatherneck, how does one exactly earn freedom? This isn't Starship Troopers, this is the United States of America.
HBARleatherneck
12-23-2010, 17:59
freedom is paid for by every generation.
If my memory serves me correctly, a Washington Post Poll questioned adult males about there sexual fantasy's about 25 years ago. They ask them on a rating of 1 {being the best} thru 4th {being the least} ; what are your sexual fantasy's?
At least 1 in 4 adult males listed there 4th least sexual fantasy as homosexual.
Nice edit there erno.. afraid you might not come across as "tolerant" as your species claims to be with your last one?
I don't like being made to feel bad about not being a veteran. I regret that I didn't go into the services in college when I should of. At the time, I didn't have the same opinions as I do now. I wasn't anti-military at all, just didn't think it was the best path for me. At this time, I have a family I'm unwilling to leave while the country is not in great need. I think the services will do okay without me at this time. If that changes, well I'll have to make that decision then, and I already know that I don't like the feeling of regret.
Well seems like you have a different definition of freedom than I do. I believe every human being on this planet is born free. I served 4 years in the Corps as an 0331 in Iraq and Afghanistan and I don't know how I earned my freedom by being there. It seems to me that some people love to feel superior to others. Oh well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.