Don't Ask Don't Tell finally repealed

Post Reply New Topic

I am sympathetic to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. If they want to serve in the US Military or get married, they should be able to do so without having to hide who they are.

Um, what does that have to do with anything? Allowing soldiers to admit to being gay doesn't mean they're all gonna start going round shagging each other

Inuyasha, I don't think you understand what "fraternization" means. There are already policies in place that prohibit fraternization between members in the same chain of command, which do not address gender at all. You see, "fraternization" doesn't mean "being in the same room as", nor does it specifically mean "sleeping with" (PDA policies are already covered under "conduct unbecoming"). "Fraternization", for the purposes of the UCMJ, refers to the development of a close relationship between members who are in the same chain of command (for instance, a private in a platoon, his platoon sergeant, and the first sergeant of the unit), or between enlisted personnel and officers. You see, the balance of power between such individuals can never be equal, and there's always the possibility that some unpleasant duty assigned to a given member may be related to personal feelings, rather than the needs of the unit. (For example, one corporal-then-PFC of my acquaintance repeatedly had trouble with his platoon sergeant, got the bad duties more often than any other member of the platoon, and kept getting Article 15 punishments on his record for things that other platoon members got a pass on, because the platoon sergeant had befriended another soldier in the platoon - who had personal problems with my acquaintance. This was a clear violation of policies regarding fraternization, and only went unpunished because the platoon sergeant actively prevented, by dint of extra duty, the reporting of his fraternizing with a man in his command.)

If one soldier has personal problems adjusting to the presence of another soldier he objects to, official military policy is that he needs to get over it and get on with his job, or face possible discharge for "failure to adapt to a military lifestyle" (which, in the immortal words of Robert Heinlein, consists of, "Soldier, shut up and soldier!"). Depending on the exact objection, and how it was expressed, this discharge may be General, or Other Than Honorable - but you don't get an Honorable discharge for "failure to adapt". This was true when it became unacceptable to discriminate against Jewish soldiers, it was true when Truman integrated the services - and it will be true when the ban on gays is finally removed.

Or are you one of those who are convinced that gay soldiers are uncontrollable rape machines, and that straight soldiers would be somehow unable to defend themselves against the Great Gay Monster?

Christ on a stick. I'll say it again. Gay men are not automatically rapists. They are not always thinking about f*****g, and they certainly don't want to think about f*****g you, or people like you. If they got through basic then they are already disciplined soldiers, just like they were WHEN YOU DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE GAY. I think they understand the concept of fraternization better than you do. Besides which, millions of serving soldiers have wives who they generally DON'T bring to the battlefield to f**k, so why should people having boyfriends be any different? Also, why do you assume that gay soldiers only want to date other soldiers? You have a penchant for the ridiculous, but this post sidles into farce, whilst also goose-stepping neatly into homophobic BS. You should spend some time in a maximum security lifer wing, where you will get f****d hard and a lot by big dangerous men who definitely are not gay. Then you might start to understand some of the very obvious distinctions between a gay soldier and a rapist.

It's ironic how crusaders for tolerance just love ranting about 'rednecks', 'crackers' and 'peckerwoods'.

Everybody has to hate somebody...it is just the way today's humanity is. I dont agree with it, but I have never met a person that did not hate someone. Even hating the haters is still hating somebody. Not that I agree with this but it is just why we are self destructive as a species.
It would be interesting to go back through archelologic history and find out when humans started developing weapons of war, v's weapons of hunting prey and to find evidence of changes in DNA or even a differient species of humanoid altogether. My assumption is that early humans would have died out quickly if we started out so combative with each other in the begining of human evolution. My belief is a shift occured at some point where we keep dividing ourselves into smaller and smaller groups and became hostile with the other groups.
Well anyway there I go again.... carry on

And I'm supposed to tolerate bigotry? I didn't say this guy didn't have the right to speak his mind - but I have the right to criticize him. And yes, he is a redneck, cracker, peckerwood.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No, I don't hate the politician I mentioned, I just hold him in contempt because he stirs up hate and bigotry based and the most absurd and baseless reasons. Like I stated earlier, he's the same idiot who had started this notion that Middle Eastern women were having terror babies. That is, they were planning to have babies in the United States, then return to an Islamic country where they would be raised as terrorists, then return to America as citizens in order to commit acts of terror. The loony bigot in DC who claimed this was true maintained this information was confirmed by the FBI. In fact, CNN checked this out, and were told by the FBI that they have no knowledge about any sort of thing, and seriously cast doubt on it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

did you ever sign on the dotted line and wear the uniform?

...And their first order of business will be to submit a design for a new uniform.


And seriously, I don't think they should be sent to middle eastern countries. Moderate Muslims that don't have a problem with us will likely have a problem with us bringing homosexuals into their towns.

why do you believe there are no gay soldiers in the middle eastern theatre now?

The first American soldier to be severely wounded in Iraq - he lost a leg - was gay.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I've been waiting for this day. It's about bloody time.

How would they know those soldiers are gay any more than they do now? They're not gonna start making the gay ones where a big pink triangle on their chests

We don't draft our military policies based on what Muslim crackpots might find offensive. They have a problem with female soldiers too. Oh well.

Helpful hint: they don't like Americans. Period. And they're not going to know which soldiers are gay by looking at them.

Lastly, men in Middle Eastern countries screw other men with zeal. It's common practice. Women are for breeding, men are for pleasure.

John likes his gay men in bright colours, don't you John? Makes them easier to see (and thus to shoot) don't it John?