Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

Hatuey said:

This is the last post I'll make on this because now you're just getting stubborn and I have to take my kid to the clinic. But please, I beg you to try and read my post and understand what it is I'm saying :

What people have stated is that gays already are in the military. They already spend 16 hours a day working alongside straights, they already shower with straights, the already eat with straights, sleep alongside straights and in the majority of cases zero incident occurs.

What people have stated is that if it is found that a member serving is gay, that should not be grounds for expulsion because their sexuality does not affect their job performance or that of anybody around them. If a discrepancy does occur, they should be treated no different than any other member of the armed forces. But the fact that they are gay should not be enough to kick them out.



As far as meeting constitutional requirements that is laughable. A law can be found to be unconstitutional after it has been passed.

Click to expand...

All them alreadys but they don't mean squat because they are not serving openly in the U.S. Navy and that is what this and DADT is about.......Openly serving!!!!!!!!

Hatuey said:

You don't understand yet do you? People are saying that how a professional behaves should still be top priority. What should be removed is the rules which make it possible to remove somebody from the military simply for being gay when no incident has occurred. If anything DADT is anti-constitutional. The U.S. government would never fire a federal employee for being gay. The fact that it allows this for the military is quite ridiculous and illogical.

Click to expand...

The problem is, you are demanding that people accept something that WILL cause problems in the ranks. Oh sure, eventually it will even out and the problems will become minor, but the issue here is... is it worth it for a small percentage of the population to be allowed to serve in the face of the problems it WILL cause?

Glinda said:

Bull. I said what I had to say. You added your own crap and called it mine.

Click to expand...

I admitted that I made a mistake, so drop your self-righteous 'tude because you're not exactly the model of intellectual honesty on these boards...

You educate them and expect them to act like the ****ing adults they're supposed to be, to follow their orders and not deviate from them for any pansy "personal reasons." Aren't our military men and women supposed to be the greatest fighting force on the planet? Jesus. I'd be ashamed and afraid to call myself a member if there are so many delicate flowers on the team.

Click to expand...

Educate them?

What do you propose? Some lovely seminars? Haha! I'd love to see how those went over.

I know what you said, but it had absolutely no connection to me or anything I've said. How about next time you simply ask your questions and let others answer on their own?

Click to expand...

I asked the question but you didn't answer. Either way, I admitted that I read too much into your statements. It's not really a big problem for me to admit when I'm wrong. Can't say the same for certain others...

There. I knew you could do it. Here's my take on the matter:

You educate them and expect them to act like the ****ing adults they're supposed to be, to follow their orders and not deviate from them for any pansy "personal reasons." You give them strict instructions and allow for one or two "oopsie" moments, so no one can cry foul about how awful and harsh it is to have to suddenly behave like a grown up. After that, they're out. If it means we ****can a bunch of bad apples, so be it. Do we really want a bunch of whiny and/or violent homophobes on the force anyway?

Just do your damned job and get over yourself. :roll:

Click to expand...

:rofl

Oh my god...this is too good. You excoriate me for reading too much into your statements and then confirm my suspicions by explicitly stating what I said your were implying. You couldn't make this up...:doh

Okay, so we "educate them" (laff!) and if they don't get educated then we kick them out of the military (like I said you would!).

How are you going to tell if your education program has worked? What if their intolerance is more sinister than just outright defiance? You think the only problem is going to be name-calling or fights? You don't know anything about the military, so it's no surprise that you would come up with such naive solutions...

CriticalThought said:

Except for all the gays and lesbians that are sleeping and showering with them on their own ship that they just don't know about because they aren't allowed to serve openly. :mrgreen:

I've figured it out from reading your posts Navy. DADT works for you because it allows you to pretend there are no gays currently living on board ships. That is hilarious!

The only difference that repealing DADT will have is that all the gay people who are currently serving in secret will be allowed to serve openly.

Click to expand...

Hey I know there are gays in the U.S. Military, thousands have been kicked out since DADT was installed....If you read the whole thread I even cited a case where I was a witness to a gay guy making unwanted advances against a shipmate.

Nice try though............

Navy Pride said:

Hey I know there are gays in the U.S. Military, thousands have been kicked out since DADT was installed....If you read the whole thread I even cited a case where I was a witness to a gay guy making unwanted advances against a shipmate.

Nice try though............

Click to expand...

Alright then, let's be clear on something.

1. You don't have a problem with our service people serving alongside openly gay people from other countries.
2. You recognize that there are gay people serving in the military, just not openly.
3. You support the DADT policy on the grounds that allowing those gay servicemen and women to serve openly would be a dangerous social experiment.

How hilarious. You are making an argument that the military should be free to be homophobic even though there are gay men and women putting their lives on the line just like any of the straight men and women would be.

That is all your argument really comes down to and you know it.

We had a few cases on the Inchon. We had a BM2 get out, and right after he got out he told everyone he was gay. No one knew while he was in, and no one really cared after he was out. We WERE a tad shocked though.

MrVicchio said:

The problem is, you are demanding that people accept something that WILL cause problems in the ranks. Oh sure, eventually it will even out and the problems will become minor, but the issue here is... is it worth it for a small percentage of the population to be allowed to serve in the face of the problems it WILL cause?

Click to expand...

The point is, and this is the overwhelming point, is that those of us arguing for the repeal are saying that there is zero evidence there will be any significant problems. Sure, there are a few, always are. But those few problems can be easily handled, and if handled well, it will cease to be a significant problem. Navy pointed out, accurately, that racial incidents in the military are rare, and they are rare because when the rules changed, every one knows there is no tolerance. Zero tolerance does not mean no one breaks the rules, but those who do don't have an impact on readiness. The military has a zero tolerance policy for drugs, which does not 100 % eliminate drug use, but it is low enough not effect military readiness.

I understand your point, and appreciate that you worded it in a respectful manner, but I think your worries, while sincere, are without merit. The attitudes in the military these days is rapidly evolving towards acceptance already, and looking at other countries that have already allowed openly gay people to serve shows us that it is unlikely to be a problem, and offers us much data in what small problems to look for, and how best to handle them.

MrVicchio said:

We had a few cases on the Inchon. We had a BM2 get out, and right after he got out he told everyone he was gay. No one knew while he was in, and no one really cared after he was out. We WERE a tad shocked though.

Click to expand...

Heh, we had a yeoman who we knew full well was gay(and this was before DADT). He was fairly well liked and never a problem for any one. Even our skipper knew he was gay.

CriticalThought said:

Alright then, let's be clear on something.

1. You don't have a problem with our service people serving alongside openly gay people from other countries.
2. You recognize that there are gay people serving in the military, just not openly.
3. You support the DADT policy on the grounds that allowing those gay servicemen and women to serve openly would be a dangerous social experiment.

How hilarious. You are making an argument that the military should be free to be homophobic even though there are gay men and women putting their lives on the line just like any of the straight men and women would be.

That is all your argument really comes down to and you know it.

Click to expand...

Well it took awhile but it always happens.....when you are losing the debate you start to resort to name calling with anyone who has a difference of opinion then you...What is ironic is you call us the intolerant ones when it is you that will not allow a difference of opinion.....sad so very sad..........

Redress said:

Heh, we had a yeoman who we knew full well was gay(and this was before DADT). He was fairly well liked and never a problem for any one. Even our skipper knew he was gay.

Click to expand...

Thinking someone is gay and proving it is another matter...there are always sailors who have a feminine nature and you might suspect it.............If the Captain of your ship knew this guy was gay and could prove he was peforming sex acts on ship mates and does not bring this guy up on charges it is a viloation of the UCMJ and you captain should ne charged with the violation........


How would you know that your captain knew he was gay?

Redress said:

Heh, we had a yeoman who we knew full well was gay(and this was before DADT). He was fairly well liked and never a problem for any one. Even our skipper knew he was gay.

Click to expand...

All Yeoman are gay.

Nah I'm kidding.

Only about half of'em.

Ethereal said:

You excoriate me for reading too much into your statements

Click to expand...

Wrong. I called you on your lies.

Ethereal said:

and then confirm my suspicions by explicitly stating what I said your were implying.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. I implied nothing. What happened is, you lied by claiming I said something that YOU actually said.

Ethereal said:

Okay, so we "educate them" and if they don't get educated then we kick them out of the military ...

How are you going to tell if your education program has worked?

Click to expand...

Duh. By observing whether or not our soldiers are able to act like adults and follow the orders they've been given without question, variation, or hesitation.

What do we do with soldiers who get drunk on duty? Soldiers who steal from the commissary? Soldiers who are insolent or refuse to follow their commanding officer's orders? Male soldiers who rape female soldiers? In most cases, we educate them as to the error of their ways, and give them a chance to toe the line. If they can't, we throw them out, dishonorably. This is nothing new.

The only way to end past unacceptable behavior is to refuse to allow it to exist going forward, and some form of punishment is the result of any breach of military rules. Isn't it? Again, this is nothing new.

Ethereal said:

it's no surprise that you would come up with such naive solutions...

Click to expand...

Ok, Colin Powell. DADT has been rescinded. I've offered my ideas. You've offered none. Why don't you tell us how you'd handle soldiers who will not or cannot adhere to the rules/orders they've been handed?

Glinda said:

Wrong. I called you on your lies.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a lie. It was an ignorant statement that turned out to be false. But I have no problem admitting that.

I made an ignorant and false statement!!! AHHHHH!!!!

:2wave:

Wrong again. I implied nothing. What happened is, you lied by claiming I said something that YOU actually said.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, you confirmed my suspicions. Your solution would be to kick them out. That would be detrimental to unit cohesion, which would result in more deaths. I'm disturbed that you would sacrifice lives for a stupid political agenda.

Duh. By observing whether or not our soldiers are able to act like adults and follow the orders they've been given without question, variation, or hesitation.

Click to expand...

Hahaha! I'm sorry, but I just can't help but laugh at your solutions. You really know nothing about the military, much less the infantry. I'm sure you'd make a fine platoon commander...:lol:

Observe them? How are you going to do that? There's about 140 Marines in an infantry company and typically six officers to supervise them all. You can't be around all of them all the time. Like I said, it doesn't have to be outright defiance. We can make your life hard without breaking any rules.

What do we do with soldiers who get drunk on duty? Soldiers who steal from the commissary? Soldiers who are insolent or refuse to follow their commanding officer's orders? Male soldiers who rape female soldiers? In most cases, we educate them as to the error of their ways, and give them a chance to toe the line. If they can't, we throw them out, dishonorably. This is nothing new.

Click to expand...

Those are examples of outright rule-breaking. Suppose the grunts don't openly defy the new policy? Suppose they just use acceptable methods to make the gay guy's life that much more difficult. Suppose they ostracize him. Suppose they call him names when no one is around. Suppose they undermine his authority behind his back. Suppose they spread rumors about him. Suppose they don't act like you assume they will...then what, oh brilliant commander Glinda? How will you solve these problems?

The only way to end past unacceptable behavior is to refuse to allow it to exist going forward, and some form of punishment is the result of any breach of military rules. Isn't it? Again, this is nothing new.

Click to expand...

In other words, radically alter a long-standing and effective military policy in the midst of two wars regardless of the tension and friction it may cause. I think we got it...

Ok, Colin Powell. DADT has been rescinded. I've offered my ideas. You've offered none. Why don't you tell us how you'd handle soldiers who will not or cannot adhere to the rules/orders they've been handed?

Click to expand...

I would avoid the situation entirely by not repealing DADT in the first place.

I would wait until peacetime and commission a comprehensive and robust analysis of DADT, and act upon the recommendations of my commission.

You, on the other hand, just want to let the cat out of the bag and see what happens. You haven't even thought about the consequences of your decision and offer nothing but ill-conceived, reactive solutions to problems that could have been avoided in the first place. Really, you're quite clueless, madam.

Ethereal said:

I would avoid the situation entirely by not repealing DADT in the first place.

Click to expand...

You're wimping out. That's not the scenario that you presented.

Ethereal said:

I agree, they [straight soldiers] should be willing to [ignore the sexual preferences of gay soldiers], but a lot of the infantry folks won't, so where does that leave us? Just kick out all the conservative Christians and headstrong alpha males?

Click to expand...

This is the scenario: DADT has been rescinded. How would you handle the change of military rule, and whatever results from that change among the rank and file?

Ethereal said:

I would wait until peacetime and commission a comprehensive and robust analysis of DADT, and act upon the recommendations of my commission.

Click to expand...

Again, you're wimping out. That's not the scenario that you presented.

This is the scenario: DADT has been rescinded. How do you handle the change of military rule, and whatever results from that change among the rank and file?

Ethereal said:

You haven't even thought about the consequences of your decision

Click to expand...

And you haven't offered your solution for others to pick apart. I'm interested in your brilliant insights on the matter. Please share.

Ethereal said:

and offer nothing but ill-conceived, reactive solutions to problems that could have been avoided in the first place.

Click to expand...

You still haven't offered your solution for others to pick apart. I'm interested in your brilliant insights on the matter. Please share.

Navy Pride said:

Well it took awhile but it always happens.....when you are losing the debate you start to resort to name calling with anyone who has a difference of opinion then you...What is ironic is you call us the intolerant ones when it is you that will not allow a difference of opinion.....sad so very sad..........

Click to expand...

What difference of opinion? The military has no logical basis by which to deny gays and lesbians the right to serve openly. As has been said, our servicemen and women can serve fine with gays and lesbians serving openly from other countries without decaying unit cohesion, and gays and lesbians can serve in our military well, even if they don't do so openly. The only argument you can make is that gays and lesbians shouldn't serve openly because it would make you uncomfortable to realize they are around you. That by definition is homophobia.

You are afraid of gays somehow hurting the military, even though you can't present any evidence aside from your own personal discomfort to support the assertion. Irrational and unsubstantiated fear of homosexuals is homophobia last I checked.

CriticalThought said:

What difference of opinion? The military has no logical basis by which to deny gays and lesbians the right to serve openly. As has been said, our servicemen and women can serve fine with gays and lesbians serving openly from other countries without decaying unit cohesion, and gays and lesbians can serve in our military well, even if they don't do so openly. The only argument you can make is that gays and lesbians shouldn't serve openly because it would make you uncomfortable to realize they are around you. That by definition is homophobia.

You are afraid of gays somehow hurting the military, even though you can't present any evidence aside from your own personal discomfort to support the assertion. Irrational and unsubstantiated fear of homosexuals is homophobia last I checked.

Click to expand...

Do you even read the posts in the thread at all? The reasons why have been mentioned over and over again..........

Go back and read the thread.......Un believeable!!!!!:roll:

Navy Pride said:

Do you even read the posts in the thread at all? The reasons why have been mentioned over and over again..........

Go back and read the thread.......Un believeable!!!!!:roll:

Click to expand...

I have read the thread. The arguments are summed up exactly as I just spelled them out. You are afraid of gay people somehow hurting the military despite a lack of evidence or reason to support it. An irrational and unsubstantiated fear of gay people is, by definition, homophobia.

CriticalThought said:

The military has no logical basis by which to deny gays and lesbians the right to serve openly.

Click to expand...

I don't think you nor Glinda ever addressed the HIV risk issue, just because you refuse to address such logical basis doesn't mean there isn't any.

Again, the HIV/AIDS stats so disproportionately staggering in this nation, how can it not be addressed?

Charles Martel said:

I don't think you nor Glinda ever addressed the HIV risk issue, just because you refuse to address such logical basis doesn't mean there isn't any.

Again, the HIV/AIDS stats so disproportionately staggering in this nation, how can it not be addressed?

Click to expand...

Because it doesn't fit into the gay agenda.....

Charles Martel said:

I don't think you nor Glinda ever addressed the HIV risk issue, just because you refuse to address such logical basis doesn't mean there isn't any.

Again, the HIV/AIDS stats so disproportionately staggering in this nation, how can it not be addressed?

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but how does it relate to DADT? Yes, Men who have unprotected anal sex with Men are proportionately higher in contracting HIV, but that is primarily an issue of promiscuity and unprotected anal sex, and has nothing to do with sexual orientation in itself. A monogamous gay couple, in which both partners are clean, cannot possibly give each other HIV.

Furthermore, the argument does not extend to lesbians who are among the lowest risk groups for contracting HIV.

So I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, but I'm sure it is just as illogical as all the others you make.

Partisan said:

Because it doesn't fit into the gay agenda.....

Click to expand...

Is that the agenda where we want marriage so we can lower the age of consent and molest little children, or the agenda where we we are no longer treated as second class citizens simply because of our sexual orientation?

CriticalThought said:

Is that the agenda where we want marriage so we can lower the age of consent and molest little children, or the agenda where we we are no longer treated as second class citizens simply because of our sexual orientation?

Click to expand...

Option #1 obviously, because #2 is invalid.........

Partisan said:

Option #1 obviously, because #2 is invalid.........

Click to expand...

Okay, just wanted to clarify.

Yay for repealing DADT so I can molest little children!

Um...I'm not entirely sure how the two connect, but I'm sure that something about legitimizing homosexuals in the military so we can serve openly and get shot at too will definitely help us towards that end goal of corrupting and recruiting the youth of America.

Glinda said:

You're wimping out. That's not the scenario that you presented.



This is the scenario: DADT has been rescinded. How would you handle the change of military rule, and whatever results from that change among the rank and file?



Again, you're wimping out. That's not the scenario that you presented.

This is the scenario: DADT has been rescinded. How do you handle the change of military rule, and whatever results from that change among the rank and file?



And you haven't offered your solution for others to pick apart. I'm interested in your brilliant insights on the matter. Please share.



You still haven't offered your solution for others to pick apart. I'm interested in your brilliant insights on the matter. Please share.

Click to expand...

My solution is not to rescind DADT. You're asking me to fix problems that I would never allow to come about. Silly question...by the way, you never offered any solutions either, so I guess that means you have none and are just fishing for suggestions.

I'm not here to solve problems you insist on creating.

Ethereal said:

My solution is not to rescind DADT. You're asking me to fix problems that I would never allow to come about. Silly question...by the way, you never offered any solutions either, so I guess that means you have none and are just fishing for suggestions.

I'm not here to solve problems you insist on creating.

Click to expand...

Who created the problem whereby hundreds of qualified Arab translators were kicked out of the military simply because they were gay? Who created the problem where thousands of military personal have been kicked out of the military during a time of war simply because they were gay? The problem is the policy.