• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

apdst said:
Obviously, you're not understanding the redefinition of DADT that I'm proposing.
Click to expand...

You can't please all of the people all of the time. People will know who is gay in some instances. Are you going to require that they fake writing letters to girlfriends or wives and have pictures of them?
 
winston53660 said:
DADT would get him/her kicked out right?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. This has been the myth. It's the T or "tell" part that constitutes the number explosion. Nobody has asked ****. Doing so equals NJP under the law we enforce.
 
MSgt said:
I see the logic. It actually makes sense. Oh wait...let me play the "nu-uh" game....link?
Click to expand...

:rofl

I love it!
 
MSgt said:
Not exactly. This has been the myth. It's the T or "tell" part that constitutes the number explosion. Nobody has asked ****. Doing so equals NJP under the law we enforce.
Click to expand...

I think giving wedding invites to a gay wedding might be telling.
 
winston53660 said:
What you are proposing is purely senseless. When Sgt X gives the CO an invite to a marry boyfriend X that is telling.
Click to expand...

Well, gee ****ing willkers!!! Sgt X can't send an invitation to his commander, to attend his wedding. That would be goddamn fraternization!

Why not just admit that you don't have enough of a clue about how the miltiary works to actually form an opinion?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You can't please all of the people all of the time. People will know who is gay in some instances. Are you going to require that they fake writing letters to girlfriends or wives and have pictures of them?
Click to expand...

They will, "think", they know. As long as you quell the rumor mill, with the regulations, you will allow gays to serve and have as few problems as possible.
 
winston53660 said:
I think giving wedding invites to a gay wedding might be telling.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but this is an exception that sits aside from the norm that has occurred. Unfortunately there's probably not a website that displays the people who simply want out and those who screwup and break policy. The military has never and will never be exactly open about its business. We tend to have to gutter our way through to doing our jobs for the greater "good". But think about it. Unless thrown in the military's face, as if daring repercussion, what do the escalation in numbers mean probably?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
They will, "think", they know. As long as you quell the rumor mill, with the regulations, you will allow gays to serve and have as few problems as possible.
Click to expand...

As long as straight people can't talk about their relationships either, that sounds fair.

It should be a real moral booster. :roll:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You can't please all of the people all of the time. People will know who is gay in some instances. Are you going to require that they fake writing letters to girlfriends or wives and have pictures of them?
Click to expand...

nope! My redefinition of DADT would require no one to ask and no one to tell.

What's the problem with that? Gays not serving, "openly", enough for your politics?

Ya'll want gays to be able to serve in the miltiary without fear of discharge. This, IMO, is the way to go about and it doesn't seem to be good enough. is it possible that this isn't just about, "gays serving in the military"? is it more about gays, "serving in the miltiary, in your face"?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
As long as straight people can't talk about their relationships either, that sounds fair.

It should be a real moral booster. :roll:
Click to expand...

Who said that gays wouldn't be able to talk about their relationships?
 
apdst said:
Well, gee ****ing willkers!!! Sgt X can't send an invitation to his commander, to attend his wedding. That would be goddamn fraternization!

Why not just admit that you don't have enough of a clue about how the miltiary works to actually form an opinion?
Click to expand...

Really are you telling officers never attend a NCOs wedding?
 
apdst said:
Well, gee ****ing willkers!!! Sgt X can't send an invitation to his commander, to attend his wedding. That would be goddamn fraternization!

Why not just admit that you don't have enough of a clue about how the miltiary works to actually form an opinion?
Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmm...... thats not fraternization dude.

I don't see a problem with that.... Weddings are for Family and Friends.

Ive never met a person who didn't consider his military unit part of his "family" or at least "friends".
 
winston53660 said:
Really are you telling officers never attend a NCOs wedding?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't it be cool if you actually knew something about the military? Then, you could actually make an argument.
 
Caine said:
Ummmmmmmm...... thats not fraternization dude.

I don't see a problem with that.... Weddings are for Family and Friends.

Ive never met a person who didn't consider his military unit part of his "family" or at least "friends".
Click to expand...

That's right and a company commander is neither family, nor friend, to any enlisted man, in his chain of command.
 
apdst said:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't it be cool if you actually knew something about the military? Then, you could actually make an argument.
Click to expand...

I mean, maybe by definition that might be the case, but that would be something someone with no ACTUAL military experience would say.

You should know better than to think that an invitation to a wedding would be fraternization.

Thats like saying Battalion Holiday Ball is fraternization because both enlisted and officers are drinking, bringing families, and not conducting official business.

Not to mention: Gasp!.... Company Cookouts....or any other social event not required by duty.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Really are you telling officers never attend a NCOs wedding?
Click to expand...

Not if those NCO's are within their direct chain of command, they don't.

Example: You're a company commander and I'm one of your platoon sergeants. It would be out of bounds for me to send you an invite to my wedding and for you to accept.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You can't please all of the people all of the time. People will know who is gay in some instances. Are you going to require that they fake writing letters to girlfriends or wives and have pictures of them?
Click to expand...

I have been trying to make this point. There is an individual within the Navy who works in my BAS. He is as gay as the gayest portrayals in your favorite comedy. He has worked there for at least a year and a half. As long as he delivers the bandaids and gives us medicine for our sniffles, no Marine of any rank really cares. Apparently the Navy doesn't either. DADT is merely a formality that needs to officially die.

What we are concerned about within the Corps is what effect open gayness will have upon our Marine forces on many levels.
 
Caine said:
I mean, maybe by definition that might be the case, but that would be something someone with no ACTUAL military experience would say.

You should know better than to think that an invitation to a wedding would be fraternization.

Thats like saying Battalion Holiday Ball is fraternization because both enlisted and officers are drinking, bringing families, and not conducting official business.

Not to mention: Gasp!.... Company Cookouts....or any other social event not required by duty.
Click to expand...

Those are unit fucntions. That's different. No one's getting married. Even at those type of fucntions, public displays of effection are encouraged to stay at a minimum. Two gay dudes can't go a couple of hours with out giving each other a lippy?
 
apdst said:
Those are unit fucntions. That's different. No one's getting married. Even at those type of fucntions, public displays of effection are encouraged to stay at a minimum. Two gay dudes can't go a couple of hours with out giving each other a lippy?
Click to expand...

Not if a man and his wife can't.........
 
apdst said:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't it be cool if you actually knew something about the military? Then, you could actually make an argument.
Click to expand...

I call BSS where is the specific code barring a CO from attending a NCOs wedding.
 
apdst said:
nope! My redefinition of DADT would require no one to ask and no one to tell.
Click to expand...


This is why the military moved Congress to create the Military Readiness Enhancement Act in 2005. DADT was a burden because the "tell" part hurt us. But I will add this part.....

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% favor of gays serving in the military, 37% opposed, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure.
Click to expand...

While it may be helpful to insist that the majority of American people want a sexually tolerant military, those that actually find it honorable to serve hold differnet opinions. In other words, those that favor it, run from national duty....so **** their opinion.
 
winston53660 said:
I call BSS where is the specific code barring a CO from attending a NCOs wedding.
Click to expand...

you don't get it, because you've never served in the military.

If a company commander accepts an invitation to one enlisted man's wedding, he has to accept the invitations to every enlisted man's wedding, under his command. If he misses one, then he can be accused of showing favoritism, which will get his ass in a crack. Get it now.

It would be like PFC Joe Blow saying, "Hey, Captain, let's go have a beer", and the captain saying, "sure, let's go". Fraternization doesn't just involve sexual activity, as far as the DoD is concerned. Had you a few moments of military service, you would already know that. Even Redress will tell you that.
 
apdst said:
you don't get it, because you've never served in the military.

If a company commander accepts an invitation to one enlisted man's wedding, he has to accept the invitations to every enlisted man's wedding, under his command. If he misses one, then he can be accused of showing favoritism, which will get his ass in a crack. Get it now.

It would be like PFC Joe Blow saying, "Hey, Captain, let's go have a beer", and the captain saying, "sure, let's go". Fraternization doesn't just involve sexual activity, as far as the DoD is concerned. Had you a few moments of military service, you would already know that. Even Redress will tell you that.
Click to expand...

As long as he didn't show any special treatment towards them on duty, I wouldn't see the problem.
Its a formal function. There is a difference between going to a wedding, and being drinking buddies.
 
apdst said:
you don't get it, because you've never served in the military.

If a company commander accepts an invitation to one enlisted man's wedding, he has to accept the invitations to every enlisted man's wedding, under his command. If he misses one, then he can be accused of showing favoritism, which will get his ass in a crack. Get it now.

It would be like PFC Joe Blow saying, "Hey, Captain, let's go have a beer", and the captain saying, "sure, let's go". Fraternization doesn't just involve sexual activity, as far as the DoD is concerned. Had you a few moments of military service, you would already know that. Even Redress will tell you that.
Click to expand...

Specific code please sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom