'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal in doubt

roguenuke said:

I believe it is quite ignorant for anyone to believe that the military, Congress, or whoever the heck it takes to repeal DADT would not also include any other military rules that would keep gays from serving from being repealed as well. The whole point of removing DADT is so that gays will be able to serve in the military openly. Most of the military rules have already been changed to accomodate this. The only real rule that only affects gays, from what I know, is DADT. Even sodomy rules could technically stay in place, since the military would actually have to prove sodomy occurred and the punishments would have to be equivalent to those that would be received by a heterosexual engaging in the same act(s). Sexuality would also have to be included in the tolerance and equal opportunity trainings. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that these are a few of the things that they are looking into in the study.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that that's the case? I haven't seen it.

disneydude said:

I recognize that....however, you make the bigger mistake in believing that it ends there. Gay people in the military have to lie every day. What do you think happens when soldiers sit around and talk about girlfriends back home, about celebrities that they think are hot...etc. If the gay soldier sits silent, you don't think that this is going to expose them as being gay?...and if they can't be honest and open, many feel that they have to put on an act so as not to out themselves. Its all really rather silly.
The vast majority of America, including those serving in the military are not as homophobic as people, for instance, in Navy Pride's generation. Most people are more tolent today.

Click to expand...

none of which changes the fact that without DADT there is no way for a gay person to legally serve in the military. If DADT is repealed the old policy of a complete ban on gays will be back in effect. I don't see how that is a step in the right direction.

leave DADT in place and work on eliminating the ban. gay supporters are putting the proverbial cart before the horse on this one.

OscarB63 said:

none of which changes the fact that without DADT there is no way for a gay person to legally serve in the military. If DADT is repealed the old policy of a complete ban on gays will be back in effect. I don't see how that is a step in the right direction.

leave DADT in place and work on eliminating the ban. gay supporters are putting the proverbial cart before the horse on this one.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that defrauding the military. i.e. lieing about being gay--is now a punishable crime that rates jail time and not just a general discharge. Keep making things harder for the people you're trying to help.

apdst said:

When you claim that he served, "100 years ago", then yes, you're attacking his service.

Click to expand...

No. If I said "he served badly 100 years ago," that would be attacking his service. But since I have no idea how well he served, I'm content to just attack him for being an angry, out-of-touch oldtimer.

apdst said:

I enver said they shouldn't. I've explain how gays can be allowed to serve in the military.

Click to expand...

So they can serve as long as they adhere to your ridiculous restrictions that don't apply to heterosexuals. How generous of you. :roll:

apdst said:

But keep going down the, "I'm going to insult every veteran that doesn't share my point of view, no matter how small minded and ignorant it may be", road. It may actually lead somewhere.

Click to expand...

Yep. I'm for equal civil rights for everyone, and that makes ME small-minded and ignorant.

apdst said:

I enver said they didn't. Wanna keep teaming up with Kandahar and creating statements that I never made?

Click to expand...

What statement did I create that you never made? You just jumped into the conversation I was having with Navy Pride like two posts ago.

apdst said:

Do you have any evidence that that's the case? I haven't seen it.

Click to expand...

What would be the point in repealing DADT otherwise? I'm pretty sure this is part of the study if it isn't, there is a big problem that does need to be addressed.

disneydude said:

Oh puh-lease....you stare the facts right in the face and then deny their existence. You are fooling yourself if you believe that gays didn't serve in the military before DADT. Gays have always served. The only issue is whether they have to lie about it or whether they can be honest.

Maybe my value system is screwed up, but I was taught to believe that given the choice between being honest or deceitful, it is better to be honest.

Click to expand...

you are so wrapped up in this "honesty" blanket you keep missing the freaking point. DADT or no DADT, with the military's ban on gays in place, gays cannot "honestly" serve in the military.

That is the point you guys keep missing. the repeal of DADT will NOT allow gays to openly, honestly serve. the military ban on gays is still in effect and is a separate regulation from DADT.

roguenuke said:

What would be the point in repealing DADT otherwise? I'm pretty sure this is part of the study if it isn't, there is a big problem that does need to be addressed.

Click to expand...

to make a political statement and pander to gays and gay supporters for votes without actually changing anything?

Gardener said:

A queen?

I hear this is not uncommon with the homosexual community.

Click to expand...

I would not know.............

and it really grinds my gears that damn near every one of you pro-gay dudes think that I am against gays simply because I point out the legitimate flaws with repealing DADT.

I have been a unit commander and I suspected that several of my soldiers were gay. I didn't really give a rat's ass. DADT or not, as long as they were doing their job i wasn't going to make an issue of it.

OscarB63 said:

and it really grinds my gears that damn near every one of you pro-gay dudes think that I am against gays simply because I point out the legitimate flaws with repealing DADT.

Click to expand...

For me it's women who don't put out on the first date, but to each his own ...

roguenuke said:

You may be forgetting however NP that the military tests for HIV at least once every 3 years (although, while I was on active duty, I know I was tested every 2 years on shore duty, and every year on ship). And the military actually allows anyone to stay in with HIV, they are just restricted on where they may serve.

Also NP, please keep in mind that there are other people on this board who have served in the Navy, onboard ships for >90 days at sea, who have served more recently than you. I am one of them, and I know that there are many servicemembers who could truly care less if gays are allowed to serve openly. There are some ratings in the Navy that are so undermanned that even people who would object morally to homosexuality and/or who may be uncomfortable living with homosexuals would quickly get over it to get DADT (and the UCMJ sodomy laws) repealed if it meant that they would have a better watch and/or liberty rotation. You tend to learn what is really important when you have to stand 6 and 6s or 3 section duty while the rest of the ship is on 4 or 5 section duty. Some subs are port and starboard duty rotation. Allowing gays to serve openly could actually cause more people to want to join or at least keep some of those qualified in, which would mean more people to stand watches, which means more liberty for everyone.

Click to expand...

I am not going to get in a pissing contest with you on who served when and where...........I will say that during the Vietnam conflict I was stationed aboard and AOE. a fast combat support ship and although I stood no watches I was in charge of the cargo gang and put many hours on the cargo deck supporting the ships of the 7th fleet on yankee and dixie station....We performed 811 unreps on a 10 month deployment which is a record by almost 500 unreps.......There were times I did not see my rack for 2 or 3 days and use to sleep between ships we were unreping with my elbow on a stanchion in the handling area.....................

enough of that though............I was just pointing out that I earned my fifty cents and hou...............

Coronado said:

For me it's women who don't put out on the first date, but to each his own ...

Click to expand...

I hate when women do that.

apdst said:

When you claim that he served, "100 years ago", then yes, you're attacking his service.





I bet you don't. I got an idea, enlist and find out. Then come tell us, "old farts", that we don't know ****.





I enver said they shouldn't. I've explain how gays can be allowed to serve in the military. But keep going down the, "I'm going to insult every veteran that doesn't share my point of view, no matter how small minded and ignorant it may be", road. It may actually lead somewhere.

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot but some people in this forum can not make a post unless its a personal attack against another member............Its just the way it is when it comes to him or DD I just consider the source..............It use to piss me off but not anymore..............

apdst said:

But, since you never served a single minute in the military, you know about it than what I learned in 12 years.

Click to expand...

This is always the lamest argument the anti-gay folk make. That would be like me saying....unless you are gay then you shouldn't be allowed to comment on any issue relating to gays.....see how silly that argument is now?

There are some veterans in here that disagree with me and I respect their opinion.......The people that pis me off are the liberals who have never served and never intend to serve that run their mouth.......Hell they can say anything it does not affect them..........they have no clue what goes on in the military............

OscarB63 said:

to make a political statement and pander to gays and gay supporters for votes without actually changing anything?

Click to expand...

The study that DOD is conducting states that it is to allow for gays to serve openly in the military. Repealing DADT, which is the only actual law that prevents gays from serving openly, will allow for the military to change its policies, if there are any left. Someone needs to show me the policies besides DADT, that would keep gays from serving. Sodomy, as I mentioned above, is not necessarily one of them, since, even if a person claims to be homosexual, any act of sodomy would have to be proven. And considering the current trend to more tolerance and equal opportunities, I'd say that it is a very good bet that the military will be including sexuality in equal opportunity and tolerance.

Also, I am a female E-6 who served 10 years active and am currently in the reserves. I do know that it is quite easy for the openly gay servicemembers to serve with very little problems. We had numerous, both male and female, serving on the carrier I was on and specifically in my department. It makes very little sense to put these people out, especially in critical ratings such as mine, when we really need them, just because some may be uncomfortable with them. There has been no good argument given for why it is bad for gays to serve openly in the military. All the arguments that I have heard involved a lot of assumptions and events/problems that are easily covered by other UCMJ policies. Even the belief that it will make some servicemembers uncomfortable enough that they will not be able to perform their duties well is a) not really going to be a huge issue and b) ultimately resides on the servicemember who is uncomfortable, especially if there is no evidence that he/she should feel unsafe or violated. As a military member, you should not feel that you are entitled to complete privacy at any time that you are in a duty status. If a person feels uncomfortable showering/undressing in front of someone that they know is gay, why is it less uncomfortable for them to shower/undress in front of a bunch of other guys/girls who may or may not be gay? It doesn't make any sense. If they can't deal with it, then they need to be the one to get out. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have served in the military in the past who have had to either learn to deal with something they are uncomfortable with or get out. It is another part of military life.

disneydude said:

This is always the lamest argument the anti-gay folk make. That would be like me saying....unless you are gay then you shouldn't be allowed to comment on any issue relating to gays.....see how silly that argument is now?

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of you not being allowed to comment. It is plain and simple truth that military members and veterans know from first hand experience what it is like to be in the military and those of you who have not served have to rely on what you have read or heard. It may not be "fair" but a vets opinion on military matters has more gravitas than a civie's.

you wouldn't want your tonsils taken out by some guy who read about the procedure now would you? :lol:

Navy Pride said:

There are some veterans in here that disagree with me and I respect their opinion.......The people that pis me off are the liberals who have never served and never intend to serve that run their mouth.......Hell they can say anything it does not affect them..........they have no clue what goes on in the military............

Click to expand...

excellent point, because if I am not mistaken, you and I disagree on gays in the military. but we both respect each other's opinions. that's the big diff. we don't disrespect each other and make lame assed attempts at insults

Navy Pride said:

There are some veterans in here that disagree with me and I respect their opinion.......The people that pis me off are the liberals who have never served and never intend to serve that run their mouth.......Hell they can say anything it does not affect them..........they have no clue what goes on in the military............

Click to expand...

So since you are not gay....why do you start so many anti-gay threads Navy?... The people that pis me off are the homophobes who are not gay and will never be gay that run their mouths.....Hell you can say anything it does not affect you.......you have no clue what goes on in the gay world..........

roguenuke said:

The Someone needs to show me the policies besides DADT, that would keep gays from serving.

Click to expand...

If I do will you guys shut the **** up about it?

US CODE TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654
Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.




CASE F*CKING CLOSED. if you repeal DADT without ammending US Code 10 gays will not be allowed to serve in the military under ANY circumstances.

Navy Pride said:

I am not going to get in a pissing contest with you on who served when and where...........I will say that during the Vietnam conflict I was stationed aboard and AOE. a fast combat support ship and although I stood no watches I was in charge of the cargo gang and put many hours on the cargo deck supporting the ships of the 7th fleet on yankee and dixie station....We performed 811 unreps on a 10 month deployment which is a record by almost 500 unreps.......There were times I did not see my rack for 2 or 3 days and use to sleep between ships we were unreping with my elbow on a stanchion in the handling area.....................

enough of that though............I was just pointing out that I earned my fifty cents and hou...............

Click to expand...

And I was just pointing out that some of the people who called you on making statements that seem to include all military members, are not wrong. There are a number of military members, who have served duty, at least close to your own, who have a very different opinion on gays in the military. No person should be required to earn their right to voice an opinion on any matter. Having served or not does not necessarily mean that you know any more about another person's situation. I don't claim to know much about what it is like to live on a submarine, but that doesn't mean that I think that submarine forces should be exempt from having gays serve openly aboard. The same is true for combat units. The things that should keep a person from serving in the military, at all, are not physically being able to and/or a demonstrated lack of ability to either do their job or obey orders/rules. That is why DADT and any other rules that keep gays from serving openly and honestly in the military should go away, because being homosexual does not automatically mean that you will cause any problems whatsoever, and no servicemember should have to lie about themself in order to serve. They really shouldn't have to hide anything about themselves either.

well, "technically" I suppose homosexuals can serve as long as they don't engage in homosexual activity or demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

OscarB63 said:

well, "technically" I suppose homosexuals can serve as long as they don't engage in homosexual activity or demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

Click to expand...

Why not make it simple. Anyone can serve but there are not allowed to engage in sexual activity?

disneydude said:

Why not make it simple. Anyone can serve but there are not allowed to engage in sexual activity?

Click to expand...

why not just ****ing amend title 10? then DADT would be a ****ing moot ****ing point.