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

OscarB63 said:

I guess that shoots down one liberal myth then. since there are more than 56 dems, there must be some dems that are raving, mouth foaming, homophobes...just like all the pubs. :lmao:

Click to expand...

They are probably not raving or foaming at the mouth.

megaprogman said:

They are probably not raving or foaming at the mouth.

Click to expand...

so they are just your average, run of the mill homophobe then?

OscarB63 said:

so they are just your average, run of the mill homophobe then?

Click to expand...

It all depends on the origin of the foam in question.

OscarB63 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is what happens when people comment without looking things up. Let me quote the DADT repeal amendment that was recently unable to get passed:

(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking section 654; and

(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.

Click to expand...

So, when DADT is repealed(and it will happen), your whole objection is nullified, since to repeal DADT, you have to remove section 654. Why do you guys keep making this same argument that has been destroyed repeatedly...

apdst said:

This whole shower thing is simply rediculous. SOme barracks have stalls, some barracks have open bays, I haven't seen barracks that have both. That being said, there are no barracks that have males and females sharing showers, regardless of the configuration; hence, gays and straights can't be forced to share billets; per the commandant of the Marine Corps.

Click to expand...

Yes the whole shower thing is ridiculous. How often do soldiers actually have to shower together in open bay showers, outside of training environments and punishments quarters? Possibly in the field, although, from what I have seen and heard about those, they are still separated stalls. Even on ships, we have separate shower stalls. My husband was in the barracks at K-Bay, he shared his bathroom with one roommate. I'm pretty certain they didn't have to shower together. Now I do know that there are barracks where you have to share a complete bathroom with the adjoining room, but, to the best of my knowledge, these have locks inside and out, like the one I stayed in with my husband when I visited him during his training at Lachland.

All this said, as was mentioned before, college students have some of these same situations in their dorms. There are also similar shower situations in gyms and in some other professions as well, including policemen, firemen, and some doctors. Amazingly, only the military seems to have such an issue with having openly gay personnel showering with straight and closeted gay personnel. In fact, if a gay guy/gal were determined to constantly get peeks at their fellow showerers, they would most likely stay closeted, and the military would have to go through the effort of proving they are gay to get them put into the gay berthing/shower area. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Furthermore, how do you prove someone is gay if they do stay closeted about it? Removing restrictions on gay personnel serving will not make it mandatory that everyone declare their sexuality prior to entry. In fact, this would be quite useless, since there are many people who might not know what their sexuality is even upon joining. Some may be in denial due to personal issues with homosexuality. Heck, there may even be some people who say they are gay just to be in a smaller berthing/shower area.

The sharing of berthings and showers is a weak argument because gays and straights are sharing showers now, men and women aren't.

OscarB63 said:

I guess that shoots down one liberal myth then. since there are more than 56 dems, there must be some dems that are raving, mouth foaming, homophobes...just like all the pubs.

Click to expand...

Or it shows that there are dems that don't care for riders or methods that some politicians, of either side, use to try to get stuff passed. At least one of the dems only voted no so that he could revive the bill later on if he wanted. That would put the count at 57 for this, plus there are others who stated what I just did above about not approving of the method used to try to get this passed. Even some of the repubs claimed that they only voted against it due to the method. Some of these may be lying, but it would only take three telling the truth to pass it.

OscarB63 said:

I guess that shoots down one liberal myth then. since there are more than 56 dems, there must be some dems that are raving, mouth foaming, homophobes...just like all the pubs.

Click to expand...

The vote on this bill had several political things going on. It also had concern that DREAM was going to be added, and Reid voted against the bill in a procedural issue. At least one republican would have voted for the bill if procedural games had not been played as well.

roguenuke said:

Or it shows that there are dems that don't care for riders or methods that some politicians, of either side, use to try to get stuff passed. At least one of the dems only voted no so that he could revive the bill later on if he wanted. That would put the count at 57 for this, plus there are others who stated what I just did above about not approving of the method used to try to get this passed. Even some of the repubs claimed that they only voted against it due to the method. Some of these may be lying, but it would only take three telling the truth to pass it.

Click to expand...

you missed the point. many liberals always cry and scream that all republicans are rabid homophobes. I was just using their same logic to say that there must be at least a few democrats who are homophobes too. I guess the sarcasm wasn't thick enough in my post.

OscarB63 said:

you missed the point. many liberals always cry and scream that all republicans are rabid homophobes. I was just using their same logic to say that there must be at least a few democrats who are homophobes too. I guess the sarcasm wasn't thick enough in my post.

Click to expand...

I don't approve of anyone stereotyping. I don't believe all people against gays having complete and equal treatment and rights are homophobes. I think some are ignorant or stubbornly set in their ways. Others may believe what they have been taught without bothering to be more openminded about it. I don't believe there is any good reason to believe that gays serving openly would cause issues, even with morale and unit cohesion. Most people who spout this line off have simply been taught this for so long, that they believe it or they have had some issue with a gay servicemember that they don't realize could have been dealt with by another UCMJ rule without being completely unfair to those gay personnel who just do their job. Gay personnel should not have to hide their entire private lives to keep from getting kicked out. If I can talk openly about having a boyfriend or a husband, then they should be able to talk openly about having a significant other. I am not punished for talking about my relationship (unless I talk about sexually explicit information that is either against the UCMJ or offensive to someone), so neither should gay personnel for speaking of the same thing. Up until recently, it truly only took someone saying they were gay, which was viewed as an admission, to get them discharged from the military.

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Erod said:

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Click to expand...

Really? As I served in the 82nd, I doubt by that stupid generalization.

Erod said:

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Click to expand...

I served VFA-131 in the USN.

Ever notice how people try and make broad generalizations with no basis in fact?

Erod said:

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Click to expand...

Maybe you should recheck some of the background info for some of those people who are fighting for gays to serve openly in the military, including myself.

Erod said:

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Click to expand...

I have a disorder that prevents me from serving, but it something I wish I could have done.

Boo Radley said:

Really? As I served in the 82nd, I doubt by that stupid generalization.

Click to expand...

Then you should understand that the military isn't designed to cater to the sensitivities of a single individual.

Erod said:

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Click to expand...

My life plan was to serve in the military as a career. A medical condition prevented me. Want to try again?

Erod said:

Then you should understand that the military isn't designed to cater to the sensitivities of a single individual.

Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't be catering to the sensitivities of those that can't handle serving with homosexuals.

Erod said:

Ever notice how this issue seems to matter mostly to people who would never for a second consider serving in the military?

Click to expand...

Seeing as how I'm paying for it, I'd say I have a pretty damn good case for having a say as to what goes on with it.

Erod said:

Then you should understand that the military isn't designed to cater to the sensitivities of a single individual.

Click to expand...

Correct. We need to stop catering to those who find homosexuals as something other than worthy people who should be applauded for wanting to serve their country.

Erod said:

Then you should understand that the military isn't designed to cater to the sensitivities of a single individual.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So, your or anyone elses sensitivites to homosexuals is of no concern. Move on. Do your job and they do theirs and there should be no problem. it is and awlays has been about on the job behavior. expecting people to behave as mature, professionals is not too much to ask for.

roguenuke said:

Then it shouldn't be catering to the sensitivities of those that can't handle serving with homosexuals.

Click to expand...

LOL, somehow I don't think this was an issue for Hannibal, Patton, or the Spartans.

I know there's plenty of "awareness" here, as message boards are like narcotics for the liberal and gay community. But I know that it isn't the prevalent topic in the barracks of Fort Anywhere right now. Islamic extremists planting themselves within the ranks, and their inability to do anything about it.....now that's another story.

Erod said:

LOL, somehow I don't think this was an issue for Hannibal, Patton, or the Spartans.

I know there's plenty of "awareness" here, as message boards are like narcotics for the liberal and gay community. But I know that it isn't the prevalent topic in the barracks of Fort Anywhere right now. Islamic extremists planting themselves within the ranks, and their inability to do anything about it.....now that's another story.

Click to expand...

They probably didn't care.

Erod said:

LOL, somehow I don't think this was an issue for Hannibal, Patton, or the Spartans.

I know there's plenty of "awareness" here, as message boards are like narcotics for the liberal and gay community. But I know that it isn't the prevalent topic in the barracks of Fort Anywhere right now. Islamic extremists planting themselves within the ranks, and their inability to do anything about it.....now that's another story.

Click to expand...

Hannibal, Patton and the Spartans are fighting wars int the 21st century?

You are right, most soldiers and sailors have more important things to worry about than if another soldier or sailor is gay...

Erod said:

LOL, somehow I don't think this was an issue for Hannibal, Patton, or the Spartans.

Click to expand...

Or Alexander the Great, for that matter.

Erod said:

LOL, somehow I don't think this was an issue for Hannibal, Patton, or the Spartans.

Click to expand...

(best Jeff Spicoli impression) "Those guys are fags!!!"