House Votes To Repeal DADT

You should be disciplined for that the second you let it affect the mission and the performance of your duties. If you were one of mine, I'd make you wish you were never born for using your irrelevant personal feelings as an excuse for failure or diminished performance. Personnel who cannot function in a unit with openly gay members are not cut out for the demands of being a soldier. Such weakness should not be tolerated.

I'll remember UA's high-and-mighty rants about bigotry the next time he vents his spleen against religious people or any other group he hates.

UA- you are as much of a bigot as anyone else on this board so don't act so lily-pure and holy when dealing with military veterans who actually know what they are talking about on this issue. They know from personal experience what they are talking about. You and I, who are not veterans, can only offer our unqualified opinions on this issue. They may sound great on a BBS but usually FAIL in real life.

Oh, get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. Doesn't your little book of fairy tales have something to say about bearing false witness? You find ONE goddamned example of me advocating any kind of discriminatory policy, or admit you accidently slipped into a "lying cocksucker" persona for a few minutes there.

So how tolerant are you about Nova, UA?

What military were you in?

I've been in the military and I'm relatively certain your previous post would never happen.

I feel so sorry for your wife.

If he wants to enlist, I say more power to him. Not sure what your point might be with that.

How so?

I've worked with, and for, gay and/or lesbian people for most of the time I've been employed in my adult life - as far back as '83. And even during the time that i bought into the bullshit that they were people who chose a sinful and perverted lifestyle, I never once felt it made any sense to give up my job because i couldn't tolerate the presence of a co-worker (or boss) i disapproved of.

Most sensible people would not have so warped a sense of priorities.

Beyond that (just being in the same outfit with a "perv") what wil they be asked to "tolerate"?

Agreed. the question here is the rights of those already in.

But people DO have a right to be found qualified or disqualified for a position based on factors relevant to the performance of their duties.

the debate, then, is whether or not sexuality is in fact relevant.

Why do you think this changes means they will "have to know about it"?

In point of fact, when there is no longer any motivation to investigate potential gays for violation of this policy, there's as much reason to think you will see LESS "outing" of gay service members.

In any case, knowing about someone's proclivity is hardly oppressive. if someone is such a bigot that they simply can't interact with a person they know is gay, then it is THEY who are unfit to serve.

Professionalism and pride in your work SHOULD EASILY trump that discomfort.

If it's illegal, then deal with it as the law requires. Just like you would a hetro incident. Are you aware of male and female soldiers/airmen/sailors bumping nasties in the broom closet now? (After all, that's what we were told was going to happen when you let women and men serve together).

It is true, from what I understand, that there's an unusual number of pregnancies among female sailors. So, deal with homosexual liaisons exactly how you deal with the "illicit" pregnancies - no one can cry unfairness if the treatment is even-handed.

I'm amazed that people who profess deep respect for the military at the same time assumes they are so ham-handed and unprofessional that an occasional quicky is somehow going to fuck up their whole world.

when it is no longer qa violation of policy - where would be the need to out anyone at all?

where was your sympathy for people being unwillingly outed when the sefvices went to considerable lengths to investigate any remote suspicion, even when the solider in question was being highly discrete and not "telling" anyone?

THOSE servicemembers were being outed unwillingly and i somehow missed the howls of protest.

Oh really? I live in a MISSISSIPPI town of ~7,000 and I can easily think of a few out and open dozen gay or lesbian people I know, many of them having been out and open about their sexuality for over 2 decades.

Maybe you should get out more.

(admittedly, none of these are leather clad "freak shows" but those folks are not going to be joining the Army or the Navy)

I have many friends who share conservative social values which tell them that what i have done is sinful and wrong who are VERY friendly and tolerant of me and understand the difference between disapproval and shunning.

If there are service members who's "conservative social values" move them to shunning those who they feel commit "sin" then the world shouldn't bend to their narrow world-view. they are not even the majority of all Christians, let alone the majority of servicemen.

(nevermind that none of them choose to shun their fellow soldier who is guilty of extra marital or pre-marital sex, or divorce, so their objections on a religious basis are fail)

Again - what makes you think it would be otherwise? As I have said before, gay en do NOT turn to their co-worker and say "I can't wait to get to the bar tonight and get me some nice hard cock!!!"

Oh, and by the way, you can bet your sweet ass that a LOT of gay men have herad their striaght co-workers spend a whole afternoon talking about how they were gonna hit the bar and find some pussy tonight.

Shockingly, that doesn't concern you at all, does it?

If by "good people" you mean people who can't let their sense of duty and professionalism overcome their discomfort at being in the same room with "teh gAYZZZZZ!!!" then...yeah...not really worried about losing those fellas.

Ideally, they can't. But what Skin believes EP is trying to get at, and this concern does have some evidence to back it, is that that's exactly what will happen -- gays will cry "unfair" if the treatment is even-handed. We see that very thing happening with minorities and whites in the same situations now -- some people being more "equal" than others.

Not to say Skin believes, as EP seems to, that the sum total of the military will suddenly don tutus and eyeliner and go flouncing around the world declaring their love for teh cawk -- but, yeah, it seems more than likely that there will be markedly different standards for gay and straight military personnel, just as there are for male and female military personnel. The promise of "a soldier is a soldier is a soldier" went out the door as soon as women had to pass physical quals any different from those required of men.

"He?"

So I'll put that down as "not tolerant."

Granted that there isa measure of that, none of those bitching in this thread have devoted much time or effort complaining abut the imbalance that already exists.

and if it already exists (and it does) and the army (et al) is still purring along doing it's job well (and it apparently is) then a little more of the same PC bullshit is likely not going to cripple it.

EP and dayton want to be Fred phelps cabin boy.

:santa_shocked: It's okay Chest......Company grade officers have plenty of experience dealing with heterosexual rapists, robbers, druggies, drunks and fatties...I'm sure they are up to the challenge!

BTW Chest if you were one of my troops and I was your NCO I would encourage the commander to throw the book at you if you assaulted another member of the unit - especially in a cowardly "group beating" manner. I always went to bat for my soldiers and tried to get a reduced sentence for the "boys will be boys" mischief. But if any would have done any "boys will be bigots" violence I would have thrown them to the wolves. Just sayin'

Oldfella needs to be a general

Look, this has nothing to do with whether gays are qualified to do the job, or whether anyone has "outdated" opinions on homosexuality. The bottom line is that if you think men and women should bunk separately, then gays should be quartered alone for the same reason. And that makes them less of a value even as they're equally qualified.

But I'm willing to revisit this as soon as men and women start sharing a berthing space. The moment you hypocrites are willing to do that, I have no objection to including homosexuals of both sexes in the same space too. We keep men and women apart for a reason. Why is that, and why shouldn't gays be isolated for the same reason?

Everybody needs to stop taking this personally, or as an affront on rights. It's about the practical problem of providing berthing to individuals free from sexual entanglements. It's much more affordable to accomplish this for an all heterosexual force than for a force with homosexuals. The military does not "need" homosexuals at the added cost of properly integrating them with respect to everyone's need for privacy.

The military does not "discriminate" against homosexuals. It protects all Americans regardless of their sexual preferences.

Finally, there's the matter of all this hostility to our servicemen with traditional social values. I find it interesting that we're all concerned about our military having the best qualified personnel possible -- even if they're gay -- while we're perfectly okay with dismissing qualified personnel for simply not wanting to be quartered with homosexuals.

Yeah, right -- no hypocrisy there.

I must have missed this part. They can "not want" to bunk with gays as much as they want. They just have to remain professional and not let their dislike of gays get in the way of doing their job.

Who says we're going to dismiss the [-]traditional social values [/-]bigots? If they're really so "qualified" then they'll be professional enough to suck it up.

Dismissing as in ignoring their opinions as valueless, not dismissing as in discharging. Though that would be an option. Let any straight soldier who wants out of the new PC-ified military have an honorable discharge. Skin would lay money on the table the military would soon be 95% gays, and 95% smaller.

I'm inclined to agree that if our staff cannot manage a few fairies running around the barracks, how do they intend to manage terrorists, insurgents, IEDs, desert spiders, et al?

Being a pissy little bitch is hardly grounds for an honorable discharge. This is the military. Just because you don't like your new roommates doesn't mean you get to take your ball and go home.

let me give you one obvious way this fails:

Bathrooms.

Most people think that men and women should use different bathrooms (which leads them to some unfortunately misguided opinions about folks like me but that's for another day)

Yet NONE of the people who think women shouldn't use men's room hesitates at the idea of a gay man in the men's room, nor do they blush at a lesbian in the ladies' room.

Same applies to showers in the gym. Gay men showering in the same shower as straight guys, lesbians in the ladies locker room.

if you can piss together, or shower together, you can bunk in the same room.

If being a pissy little bitch gets you in, why shouldn't it get you out?

What is this "most people" shit? Do you mean "most bigots"? There is nothing in the plumbing differences of our otherwise completely equal population that precludes men and women from sharing bathrooms.

And totally circular: Men and women should use different berthing because men and women should use different bathrooms. Who says men and women have to use different bathrooms? Why?

That's all bullshit. I want a clear, reasoned explanation of why we should separate men and women that doesn't also argue for separating homosexuals from others of the same sex.

Because the ONLY difference is political correctness. And that, by definition, is NEVER a rational excuse for anything.

Oh, and by the way: It may be unspoken and unofficial, but there is a definite "don't ask, don't tell" code of conduct in public restrooms. This law says that code no longer applies in military restrooms.

Replace the word "gays" with "blacks" and the arguments are identical to the ones used when the military became fully integrated. Everyone's up in arms now over gays serving, but in time it's going to be a complete non-issue. Just like blacks, women and whites, they are soldier who will do their fucking job....with many dying in the process.'

It's time for the naysayers to suck it up and deal with it. It's a fact of life now, get over it.

That ship has sailed. In combat + training situations we often all shared a tent.

Also, does anyone really think someone who has dedicated 10 years or so to the military will ask to be discharged because he doesn't like gays? :santa_shocked:

Not going to happen. At the end of the day that big assed paycheck trumps your personal dislikes. Some folks might bitch, but they are not risking their careers over it. The Army has something called an NCOER or Non-commissioned officer efficiency report. It has areas for "does or does not support Equal Opportunity". If you are percieved as being against blacks/women/gays etc. you do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

At that point you may as well get out before The Army puts you out.

Folks, forget what you see in the movies. The Army is one big corporation that is 99 percent similiar to any civilian corporation. I've seen both sides, and there isn't much difference. The military + civilian worlds are always swapping ideas, methods, practices, etc. Our language might be a little more crude, and our mission a little different, we don't have to make a profit per se, but it's still a huge corporation.

Not true. Women got separate quarters, for reasons which apparently do not apply to gays.

What do you think is going to happen? Are you afraid you'll be raped in the middle of the night?

One bit of advise I was given when I first started dating is "a man doesn't look under the bed unless he's been there himself."

I think it applies to this situation as well. A man isn't expecting to get raped unless he's done so himself.

Bullshit.

Are you saying being gay is the same as being black? Someone alert Mewa.

That about sums up the entire mentality resisting all this. If you are a professional, paid for your time, your delicate little feelings about people you don't like are beyond irrelevant. You will get the fuck over it and do what you're told.

You're stupid. He's referring to exclusion.