Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[cbus4life]

From what i've seen, the top brass seem to say yes, the senators on the Armed Forces Committee seem to say no.

What do you think?

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve

[2quik4u]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve

[LJ]

Honestly, the policy should be "Don't ask, don't tell, don't care"

Your sexual preference makes no difference to how you can fight. When you get hired for a job they don't ask your sexual preference, but they don't fire you if they find out you are gay.

[queencitybuckeye]

Honestly, the policy should be "Don't ask, don't tell, don't care"



Exactly what I thought. Who cares?

To the vast majority of the homophobes here, I would point out that just as women as a group don't find you attractive, neither do gay men. You have nothing to worry about.

[IggyPride00]

I would keep the spirit of it alive, but I don't think if someone is found out to be gay that they should be fired if they aren't bringing it into the workplace.

[Swamp Fox]

Bill Murray said it the best. "It just doesn't matter!"

[Ytowngirlinfla]

It shouldn't matter at all, everyone knows typically who's gay and who's not. Most people don't care at all. I don't believe you should ever be kicked out for it.

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful

[LJ]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then

[LJ]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...

[LJ]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


I already told you I don't agree with your logic, so stop trying to explain yourself to me.

[Glory Days]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


what about straight guys who dont like big ole titties but would lie to feel like part of the group?

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


I already told you I don't agree with your logic, so stop trying to explain yourself to me.


and I don't agree with your disagreement...bottom line is gays can't openly serve. Can't really see how you can think not being able to be open is somehow not lying, but whatever bro

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


what about straight guys who dont like big ole titties but would lie to feel like part of the group?


he wouldn't have to lie, he could say I like small titties, or medium titties, etc...the gay guy has to lie in order to stay.

[LJ]

and I don't agree with your disagreement...bottom line is gays can't openly serve. Can't really see how you can think not being able to be open is somehow not lying, but whatever bro


So not being openly hetero is lying too? I honestly don't believe any sexual preference should be allowed to "openly" serve. It's of no consequence on being able to perform their duties, therefore should not be discussed or of anyone's concern.

[Glory Days]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


what about straight guys who dont like big ole titties but would lie to feel like part of the group?


he wouldn't have to lie, he could say I like small titties, or medium titties, etc...the gay guy has to lie in order to stay.


and the gay guy could say "no, i dont like big titties". where is the lie there?

[derek bomar]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


what about straight guys who dont like big ole titties but would lie to feel like part of the group?


he wouldn't have to lie, he could say I like small titties, or medium titties, etc...the gay guy has to lie in order to stay.


and the gay guy could say "no, i dont like big titties". where is the lie there?


lol...he is lying. That's the point.

[derek bomar]

and I don't agree with your disagreement...bottom line is gays can't openly serve. Can't really see how you can think not being able to be open is somehow not lying, but whatever bro


So not being openly hetero is lying too? I honestly don't believe any sexual preference should be allowed to "openly" serve. It's of no consequence on being able to perform their duties, therefore should not be discussed or of anyone's concern.


In a perfect world, sexual preference shouldn't matter. But since there is a policy of not allowing gays to openly serve, being openly gay causes you to be discharged...you're looking at things as if they happen in a perfect world where people don't talk about things like sex and relationships, but they do. So when that happens, the gays are forced to lie, and the straights don't have to.

[cbus4life]

Mullen should be praised for his comments, as should SecDef Gates.

"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

So nice to hear him talk about "integrity" in regards to this issue. Really impressed by the way he handled himself in fron of the Armed Services Committee.

[LJ]

and I don't agree with your disagreement...bottom line is gays can't openly serve. Can't really see how you can think not being able to be open is somehow not lying, but whatever bro


So not being openly hetero is lying too? I honestly don't believe any sexual preference should be allowed to "openly" serve. It's of no consequence on being able to perform their duties, therefore should not be discussed or of anyone's concern.


In a perfect world, sexual preference shouldn't matter. But since there is a policy of not allowing gays to openly serve, being openly gay causes you to be discharged...you're looking at things as if they happen in a perfect world where people don't talk about things like sex and relationships, but they do. So when that happens, the gays are forced to lie, and the straights don't have to.

Well excuse me for wanting a policy that makes sense enacted. I just think it's funny that you refuse to acknowledge the heterosexual people who are "lying by omission" when not stating their sexual preference one way or another.

[derek bomar]

It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...

[majorspark]

It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...


If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.

[Ytowngirlinfla]

It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...


If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.


This happens a lot more than probably any instances of gay people getting caught. Of course it's almost OK in the military to cheat on your spouse.

[fish82]

As long as they kill the bad guys, I could care less what team they play for.

[derek bomar]

[/quote]

If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.
[/quote]

and a gay guy could be too if he was banging someone else's wife...see, no sexual preference discrimination.

[majorspark]

It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...


If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.


This happens a lot more than probably any instances of gay people getting caught. Of course it's almost OK in the military to cheat on your spouse.


This is true. Depends on the level of disruption it causes. Also so if you bang certain officers wives you may want to keep it a secret.

Also their can be discliplinary action if a female soldier becomes pregnant and also for the male soldier that knocks her up. This would pertain mostly to Iraq/Afghanistan (war zones).

[Ytowngirlinfla]

It doesn't matter if straights lie by omission or not, since there job doesn't depend on it and there's not a policy prohibiting them from being honest about something.

There shouldn't be a policy on sexual policy at all, but the current one we have forces one set to lie in order to keep their job and doesn't force that same stipulation on the other set of people...


If a straight soldier is banging someone else's wife or if he is married and is banging somone else, he could lose his job. The military just decides which sexual practices get discliplined.


They got rid of that rule of women getting pregnant in Iraq/Af.

This happens a lot more than probably any instances of gay people getting caught. Of course it's almost OK in the military to cheat on your spouse.


This is true. Depends on the level of disruption it causes. Also so if you bang certain officers wives you may want to keep it a secret.

Also their can be discliplinary action if a female soldier becomes pregnant and also for the male soldier that knocks her up. This would pertain mostly to Iraq/Afghanistan (war zones).

[majorspark]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.

[derek bomar]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.


do you feel being gay discredits the military?

[majorspark]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.


do you feel being gay discredits the military?


Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.

[derek bomar]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.


do you feel being gay discredits the military?


Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.


getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?

[majorspark]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.


do you feel being gay discredits the military?


Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.


getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?


No. Here is one example. Lets say an officer in the military comes out. Lets say he is from Massachusettes and is legally married in that state. Since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage he would not be allowed to have the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. He could very easily use his position as a means to advocate for politcal change in this area.

[Ytowngirlinfla]

I don't think anyone in the military would use being gay as an agenda. We aren't even allowed to talk to the media. But if it was the case then yeah they should be kicked out but that goes for anyone trying to push any kind of agenda.

[derek bomar]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.


do you feel being gay discredits the military?


Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.


getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?


No. Here is one example. Lets say an officer in the military comes out. Lets say he is from Massachusettes and is legally married in that state. Since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage he would not be allowed to have the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. He could very easily use his position as a means to advocate for politcal change in this area.


Ok, so a hypothetical gay officer is going to trash the military that he voluntarily joined (and has accepted his alternative lifestyle) because the US Gov't hasn't officially adopted the position of the military? I don't see how he's hypothetically could trash the military or discredit it simply by voicing opinions...isn't that what the generals are doing now with respect to this policy (i.e. saying it should be overturned)? You don't think they're doing a disservice to the military do you? Or is it that they can/should only question/comment on military policies and not domestic policies?

[majorspark]

Basically I see it like this. If your sexual conduct causes a disruption in order and disclipline or discredits the military, you should recieve some form of discliplinary action.


do you feel being gay discredits the military?


Being gay no. If they want to use their position in the military as a known homosexual as a political statement, then yes.


getting rid of the policy would eliminate the ability of a gay person to use their place in the military for political purposes simply because they're gay, correct?


No. Here is one example. Lets say an officer in the military comes out. Lets say he is from Massachusettes and is legally married in that state. Since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage he would not be allowed to have the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. He could very easily use his position as a means to advocate for politcal change in this area.


Ok, so a hypothetical gay officer is going to trash the military that he voluntarily joined (and has accepted his alternative lifestyle) because the US Gov't hasn't officially adopted the position of the military? I don't see how he's hypothetically could trash the military or discredit it simply by voicing opinions...isn't that what the generals are doing now with respect to this policy (i.e. saying it should be overturned)? You don't think they're doing a disservice to the military do you? Or is it that they can/should only question/comment on military policies and not domestic policies?


The generals are doing this under the orders/permission of the president. They are commenting on a military code of conduct not applicable to civilian law. The president has the authority to set the rules via executive order. The generals are laying the ground work for the coming order.

No it would not be wise for a military officer to publically question/comment on civilian/military law. They don't set the policy the commander in chief does. Calling out the boss publically usually shows disorder in the ranks and would be a great disservice to the military.

Civilian law should always be left to the civilians.

[Writerbuckeye]

In retrospect, it was a chicken shit way of not dealing with the issue and a bad idea.

Seeing it go away is a good thing.

As noted above: if these folks want to serve their country, and are willing to put their lives on the line to defend me and those I care about -- they should be able to serve without fear of being harassed in any way.

[icskins]

I would have no problem with anyone that wants to wear the uniform and can do the job. I think the bigger problem is the physical requirements. Everyone should be held to the same standard because anyone can be put in a situation that requires you to use every once of strength, endurance to get out of. When they decided on lower standards for women, that was/is a travesty. IMO

[queencitybuckeye]

I would have no problem with anyone that wants to wear the uniform and can do the job. I think the bigger problem is the physical requirements. Everyone should be held to the same standard because anyone can be put in a situation that requires you to use every once of strength, endurance to get out of. When they decided on lower standards for women, that was/is a travesty. IMO



Do you have some reason to believe that gay people as a group are physically inferior to straight people?

[icskins]

Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.

[queencitybuckeye]

Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.


No apology needed, thanks for the clarification.

[I Wear Pants]

As everyone and their mum already said, it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't matter".

[Ytowngirlinfla]

Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.


Well women's standards aren't much different. You can't expect women to be able to run as fast as men as it's a proven fact that women are slower. And the weight standards are almost equal and we have extra assets. You can say the same thing for age standards if you want to have this argument. Why have different physical standards for 18 years old then 40 year olds?

[BoatShoes]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


Well a fellow service member might ask..."how come you aren't married" or "how come you didn't bang that skank that was all up on your nuts"

not really asking if they're gay...but they're in a position wherein that are bound by the UCMJ to violate principles such as honesty and honor that the military has typically endorsed as good.

[icskins]

Not at all. I guess I should have spaced those 2 thoughts better. I was saying that I would be fine with gay people just like I am fine with women being there. Then I wanted to say that I would like to women held to the same physical standards. My apologies on the confusion.


Well women's standards aren't much different. You can't expect women to be able to run as fast as men as it's a proven fact that women are slower. And the weight standards are almost equal and we have extra assets. You can say the same thing for age standards if you want to have this argument. Why have different physical standards for 18 years old then 40 year olds?


I agree with you about the age standards as well. I did not know that there were different standards. I am not in any way trying to downgrade women in the military. All I am saying is that ultimately everyone has to be relied upon to do the same job. That job is to survive, protect fellow service members, and save lives if necessary. Why should there be different ways to qualify to do this.

[LJ]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


Well a fellow service member might ask..."how come you aren't married" or "how come you didn't bang that skank that was all up on your nuts"

not really asking if they're gay...but they're in a position wherein that are bound by the UCMJ to violate principles such as honesty and honor that the military has typically endorsed as good.



"because I am not, it's a long story and I would rather not talk about it"

[Glory Days]

"because I am not, it's a long story and I would rather not talk about it"


gosh, someone not give into peer pressure? who would have thought it?

[I Wear Pants]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


Well a fellow service member might ask..."how come you aren't married" or "how come you didn't bang that skank that was all up on your nuts"

not really asking if they're gay...but they're in a position wherein that are bound by the UCMJ to violate principles such as honesty and honor that the military has typically endorsed as good.



"because I am not, it's a long story and I would rather not talk about it"

That still isn't being honest which is deemed a good quality by you know, everyone.

[Captain Cavalier]

As stated above, all military should be held accountable to the same standard. My worry would be is what would happen when one falls short of that standard and happens to be gay. If disciplined, will some yell foul and say they did it because they're gay? Or how about a "code red" type thing being given out. Will be people say it was done solely because they were gay? Yes it could happen that way but there's really no way to know for sure. And I'm not saying this is a reason to keep them from serving. I just don't want to see it "used" as leverage or for some kind of "special" treatment to avoid a scandal.

[dwccrew]

Honestly, the policy should be "Don't ask, don't tell, don't care"

Your sexual preference makes no difference to how you can fight.


Straight guy
http://themcode.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/professor_badass.jpg

Gay guy
http://www.lbnelert.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/lbnelert/071018_richar.JPG

Who would you rather be fighting on your side?

















Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


what about straight guys who dont like big ole titties but would lie to feel like part of the group?
























Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


They're going into an arrangement where they know ahead of time if they admit something truthful about themselves if ever asked, or tell someone off the cuff something truthful about themselves, they won't be allowed to serve. I just don't see the fact that just because somebody doesn't ask you something, it's not lying that you didn't tell them.

It's a lie of omission in my book. And I would venture to guess most if not all are asked in some form by their buddies or higher ups in a social setting, i.e. talking about all the girls back home or what not... and they'd be forced to lie then


While I agree that it should be "don't ask, don't tell, don't care" I just don't agree with that logic at all. Also, nobody can ask.


I don't think you get what I'm saying...

say you're gay and me and I'm your buddy in the service and we're out for beers one night and we start shooting the shit.

"say LJ, look at the broad over there...big ole titties huh?..."

you get the general direction where that convo would head. Just because you can't "ask" if someone's gay doesn't mean you can't talk to each other like a guy, and in some cases a gay dude would either be forced to lie, say nothing, or be honest. One instance he's outright lying, one he's lying by omission, and the third he's gettin booted out of the service...


what about straight guys who dont like big ole titties but would lie to feel like part of the group?


he wouldn't have to lie, he could say I like small titties, or medium titties, etc...the gay guy has to lie in order to stay.


and the gay guy could say "no, i dont like big titties". where is the lie there?


lol...he is lying. That's the point.


How is he lying if he says he doesn't like big titties? He really doesn't if he's gay, so in a sense, he's telling the truth. They aren't lying, they just have to hide who they are.

In my mind, they should be allowed to serve and be able to live their lifestyle openly.

[Glory Days]

How is he lying if he says he doesn't like big titties? He really doesn't if he's gay, so in a sense, he's telling the truth. They aren't lying, they just have to hide who they are.

In my mind, they should be allowed to serve and be able to live their lifestyle openly.


thats what i wondered. unless he has to specify which type of titties he likes, female boobs or man boobs.

[dwccrew]

He probably doesn't like man boobs either, that is usually on an overweight dude.

[Glory Days]

He probably doesn't like man boobs either, that is usually on an overweight dude.


hey now, fat gay guys need loving too....not that i know anything about that...

[FairwoodKing]

Let's look at this whole issue from a different point of view. If the policy remains, the military will never again be able to reinstate the draft. During the Vietnam War, a huge number of gay men did not declare their homosexuality when they were drafted. Very few straight men tried to get out of the draft by declaring that they were gay. But in today's world, attitudes are very different. Many straight men wouldn't hesitate to declare themselves gay to get out of the draft. And most young men know someone who is gay, so the gay guys could tell the straight guys what to say and how to act. The draft would become a farce.

[cbus4life]

Let's look at this whole issue from a different point of view. If the policy remains, the military will never again be able to reinstate the draft. During the Vietnam War, a huge number of gay men did not declare their homosexuality when they were drafted. Very few straight men tried to get out of the draft by declaring that they were gay. But in today's world, attitudes are very different. Many straight men wouldn't hesitate to declare themselves gay to get out of the draft. And most young men know someone who is gay, so the gay guys could tell the straight guys what to say and how to act. The draft would become a farce.


Rofl, what to say and how to act?

The gays guy i know act no differently than any straight guy, you can't "prove" that someone is gay because of how they act and talk.

Yes, some might be flamboyant, but so are some heterosexual dudes i know.

They couldn't "prove" that someone was gay based on that, the only way would be watch them having sex, and even then, some guys would probably do it to get out of the draft.

Just another idiotic view of homosexual behavior. All you see on tv is the outrageous behavior.

But, by and large, i've met tons of gay men and women who you would never be able to "tell" were gay, based on idiotic stereotypes.

[Glory Days]

Let's look at this whole issue from a different point of view. If the policy remains, the military will never again be able to reinstate the draft. During the Vietnam War, a huge number of gay men did not declare their homosexuality when they were drafted. Very few straight men tried to get out of the draft by declaring that they were gay. But in today's world, attitudes are very different. Many straight men wouldn't hesitate to declare themselves gay to get out of the draft. And most young men know someone who is gay, so the gay guys could tell the straight guys what to say and how to act. The draft would become a farce.


Rofl, what to say and how to act?

The gays guy i know act no differently than any straight guy, you can't "prove" that someone is gay because of how they act and talk.

Yes, some might be flamboyant, but so are some heterosexual dudes i know.

They couldn't "prove" that someone was gay based on that, the only way would be watch them having sex, and even then, some guys would probably do it to get out of the draft.

Just another idiotic view of homosexual behavior. All you see on tv is the outrageous behavior.

But, by and large, i've met tons of gay men and women who you would never be able to "tell" were gay, based on idiotic stereotypes.


you mean, there could be a gay guy living next door and i wouldnt even know it? OH NO!!!

[LJ]

Boggles my mind why you wouldn't let them serve


they do serve


not if they are truthful


That just don't make any sense. How can they be untruthful if you aren't allowed to ask?


Well a fellow service member might ask..."how come you aren't married" or "how come you didn't bang that skank that was all up on your nuts"

not really asking if they're gay...but they're in a position wherein that are bound by the UCMJ to violate principles such as honesty and honor that the military has typically endorsed as good.



"because I am not, it's a long story and I would rather not talk about it"

That still isn't being honest which is deemed a good quality by you know, everyone.


LOL, that is most certainly being honest.

He isn't married- True
It's a long story- True
He doesn't want to talk about it- True.

[cbus4life]

Let's look at this whole issue from a different point of view. If the policy remains, the military will never again be able to reinstate the draft. During the Vietnam War, a huge number of gay men did not declare their homosexuality when they were drafted. Very few straight men tried to get out of the draft by declaring that they were gay. But in today's world, attitudes are very different. Many straight men wouldn't hesitate to declare themselves gay to get out of the draft. And most young men know someone who is gay, so the gay guys could tell the straight guys what to say and how to act. The draft would become a farce.


Rofl, what to say and how to act?

The gays guy i know act no differently than any straight guy, you can't "prove" that someone is gay because of how they act and talk.

Yes, some might be flamboyant, but so are some heterosexual dudes i know.

They couldn't "prove" that someone was gay based on that, the only way would be watch them having sex, and even then, some guys would probably do it to get out of the draft.

Just another idiotic view of homosexual behavior. All you see on tv is the outrageous behavior.

But, by and large, i've met tons of gay men and women who you would never be able to "tell" were gay, based on idiotic stereotypes.


you mean, there could be a gay guy living next door and i wouldnt even know it? OH NO!!!


Yep, be very very careful!

[Ytowngirlinfla]

Yeah cause he may try to like get with you cause all gay people want everyone of the same sex...I can't wait till they get rid of this rule. I'll tell you my barracks has about 200 females in it and I'd guess at least half are gay or bi.

[Glory Days]

Yeah cause he may try to like get with you cause all gay people want everyone of the same sex...I can't wait till they get rid of this rule. I'll tell you my barracks has about 200 females in it and I'd guess at least half are gay or bi.


haha although i do kind of have a semi-serious question, how will you seperate gay men from straight men? like right now, a male and female couldnt be alone in the same room together without the door being open or whatever. how will that work with 2 gay men? although not like that policy stopped males and females from finding ways hook up. when assigning rooms, will you have to make sure one is straight and one is gay?


I'll tell you my barracks has about 200 females in it and I'd guess at least half are gay or bi.

well hell, that must mean there are topless pillow fights that turn into an all out lesbian orgy every night!

P.S. if that does happen, take pictures!

[Little Danny]

Yeah cause he may try to like get with you cause all gay people want everyone of the same sex...I can't wait till they get rid of this rule. I'll tell you my barracks has about 200 females in it and I'd guess at least half are gay or bi.


The truth is most of the people who have problem with gays in the military only think of it from the perspective of gay men who serve in a combat role. It is a stereotype, but many assume that women in the military are a bit "butch" to begin with. Also, it goes back to societal persepectives that female on female behavior is different than man on man. I am not saying it is right, I am only saying this is how people think.

My opinion on the subject is that guys should be allowed in the military. As others have pointed out, if their sexual orientation/behavior becomes a distraction (meaning they are engaging in sexual activity while on the job or sexually harassing somebody) they should be punished the same as a heterosexual who acts in a similar manner.

[FairwoodKing]

Let's look at this whole issue from a different point of view. If the policy remains, the military will never again be able to reinstate the draft. During the Vietnam War, a huge number of gay men did not declare their homosexuality when they were drafted. Very few straight men tried to get out of the draft by declaring that they were gay. But in today's world, attitudes are very different. Many straight men wouldn't hesitate to declare themselves gay to get out of the draft. And most young men know someone who is gay, so the gay guys could tell the straight guys what to say and how to act. The draft would become a farce.


Rofl, what to say and how to act?

The gays guy i know act no differently than any straight guy, you can't "prove" that someone is gay because of how they act and talk.

Yes, some might be flamboyant, but so are some heterosexual dudes i know.

They couldn't "prove" that someone was gay based on that, the only way would be watch them having sex, and even then, some guys would probably do it to get out of the draft.

Just another idiotic view of homosexual behavior. All you see on tv is the outrageous behavior.
But, by and large, i've met tons of gay men and women who you would never be able to "tell" were gay, based on idiotic stereotypes.


I've got news for you, brother. I AM gay! During Vietnam, some straight guys tried to pretend to be gay without knowing what they were doing and the psychologists figured them out real fast. Trust me on this (because I grew up during the Vietnam era)-- during times when the military has the draft in effect, they just don't take someone's word that he's gay. I knew one idiot who showed up for a pre-draft medical wearing a dress. He was one of the first to be drafted.

In my own particular case, I was in the closet during my college years. I was also in ROTC my freshman and sophomore years. I got out of military duty because my draft lottery number was 356.

If I had declared myself as gay to get out of the draft, I wouldn't have had a clue as to what to say because I hadn't actually done anything. I doubt if they would have accepted my word.

I have gay friends who did serve in the military. They were terrified that someone would find out about them. I have been told stories about how some of their gay colleagues ended up in military prison because of this.

I brought up the idea about the draft being affected by this policy because probably no one else had thought about it. It is something for the military to consider.

[BuckeyeBlue]

Revoking this policy won't change much about the way my day-to-day life goes at work. In fact, it will probably not change a damn thing. When you spend as much time with people as we do (underway time, duty days, etc.) we already know who is gay and who is not. The way I look at it, if not having to be afraid that somebody higher in the chain of command than myself finds out about their sexual orientation will make alleviate stress and allow them to perform their job at a higher level, then revoking this rule is a great thing.

I don't think the talk of room assignments will be an issue either. Like I said, we already know (in a lot of cases) who is and who isn't gay, and we live with them now. Why would it all of a sudden change just because this outdated policy goes away? Now, if two dudes (I'm only using dudes in this example because it would be the situation most likely to happen in my berthing) decided to start sharing a rack underway, I would expect that to be dealt with in the exact same manner as when a guy and girl are found racked up together (happens more than you would probably think). Seeing people go to CO's mast for Sex on the Ship is pretty common underway. People tend to do some dumb shit when they've been at sea for 40 days straight or so.

No officer or high ranking enlisted person would be allowed to use their position as a platform for social change also. We have all signed contracts stating when and why we are allowed to speak with the media. If that person valued their job at all, they would be unable to speak out. If they did, they could lose said job, not for being a homosexual, but for violation of their contract with the military.

[redfalcon]

As stated above, all military should be held accountable to the same standard. My worry would be is what would happen when one falls short of that standard and happens to be gay. If disciplined, will some yell foul and say they did it because they're gay? Or how about a "code red" type thing being given out. Will be people say it was done solely because they were gay? Yes it could happen that way but there's really no way to know for sure. And I'm not saying this is a reason to keep them from serving. I just don't want to see it "used" as leverage or for some kind of "special" treatment to avoid a scandal.


This is the one of the more ridiculous homophobic argument I have ever heard. There are thousands of things this could be applied to. They said this about black soldiers in the 40's, about women in the 70's, and about immigrants at numerous points of time. It hasn't happened, it never will.

[Captain Cavalier]

As stated above, all military should be held accountable to the same standard. My worry would be is what would happen when one falls short of that standard and happens to be gay. If disciplined, will some yell foul and say they did it because they're gay? Or how about a "code red" type thing being given out. Will be people say it was done solely because they were gay? Yes it could happen that way but there's really no way to know for sure. And I'm not saying this is a reason to keep them from serving. I just don't want to see it "used" as leverage or for some kind of "special" treatment to avoid a scandal.


This is the one of the more ridiculous homophobic argument I have ever heard. There are thousands of things this could be applied to. They said this about black soldiers in the 40's, about women in the 70's, and about immigrants at numerous points of time. It hasn't happened, it never will.


Is it? I have personally heard blacks and women say at work that they would use their race/sex to their advantage. I've also heard supervisors say that they were very careful of what they did and said around them. If it can happen there, why couldn't it happen in the military? And why do you consider this a homophobic statement? I feel the same about any minority. Just as no one can guarantee that it would happen, no one can guarantee that it wouldn't.

[dwccrew]

As stated above, all military should be held accountable to the same standard. My worry would be is what would happen when one falls short of that standard and happens to be gay. If disciplined, will some yell foul and say they did it because they're gay? Or how about a "code red" type thing being given out. Will be people say it was done solely because they were gay? Yes it could happen that way but there's really no way to know for sure. And I'm not saying this is a reason to keep them from serving. I just don't want to see it "used" as leverage or for some kind of "special" treatment to avoid a scandal.


This is the one of the more ridiculous homophobic argument I have ever heard. There are thousands of things this could be applied to. They said this about black soldiers in the 40's, about women in the 70's, and about immigrants at numerous points of time. It hasn't happened, it never will.


Is it? I have personally heard blacks and women say at work that they would use their race/sex to their advantage. I've also heard supervisors say that they were very careful of what they did and said around them. If it can happen there, why couldn't it happen in the military? And why do you consider this a homophobic statement? I feel the same about any minority. Just as no one can guarantee that it would happen, no one can guarantee that it wouldn't.


Maybe because those of us who have served have never seen it. I have never seen anyone treated differently because of their sex, race, religion, etc. while I was in the military.

I also never saw anyone use anything like that to their advantage. Just because some of the few people you have worked with have said they would use their status' to get an advantage. I'm willing to bet I have encountered many more people in the military than you have in the work world.

[brutus161]

I have served with sveral gay men (some openly), and I couldn't care less. As long as you do your job, I don't care what you do when you leave work.

[FairwoodKing]

One of the biggest problems the government has created for itself by its homophobic policies is that a great many Arabic interpreters have been booted out because of their sexuality. I have no idea why so many of them are gay, but they are and we need them.

[BoatShoes]

When I served we knew who was gay and who wasn't...it wasn't a big deal. If two gay shipmates hooked up it was in private and done secretly and nobody knew. When a female and a male shipmate hooked up on the other hand, that was a different story....

IMO, male female sexual relations, harrassment, flirtation, rape...as much as is done to prevent it...causes much more friction than anything related to homosexuality or gay shipmates. That was just my experience. Don't take it for gospel.

[Glory Days]

One of the biggest problems the government has created for itself by its homophobic policies is that a great many Arabic interpreters have been booted out because of their sexuality. I have no idea why so many of them are gay, but they are and we need them.


in the arabic culture, men will have sex with men for pleasure and sex with women for reproduction. there was quite a few times in Iraq we kicked the door in on a raid and found two dudes going at it.

[IggyPride00]

Dick Cheney came out this morning in favor of repealing DADT. That should settle the debate once and for all, because it provides cover for any teabagger who may have been on the fence but afraid of the political fallout and all liberals wanted it anyway.

[Ytowngirlinfla]

I hope they repeal it soon.