Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[SFC Ollie]

Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.

Yeah.....you're a real hero.......

Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.

No. Just stating a fact. You've never deployed outside of the US for any length of time, and so therefore, do not understand the effect that just ONE bad letter from home can cause. Especially if it's a "dear John" letter.

Now......if we keep going with DADT, and a gay soldier is forward deployed to Afghanistan, but because of DADT, when he gets his "dear John" letter from his significant other, it's going to cause problems. Big ones.

One may be that he's walking around on patrol with his squad, and he's trying to figure out what went wrong, and misses a terrorist with an RPG, or misses an IED on his lookout.

Tell me that being gay and being unable to tell anyone what is going on in your life has no bearing on how you perform your military duties.

If you do, you're wrong.

THAT is why DADT should be rescinded.

But, your stupid lobotomized racist homophobic ass wouldn't understand because it's outside of your experience.

Your scenario is more BS than a little bit. Troops have lots of things on their minds that might distract them from some small detail in combat. You making up this story is simply stupid.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Never been on a ship, have ya?

On deployment for the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69) when we went to Desert Storm........

One guy got a care package. In it was a tape of the Superbowl. He got all his shipmates to watch the game with him.

When halftime came? She came on the screen and told him that she was going to fuck him for the fucking he'd given her.

She then was pounded by 2 other guys, both holes.

Fucker went nuts and had to be discharged.

Yeah.......tell me again Army Bag Lady Ollie, no "one thing" can affect an entire workcenter.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Never been on a ship, have ya?

On deployment for the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69) when we went to Desert Storm........

One guy got a care package. In it was a tape of the Superbowl. He got all his shipmates to watch the game with him.

When halftime came? She came on the screen and told him that she was going to fuck him for the fucking he'd given her.

She then was pounded by 2 other guys, both holes.

Fucker went nuts and had to be discharged.

Yeah.......tell me again Army Bag Lady Ollie, no "one thing" can affect an entire workcenter.

And this has what to do with gays?

 

[ABikerSailor]

It has to do with the one thing from home can fuck up an entire workcenter.

Yeah, that was an extreme example, but the bottom line is, it fucked up his workcenter FROM ONE BAD LETTER (tape actually).

Now, if a soldier who is forward deployed, and gay, gets a letter from home telling them that their partner is selling off everything and leaving them, you DON'T think it's going to affect things?

Sort of the same thing happened to me back in '93. I'd gone on a 2 1/2 month deployment for the shakedown cruise of the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-73 to Ft. Lauderdale.

First 2 weeks, I was getting a letter every other day. Things were good. Then? The letters stopped, because a chief who had just transferred was fucking my ex.

I kept it in for quite a while (around 3 weeks), but, eventually, people noticed I wasn't very pleasant to be around as I was worried about home. When they told the Chief, I finally said what was going on. After that? The guys around the office helped to keep me sane until I could get back and file for divorce.

Now, because of DADT, that same gay soldier would have NOBODY to talk to while at the tip of the spear. Why? Simple......to admit to anyone that his significant other (who is the same gender) is leaving him would result in discharge, so therefore, he's not eligible for counseling, financial assistance via the military relief fund (to help re-build his life when he gets back), or any resources that would be readily available to the hetero member.

Kinda brutal to put someone through that.

And.........for the record........family emergencies like that can cause you to miss things when you're on patrol. Miss a gunman or an IED?

It's lights out for a few people. Not just you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Needles in a haystack.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

It has to do with the one thing from home can fuck up an entire workcenter.

Yeah, that was an extreme example, but the bottom line is, it fucked up his workcenter FROM ONE BAD LETTER (tape actually).

Now, if a soldier who is forward deployed, and gay, gets a letter from home telling them that their partner is selling off everything and leaving them, you DON'T think it's going to affect things?

Sort of the same thing happened to me back in '93. I'd gone on a 2 1/2 month deployment for the shakedown cruise of the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-73 to Ft. Lauderdale.

First 2 weeks, I was getting a letter every other day. Things were good. Then? The letters stopped, because a chief who had just transferred was fucking my ex.

I kept it in for quite a while (around 3 weeks), but, eventually, people noticed I wasn't very pleasant to be around as I was worried about home. When they told the Chief, I finally said what was going on. After that? The guys around the office helped to keep me sane until I could get back and file for divorce.

Now, because of DADT, that same gay soldier would have NOBODY to talk to while at the tip of the spear. Why? Simple......to admit to anyone that his significant other (who is the same gender) is leaving him would result in discharge, so therefore, he's not eligible for counseling, financial assistance via the military relief fund (to help re-build his life when he gets back), or any resources that would be readily available to the hetero member.

Kinda brutal to put someone through that.

And.........for the record........family emergencies like that can cause you to miss things when you're on patrol. Miss a gunman or an IED?

It's lights out for a few people. Not just you.

You just posted a pile of non-sequitir, lifting DADT is not going to change a situation you just described and that still doesn't provide a reason why a gays must absolutely tell someone that they're gay and it does not justify that servicemembers must absolutely have to know that someone is gay. In other words, why should a servicemember who has absolutely no interest in another person's sexual preference have to know or have it forcibly shoved in their faces? Why should gays have to reveal it? is either absolutely necessary to serve in the military and does it benefit all servicemembers? Nobody is interested in that sympathy driven, gay activist BS.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!

Resorting to personal attacks because your arguments have no justification and can't be backed up?

 

[Modbert]

Charlie, how do you keep up the act day in and day out?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!

Resorting to personal attacks because your arguments have no justification and can't be backed up?

Wow you are one to talk. Wht a FOOL you are "The Bass".

 

[Father Time]

It has to do with the one thing from home can fuck up an entire workcenter.

Yeah, that was an extreme example, but the bottom line is, it fucked up his workcenter FROM ONE BAD LETTER (tape actually).

Now, if a soldier who is forward deployed, and gay, gets a letter from home telling them that their partner is selling off everything and leaving them, you DON'T think it's going to affect things?

Sort of the same thing happened to me back in '93. I'd gone on a 2 1/2 month deployment for the shakedown cruise of the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-73 to Ft. Lauderdale.

First 2 weeks, I was getting a letter every other day. Things were good. Then? The letters stopped, because a chief who had just transferred was fucking my ex.

I kept it in for quite a while (around 3 weeks), but, eventually, people noticed I wasn't very pleasant to be around as I was worried about home. When they told the Chief, I finally said what was going on. After that? The guys around the office helped to keep me sane until I could get back and file for divorce.

Now, because of DADT, that same gay soldier would have NOBODY to talk to while at the tip of the spear. Why? Simple......to admit to anyone that his significant other (who is the same gender) is leaving him would result in discharge, so therefore, he's not eligible for counseling, financial assistance via the military relief fund (to help re-build his life when he gets back), or any resources that would be readily available to the hetero member.

Kinda brutal to put someone through that.

And.........for the record........family emergencies like that can cause you to miss things when you're on patrol. Miss a gunman or an IED?

It's lights out for a few people. Not just you.

You just posted a pile of non-sequitir, lifting DADT is not going to change a situation you just described and that still doesn't provide a reason why a gays must absolutely tell someone that they're gay and it does not justify that servicemembers must absolutely have to know that someone is gay. In other words, why should a servicemember who has absolutely no interest in another person's sexual preference have to know or have it forcibly shoved in their faces? Why should gays have to reveal it? is either absolutely necessary to serve in the military and does it benefit all servicemembers? Nobody is interested in that sympathy driven, gay activist BS.

I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.

Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.

Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.

No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.

Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.

You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves? The military is about serving your country, not making a statement about one's sexuality while in uniform.

Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?

It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?


Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military and don't go on about the loss of good troops because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on. The way to replace loss of good troops is through good training, mentoring and leadership, not lifting DADT.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!

Resorting to personal attacks because your arguments have no justification and can't be backed up?

Wow you are one to talk. Wht a FOOL you are "The Bass".

Still personally attacking? The Bass has reason to respond again to a troll like you. You obviously have no valid arguments so why waste the time?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.

No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.

Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.

You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves? The military is about serving your country, not making a statement about one's sexuality while in uniform.

Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?

It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?


Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military and don't go on about the loss of good troops because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on. The way to replace loss of good troops is through good training, mentoring and leadership, not lifting DADT.

First off Bass Hole........the girlfriends of the single members of the command ARE able to get help via the ombudsman and the wives clubs.

As far as the rest of your post? Thanks for proving what a shitty leader you are. I'm glad your cowardly malingering ass stayed Stateside. Why? You would have gotten a lot of people killed with your inept knowledge and lack of knowledge of resources that are available.

I'm guessing they told you to resign your commission, if you were an officer.

 

[Father Time]

I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.

No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.

Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.

You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves?

Why should they have to? Revealing their sexuality will not cause any kind of harm to the troops and as such it's really dumb to fire them over that.

It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?


Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military and don't go on about the loss of good troops because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on.

Yes they lose troops all the time but that's no excuse to keep a policy that makes them lose even more troops for the stupidest of reasons.

It seems to me the onus is on you to demonstrate ANY harm in lifting DADT, we've demonstrated harm in keeping it. You're the one who says revealing being gay needs to be grounds for dismissal you back it up.

You've given absolutely nothing to defend DADT, all you've done is say "well you don't need to do it therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" which is absolutely retarded.

 

[Father Time]

Let's ban troops from discussing their home life at all, after all they don't NEED to talk about it and I'm sure some troops don't want to hear about it.

The punishment for this heinous crime should be instant dismissal.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.....they could get rid of DADT TOMORROW.

All they'd have to do is get the CNO, and the heads of all the other branches to send out a policy change, much like Admiral Zumwalt did in the 70's and 80's with his Z-grams.

I mean......it's not a law, it's just a policy. They could change it next time they send out the instructions.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You know.....they could get rid of DADT TOMORROW.

All they'd have to do is get the CNO, and the heads of all the other branches to send out a policy change, much like Admiral Zumwalt did in the 70's and 80's with his Z-grams.

I mean......it's not a law, it's just a policy. They could change it next time they send out the instructions.

That is not going to happen.


"The chiefs of the Marine Corps and the Navy on Wednesday added their opposition to any quick repeal or relaxation of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the military.

Their comments to lawmakers make it unanimous among the top officers in the military branches that a Pentagon review should be completed before any changes are made to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The go-slow advice from the chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, and the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, will make it more difficult for Congress to overturn the 1993 law or suspend its enforcement during this session. The chiefs of the Army and Air Force expressed similar views on Tuesday."

Two More Service Chiefs Urge Slow Change to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - Yahoo! News


Seems like the big boys don't really want DADT to go anywhere too soon. And they are right.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Then, if they're going to make this a legitimate study, rather than just paying lip service cool.

Send out the memos that they're going to start the study tomorrow, and all discharges from the service for reasons of homosexuality should be suspended for 1 year, pending review.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Why should they have to? Revealing their sexuality will not cause any kind of harm to the troops and as such it's really dumb to fire them over that.

Your "its not going to cause any harm argument" is irrelevant, you haven't established any reason why it is necessary for gays to reveal their sexuality. There are a lot of things not allowed by the military that would not "cause the troops any harm," such as certain hairstyles, body piercings, and tattoos on certain areas of the body, so what now, the military should do a total overhaul and allow everything? Not going to happen, the military is a peculiar organization certain, rules, regulation and structure and anyone joining the military must adapt to it, not the other way around.

Yes they lose troops all the time but that's no excuse to keep a policy that makes them lose even more troops for the stupidest of reasons.

Troops are lost for a variety of reasons other than DADT and the military is not significantly affected by the loss of gays discharged under DADT. The military should not have to lower its standards or change rules to keep people in unless it adversely affects the military in such a way that it hampers everyday operations. Plainly put, the military is suffering because of DADT and they're not losing that many of troops under DADT anyways compared to the other reasons why people are discharged.

It seems to me the onus is on you to demonstrate ANY harm in lifting DADT, we've demonstrated harm in keeping it. You're the one who says revealing being gay needs to be grounds for dismissal you back it up.

The onus is on *YOU* to prove that its necessary for fags to reveal their sexuality and to prove that its necessary for troops to have to know. You have shown no reason why faggots must tell and why the other troops must know, you have shown no reason why its necessary.There are many gays who have kept their homosexuality to themselves and do their jobs without making their sexuality an issue and it hasn't adversely affected the military. You must show that DADT is doing the military significant harm and thats the policy is seriously affecting the military in a negative way.

You've given absolutely nothing to defend DADT, all you've done is say "well you don't need to do it therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" which is absolutely retarded.

You have shown no reason why it should be lifted other than to appease the selfish interest of fags who want to openly say they're fags. Openly stating that they're faggots isn't going to make the military better.