Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[Bass v 2.0]

Army Lt. Daniel Cho. He's a squad leader, combat tested who also happened to be only 1 of 500 Arabic translators in the entire US military. Now, do YOU speak Arabic? It's a very hard language to learn, with many different dialects. Don't you think that a translator of his type is a significant asset, especially with the problems that we've currently got with the lack of translators?

Another significant asset.........Air Force pilot is currently being processed for discharge for being gay. He has several awards for combat, one of which is a DFC with a V for valor. He saved an entire squad of troops who came under enemy fire from Taliban by himself.

It costs 1 million dollars to train 1 combat troop on the front lines. He saved over 10 that day, which means he saved the government 10 million in assets, as well as saved the possibility of having to shell out more money in the form of funerals and SGLI.

How is that not a waste of money to discharge them?

If neither would have lied before joining the military the government would not have lost any money, end of story. You post two examples, not stats. There are pilots and translators who leave the military year after year for reasons other than DADT, such as leaving for big money jobs, the military loses more money for that reason[lack of ability to retain] than to fags who knowingly lie and and defraud the government by lying their way through DADT.

What the fuck idiot? You do realize what DADT stands for right? Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

No lying was involved upon enlistment as you claim, because they COULDN'T ASK THEIR FUCKING SEXUAL PREFERENCE AT ENLISTMENT!

Fuck you're stupid.

Homosexuality is not allowed in the military stupid, so they did knowing break rules by lying, when one takes an oath they take an oath to also obey the rules and orders of those appointed over them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bullshit. If that's the case, then DADT is not required.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Bullshit. If that's the case, then DADT is not required.

Homosexual conduct is in violation of DOD Policy.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not under DADT.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Not under DADT.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Stupid.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Once again "you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it" is not a good argument for anything ever.



Less arbitrary rules is always a good thing.



I don't need to prove it's necessary that's never been the standard. We've all ready shown some harm it will cause and unless you can point to a benefit caused by it, that's good enough to can it.

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.

Ok so you have no good reason why it should stay then. Gotcha.

Your breathtakingly stupid logic amounts to "we don't urgently need to change the law therefore we should keep it, despite the harm it causes".

Hey let's segregate blacks then, if you complain I'll ask you why blacks NEED to integrate with other races.

I wonder if you can provide any reason why it is necessary that the military has to keep these rules in the first place.

Methinks you cannot and you'll just keep dodging the same question you spew out over and over as if that's the only thing that matters.

You have demonstrated no reason why it is *NECESSARY* for gay to openly say they're gay and you've no reason why it is *NECESSARY* that other troops must know, thus no reason for lifting DADT exists.

Notice he has no counter arguments just repeating the same argument as if I hadn't all ready addressed it.

I'll say it again
a. you haven't demonstrated why DADT is necessary
b. that's a stupid criteria for changing rules
c. It wasn't necessary to desegregate blacks from the army.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.

 

[Father Time]

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.

Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".

 

[SFC Ollie]

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.

Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".

I'm an old soldier, I have always been against gays serving openly in the Military. I retired about the time Clinton started DADT.

 

[maineman]

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.

Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".

I'm an old soldier, I have always been against gays serving openly in the Military. I retired about the time Clinton started DADT.

I served from 68-93... certainly just as "old school" as you... and I served with several talented and professional gays in the navy and never ONCE had a problem or witnessed a problem with any of them... and neither do any of the armed forces of the vast majority of our allies. methinks that, in this case, "old school" is just a code word for irrational bigotry.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.

They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.

People like Ollie are the last of the old guard. They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.

 

[maineman]

You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.

They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.

People like Ollie are the last of the old guard. They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.

and they are heirs to an earlier generation of naysayers who said we would significantly degrade unit cohesiveness by allowing blacks to serve alongside whites.

 

[Gunny]

You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.

They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.

People like Ollie are the last of the old guard. They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.

You're stereotyping and I disagree.

True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?

This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second. Forget that crap. That's not "old guard". That's common sense.

Your attempted comparison of gays to women doesn't sail. Women are defined by gender, not their sexual behavior. Males are defined by their gender, not their sexual behavior. We dropped the "Woman" from "Marine" a long time ago.

Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit. They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them. I didn't drop them any faster than I would a shitbird. You don't fit, you're gone. People live and die by unit cohesion. Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.

They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?

 

[Flaylo]

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.

Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".

I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?

If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.

Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".

I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?

If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.

Hoorah !

 

[Flaylo]

Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".

I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?

If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.

Hoorah !

You are a fellow soldier so you understand this better than others in this forum. The Army only asks soldiers to do their jobs, maintain a high level of discipline and professionalism at all times, if homosexuals can do this and keep their sexual private lives to themselves everything is square, if they cannot, refuse and or are unable to follow military regulation I'll be more than happy to assist them via a Chapter 15.

 

[Flaylo]

Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.

What you got? 4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?

I'm an E-7 with almost 15 years in the Army and I have seen the problems that homosexuals and homosexual behavior has caused units all the way down to squad level and believe me when I tell you there was no trust of homosexuals, regardless of how well they did their jobs. Soldiers were very uncomfortable around people they perceived to be gay, imagine if DADT is lifted and soldiers are faced with having to share close and private quarters with a known and open homosexual, all hell would break lose. If a straight soldiers doesn't want to share his barracks room with a gay person because of concerns about his privacy, who am I to force him?


I'll take better unit cohesion and higher morale over having to manage the problem of giving a soldier extra special attention and protection because he's gay, better if he kept it to himself and who ever he's having sex with.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.

They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.

Another no-brainer. The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males. When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.

No one wants them around. Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.

Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with. That's for both hetero-and homosexuals. Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that? That's nobody's business.

It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing. A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.