Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy?

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by crakjak

That a liberal Federal judge can change a major policy of the military is crazy!!! And then defy the federal government, to even continue the policy until it can be completely run the appeal process is even crazier!! Way too much power in the hands of a single individual. She must be on a real ego trip.

The left has dictated to the rest of us long enough.

Crakjak.... yours is the best post of the night as far as I'm concerned.

With that I'm going to bed! So if you want to tar and feather me and Crakjak have at it. He'll have to tell me about it tomorrow! Good night all you "wise ones!"

Been Thinkin

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

There has not been enough time for the culture of the military to change to allow gays to serve openly. The risk of a lack of civility towards homosexuals serving openly right now makes this decision a disaster waiting to happen-- over and over again.


I am flat against homosexuals serving openly in the military.

Gates has said that he thinks the policy should change, over time.

The President thnks Congress should make the decision, where they will propose a method of change over a period of time.


The danger of letting this judge's ruling stand is the culture shock that will be created when the first notciceably prissy guy decides he wants to be an Infantryman. It would be a very bad day for EVERYONE involved.

I know there are people who look at Israel's military and the success they have with letting gays serve openly in their forces. I know there are people who believe that it's America's time to change.

When these people start making decisions that will affect the nation based off of their personal beliefs, I hope they take responsibility when their idealistic way of looking at the world fails and innocent people are hurt.

Even if it were legal, wouldn't it still become gradual?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I agree with that, camaraderie, foxholes, the whole nine yards.

However, it could be a legitimate concern in the future. It is highly unlikely that it will be, but the possibility it there.

I do not think they need to automatically institute separate showers, but that is a possibility that has to be looked at in response to possible issues.

I WILL SAY...

I have worked with many homosexuals, and in my personal experience, a homosexual man will not come onto a heterosexual man they way a heterosexual man will come onto a woman. They might come onto a homosexual man, but I have never seen any homosexual man come on to a heterosexual man.

As I said, I don't think it will be an issue.

I don't doubt that. However, sharing close quarters with someone you have sexual inclination toward makes "working together" relative, and something needing to be redefined in the reality of how intimate military service can be.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The issue is not about identity, it is about "conduct".

We already know that studies show that men having sex with men have a 50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection.

It creates financial problems which the taxpayers will be paying for through military and veterans programs for the rest of the infected person's life.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield.

It's incompatible with military service - period.

*JAW DROP*

I'm sorry, but the military is not the Catholic Church, nor Moralism Crusaders of America.

You're grasping at straws stating homosexuals shouldn't serve because of some stat about a higher health risk is desperate and disgusting, PO.

There's no period about what you said. Period.

You want to talk about health risks and "moral conduct" then let's go there... just be honest, this isn't your chief argument. It's probably #15 on the 100 Reasons Gay People Shouldn't Serve tract.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Statement #1: Hogwash
Statement #2: Horsefeathers
Statement #3: Baloney

....and so on.

The military ban on gays has nothing to do with any STD's. They were banned long before anyone ever heard of AIDS.

I'm still floored by some of the responses on here.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is true and it was because we were a more moral nation in times past. Now we are a politically correct braindead nation. My facts are true and my statement stands - It is incompatible with military service - period.

We were a moral nation, or religious-centered morality became the Politically-Correct culture (similar to PC today, where it surely doesn't mean people don't break PC mores behind closed doors or in informal settings). So, to say people were more moral is a joke.

You haven't proven why sexual orientation should be discriminated against when it comes to serving. A few others have presented some legitimate arguments, but yours just wreaks of homophobia, or at the least extreme evidence of living in a bubble for too long.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Frankly, I haven't given this issue a lot of thought before today. However, when I read NOW's OP, the first thing that popped into my head was fear--fear of vigilante justice and assault and mob mentalities and maybe even murder. So I guess that was MY chief concern. I was horrified to read about the young man who committed suicide a couple of weeks ago because some other kids posted video of him having sex with his partner. I can't imagine things being any better in the military for gay men who come out of the closet. Can you? That actually does scare me. That doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be addressed, but there's nothing disingenuous about acknowledging that very real possibility.



I think you're assuming that open knowledge of who's gay and who's not will = more [gay] sex than is already taking place. I seriously doubt that's the case. Personally, I think it will lead to more boundaries between soldiers; not less. The resultant problems would be more about inhibiting necessary camaraderie, creating unnecessary tension between men who have to live together, and possibly a lack of respect or trust for a gay man in any leadership role. In the case where a relationship was formed, it would create unnecessary distraction in the same manner that it would between a man and woman.

FAIR ENOUGH! But for the record, I've heard people use that in actual debates on this subject, and everytime I've heard it, it really comes off as disingenuous and ironic, considering homosexuals want the right to serve, and others assume to know what's better for them. That video you saw was part of the same attitude of intolerance we are talking about today.

Tax payers already pick up the bill for men who can't pay for the health consequences of their homosexual lifestyle; however, I'm not personally willing to see them rot in misery just because they made terrible choices. That's like saying we won't cover medical treatment for anyone who's obese since they made the choice to get fat.

I can definitely think of complications caused by having gays in the military that are more detrimental to our national security than taking money out of the tax payer's pocket.

Strong rebuttal! Well said!

Comments above.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I read the facts that I posted from a study published on the subject. I read it months ago and didn't save the link. All the facts listed were a concern on the DADT policy. If I can locate the study, I'll post it. I seem to remember that John McCain weighed in on this with the same concerns.

Would love to see that link.

Either way, this wouldn't be the first time DODT or McCain was wrong.

It's just awful logic and argumentation when discussing Constitutionality and discrimination.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The fact that JM weighed in with the same concerns gives them very little credibility in my book. Now, find something similar by Ann Coulter, and we can talk.

I really don't think HIV/health issues are the biggest threat. I think the biggest threats to the military would be:

1. Lowered enlistment rates
2. Loss of necessary camaraderie
3. Loss of trust and respect for officers who are gay
4. Unnecessary tension in life & death situations
5. Relationship entanglements that are similar to a man/woman having an affair
6. Retaliation against soldiers who reveal their homosexuality.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The fact that JM weighed in with the same concerns gives them very little credibility in my book. Now, find something similar by Ann Coulter, and we can talk.

I really don't think HIV/health issues are the biggest threat. I think the biggest threats to the military would be:

1. Lowered enlistment rates
2. Loss of necessary camaraderie
3. Loss of trust and respect for officers who are gay
4. Unnecessary tension in life & death situations
5. Relationship entanglements that are similar to a man/woman having an affair
6. Retaliation against soldiers who reveal their homosexuality.

Most of the arguments and concerns on this list have already been overcome in Corporate America.