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

[notofworks]

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.

There are reports posted all over the internet about all kinds of stuff all the time. I can give you a link that says that George W. Bush piloted the plane the hit the first Twin Tower and parachuted out just before it hit.

So forget the reports, let's cover what YOU said, which was, the U.S. at one time prohibited gays because the nation was more moral. Come on, Press, that's ridiculous. While a good case can be made that the United States is the greatest nation on earth, you'd have a hard time proving that statement with any kind of facts. This nation has ALWAYS suffered from great moral compromises. That hasn't changed since 1492 when Chris landed.

[MissBrattified]

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.

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

There are reports posted all over the internet about all kinds of stuff all the time. I can give you a link that says that George W. Bush piloted the plane the hit the first Twin Tower and parachuted out just before it hit.

So forget the reports, let's cover what YOU said, which was, the U.S. at one time prohibited gays because the nation was more moral. Come on, Press, that's ridiculous. While a good case can be made that the United States is the greatest nation on earth, you'd have a hard time proving that statement with any kind of facts. This nation has ALWAYS suffered from great moral compromises. That hasn't changed since 1492 when Chris landed.

That's cute, except that these facts are true:

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

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. Dead weight.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV. What value is this person to the military when he cannot be discharged nor deployed. Dead weight.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield. Why put unnecessary harm on our military? Dead weight.

We are not speaking of a person's everyday life. We are talking about military service. They are dead weight.

It's shortsighted to overlook these facts and not see that they are extremely important to consider in the debate.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That's cute, except that these facts are true:

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

••Has NOTHING to do with the military ban on gays, Coadie.

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. Dead weight.

••Has NOTHING to do with the military ban on gays, Coadie.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV. What value is this person to the military when he cannot be discharged nor deployed. Dead weight.

••Has NOTHING to do with the military ban on gays, Coadie.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield. Why put unnecessary harm on our military? Dead weight.

••Has NOTHING to do with the military ban on gays, Coadie.

We are not speaking of a person's everyday life. We are talking about military service. They are dead weight.

••Has NOTHING to do with the military ban on gays, Coadie.

It's shortsighted to overlook these facts and not see that they are extremely important to consider in the debate.

Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought I was talking to Coadie.

But you are a good cook!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought I was talking to Coadie.

Just placed an order on-line and received my confirmation number. No more time for you. Goodnight.

Oh, and "dead weight" and "incompatible" with military service. That's my final word.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Just placed an order on-line and received my confirmation number. No more time for you. Goodnight.

Oh, and "dead weight" and "incompatible" with military service. That's my final word.

Well, you're still a good cook. We can't all do everything well!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The military not asking and not requiring someone to tell their sexual preference is not a problem. I think we all can at least agree there.

The real question is should the military be allowed to ban openly gay men from being in the military? The answer is yes, iff certain conditions exist that would hinder the military from doing its job if it allowed openly gay men.

Notice that the question isn't whether gay men can serve in the military. There is no doubt that a gay man can serve as evidenced by the don't ask don't tell policy. The military doesn't care if a person is gay. It only cares if the person is openly gay.

So getting back to the question: what problems would having an openly gay man/men create in the current military that might hinder the military from fulfilling its job?

One reason for changing the rule is that revealing one is gay is like a woman getting pregnant. They don't shoot you but you get to get out of having to go into a combat zone. So nobody asks and nobody tells but if someone wants to not go to Iraq, they can just reveal they are gay.

The issue for gays though is they want to be able to sport "Im gay" going into the Military to prove a point...imo. since don't ask, don't tell allows gays to be in the military the real issue then for gays is to be able to say "Im queer, Im proud of it and dang don't I look good in fatigues!"

[deadeye]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Hey, I couldn't get the forum to work for a few minutes. Did someone say something bad about Lee Stoneking?

WOW....blow a gasket when someone makes a joke about Nancy "the wicked witch of the west" Pelosi.....

But more than willing to throw out a underhanded insinuation about Bro Stoneking...


Bit of a double standard here NOW???

[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.

[deadeye]

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.

Tru Dat