Well that and straight men would still be attracted to lesbians & vice versa.

 

Group showers are just bad news :P

Personally I think it is a huge mistake. Now I believe in the short term there will be no problems, but in the long term we are going to see some major issues. We will see segregated bathrooms, showers, and barracks for example (there will be a ton of meatheads who wouldn't want to sleep or shower near a gay man). then over time, gays will be constantly made fun of, mistreated, etc. etc. Basically in my opinion the Gays got what the want, but as time passes they will regret it.

Personally I think it is a huge mistake. Now I believe in the short term there will be no problems, but in the long term we are going to see some major issues. We will see segregated bathrooms, showers, and barracks for example (there will be a ton of meatheads who wouldn't want to sleep or shower near a gay man). then over time, gays will be constantly made fun of, mistreated, etc. etc. Basically in my opinion the Gays got what the want, but as time passes they will regret it.

 

There's the problem, the homophobic attitude of many of the people in the military. Thing is, having a 'no openly gay' official policy hardly helps matters, does it? In the longer term, it will be beneficial. It's the transition between the two that will be difficult, but it's worth it in the long run to minimise if not eliminate homophobia.

Well the policy conveniently allows you to be gay, as long as you don't say you are....hence the don't ask don't tell. Still, even more reason to get rid of it.

And this is why I keep saying homosexuals shoot themselves in the foot. Working for any organization, except maybe for a brothel, being homosexual has nothing to do with the work criteria. Claiming to be gay in such an event seems unnecessary and, really, self-inflicting damage.

http://vimeo.com/15860116 - Dan Choi tells about him and "Martha".

It's about not having to lie, not having to worry thinking that you can get discharged for a slip up, and the fact that the policy was inherently discriminatory.

Personally I think it is a huge mistake. Now I believe in the short term there will be no problems, but in the long term we are going to see some major issues. We will see segregated bathrooms, showers, and barracks for example (there will be a ton of meatheads who wouldn't want to sleep or shower near a gay man). then over time, gays will be constantly made fun of, mistreated, etc. etc. Basically in my opinion the Gays got what the want, but as time passes they will regret it.

Thing is, this was already happening. At least now they can report it as discrimination and not have to worry about being kicked out of the army.

Personally I think it is a huge mistake. Now I believe in the short term there will be no problems, but in the long term we are going to see some major issues. We will see segregated bathrooms, showers, and barracks for example (there will be a ton of meatheads who wouldn't want to sleep or shower near a gay man). then over time, gays will be constantly made fun of, mistreated, etc. etc. Basically in my opinion the Gays got what the want, but as time passes they will regret it.

 

There's the problem, the homophobic attitude of many of the people in the military. Thing is, having a 'no openly gay' official policy hardly helps matters, does it? In the longer term, it will be beneficial. It's the transition between the two that will be difficult, but it's worth it in the long run to minimise if not eliminate homophobia.

 

I don't think homophobia will ever stop in the military. Its just something that will always be there. I think they have a right to be openly gay, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they will be discriminated, attacked, etc. It's just so much more of a hassle for the already incapable government we have.

Personally I think it is a huge mistake. Now I believe in the short term there will be no problems, but in the long term we are going to see some major issues. We will see segregated bathrooms, showers, and barracks for example (there will be a ton of meatheads who wouldn't want to sleep or shower near a gay man). then over time, gays will be constantly made fun of, mistreated, etc. etc. Basically in my opinion the Gays got what the want, but as time passes they will regret it.

 

There's the problem, the homophobic attitude of many of the people in the military. Thing is, having a 'no openly gay' official policy hardly helps matters, does it? In the longer term, it will be beneficial. It's the transition between the two that will be difficult, but it's worth it in the long run to minimise if not eliminate homophobia.

 

I don't think homophobia will ever stop in the military. Its just something that will always be there. I think they have a right to be openly gay, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they will be discriminated, attacked, etc. It's just so much more of a hassle for the already incapable government we have.

People said the same thing about racism and sexism - it may never completely stop but it can certainly diminish.

Huge step in the right direction really. Of course you'll have homophobia, but at least now it's a person's choice whether or not to be openly gay.

I'm curious how many voted against this. Considering over half of the soldiers who were interviewed had no problem with gays being in the army, and the number jumped to around 70-80% for those who had served with them in the past, it'd be interesting to see how a congressman who has never even been in the army would rationalize his vote.

I'd rather not know that my fellow gay soldier is looking at my peepee while we are taking group showers....

 

 

The use of peepee makes me ponder how old you are.

 

 

I have mixed feelings about this, I don't think I want it repealed....

Really not much that can be said about this. Step in the right direction.

 

Maybe we could start winning now that they won't have to turn away perfectly wiling, healthy soldiers? :razz:

 

Bigtime ^ up there, tbh.

 

What was the point of not allowing homosexual americans to serve openly in the first place, again? Can't people just be how they are or something? :roll:

Seems to me like it was a bad decision, some things are best left untold in my opinion. Not to say that there is anything wrong with gay people, it's just that some people serving may not have to same view which could possible lead to accidents.

Seems to me like it was a bad decision, some things are best left untold in my opinion. Not to say that there is anything wrong with gay people, it's just that some people serving may not have to same view which could possible lead to accidents.

Same with people who oppose women serving, those against certain religions serving, people with a different opinion on anything really.

Seems to me like it was a bad decision, some things are best left untold in my opinion. Not to say that there is anything wrong with gay people, it's just that some people serving may not have to same view which could possible lead to accidents.

I'd agree with you if people were content to live and let die - but a big problem was that gays were being blackmailed or the like by their colleagues with threats of being "told on".

Because remember, your first thought when someone is saving your ass when you're getting shot at, is whether or not they're saving it for later. <3 you Colbert.

 

I honestly don't think that many soldiers would care very much.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Yes, it's been working great for the thousands of gay soldiers who've either been dismissed from the military for being gay or who live with harassment and abuse due to not being able to complain.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Yes, it's been working great for the thousands of gay soldiers who've either been dismissed from the military for being gay or who live with harassment and abuse due to not being able to complain.

 

If they followed DADT as instructed it wouldn't be a problem would it :rolleyes:

 

Don't ask, don't tell.

 

If they can't follow an instruction that simple they probably had no place in the military anyway.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.

 

Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.

 

Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.

Good for them. Let them predict all they want, but it's not going to change anything. And this is not "PC nonsense", this is blatant discrimination. "All men are created equal." Yeah, except for gays in the military. We don't want them. Just like we didn't want blacks or women either. How can a military upholding the constitution and statements such as "all men are created equal" not allow "all men" to protect the country they live in. The idiocy is truly beyond me.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Discriminatory policies are like that. They tend to work for most and not for some. Tell me how this is going to negatively affect anyone aside from the homophobic military members, please. And wouldn't you think that it would be better for the same homophobic soldiers to actually know who is gay? Wouldn't that make them feel safer knowing who they should avoid in the shower? Or is the real issue here that there is some sort of underlying hatred for gays among military members? It seems like the people who aren't on the front lines might have a better perspective on this than the soldiers that have had homophobia driven into them by their superiors that support DADT.

 

Again if you read the results of the survey, over half of front line troops, especially marines, predicted problems arising from this. If you want to believe their all homophobes go for it, but the reality is they have to deal with more and more stupid PC nonsense every day, they'd rather just not think about it and get on with a difficult job.

Good for them. Let them predict all they want, but it's not going to change anything. And this is not "PC nonsense", this is blatant discrimination. "All men are created equal." Yeah, except for gays in the military. We don't want them. Just like we didn't want blacks or women either. How can a military upholding the constitution and statements such as "all men are created equal" not allow "all men" to protect the country they live in. The idiocy is truly beyond me.

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

I don't see how asking someone not to talk about their sexual orientation whilst on the job affects any of these points? Also if they majority of front line troops would rather keep DADT, then the goverment does not have the consent of the goverened, Jefferson would surely protest that point?

I don't see how asking someone not to talk about their sexual orientation whilst on the job affects any of these points? Also if they majority of front line troops would rather keep DADT, then the goverment does not have the consent of the goverened, Jefferson would surely protest that point?

 

Can you please link me to the survey that said half predicted problems? I wonder if there was a question if they had problems with it... I'd be willing to guess that 95% of all troops don't care the sexual orientation of their peers, and that the half that predicted there would be problems know one of those 5% of homophobes...

 

DADT inherently discriminated against gays, just like "separate but equal" inherently discriminated against minorities. If DADT was a private business's policy, I'd have more problem with a law against that than I do with Congress repealing the federal government's stance.

The stupid thing is the front line troops voted for keeping DADT. Their the ones who the decision might actually effect and they get ignored cause some whiner sat in comfort on their expansive rear doesn't like somthing that's been working?

Yes, it's been working great for the thousands of gay soldiers who've either been dismissed from the military for being gay or who live with harassment and abuse due to not being able to complain.

 

If they followed DADT as instructed it wouldn't be a problem would it :rolleyes:

 

Don't ask, don't tell.

 

If they can't follow an instruction that simple they probably had no place in the military anyway.

They don't tell. What happens when someone finds out? As has happened many times, I might add. What if they're a bit effeminate, or never talk about girls, and they start to get made fun or or even abused for it. If they complain, they get kicked out of the military.

 

The bottom line is that military forces all over the world have allowed openly gay people to server for decades with no detriment. I see no reason this would be any more than a minor blip for the US army.

 

The bottom line is that military forces all over the world have allowed openly gay people to server for decades with no detriment. I see no reason this would be any more than a minor blip for the US army.

Because the US Army is the toughest of the world. Our men are TOUGH (or BEAST as the younger generation says it)