Time to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[RickWhite]

Jeff F has done a great job of clarifying this issue through his experience and insight. Despite him becoming understandably irate, I fail to see how any rational person could still be arguing with him at this point. The man spelled out the whole issue in detail based on first hand experience and made perfect sense of all of it.

What this thread demonstrates is that some people just are not capable of setting aside their dogma and seeing an issue clearly even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary from a person with genuine knowledge and experience. Nothing is more demonstrative of closed mindedness and an inability to employ critical reasoning skills.

At this point, we should consider not whether DADT is a sound policy, but why some people feel compelled to force others to accept their ways when they could just as easily keep their mouth shut. Hell, there are many things we all do that we don't make public. Anyone feel the need to advertise their need to chronically masturbate? Do people with embarrassing medical conditions like Chron's disease demand special recognition? What about people who practice necrophilia or bestiality - do they qualify for special treatment? Why is it so hard to just keep your business to yourself?

 

[fdd2blk]

Another question that I would like to see those who oppose DADT answer, in all seriousness, is this one:

What defines if someone is 'gay'?

If someone had 1 gay encounter in their life, but the rest were all hetero, are they gay? How about the person who has had 1 hetero encounter in their life, and the rest were all gay? Homosexuality/heterosexuality is a continuum, not a black and white, clear-cut divide. So where do you want to draw the line? WHo gets booted, who gets to serve?

Another question I'd like to hear the bigots of this board answer honestly is whether they believe homosexuality to be a choice or not.

And great point, Rome did fall. After enjoying one of the greatest and longest-lived reigns of dominance by any army ever. Spartans fell too, but you can't say it was because they were a shitty fighting force.

dude, you are lost.

 

[dukeofbaja]

RickWhite stated "What this thread demonstrates is that some people just are not capable of setting aside their dogma and seeing an issue clearly even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary from a person with genuine knowledge and experience. Nothing is more demonstrative of closed mindedness and an inability to employ critical reasoning skills."

I would 100% agree. Which is why I tend to side with the people with the most knowledge and experience, like Gates and Mullen, and not the one ignorant yahoo with '20 years experience' who likes to post on this forum.

fdd2blk, how am I lost? You need to elaborate on whatever thoughts are going on in your head bro. Or post an actual answer to the questions I posed. Four words do no prove or disprove anything, besides that you are incapable of thinking in full sentences.

 

[RickWhite]

I would 100% agree. Which is why I tend to side with the people with the most knowledge and experience, like Gates and Mullen, and not the one ignorant yahoo with '20 years experience' who likes to post on this forum.

Or, you could recognize the validity of the actual words being spoken.

And you could also take into account the fact that the two you mentioned are currently serving under what is arguably the most radical Left administration ever and are feeling a great deal of political pressure.

 

[dukeofbaja]

Conversely, you could also recognize the vailidity of the words being spoken, except the ones I quote are from greater authorities than you will find on this forum. And I am not even mentioning all the retired generals coming out in support of ending DADT. I have not even bothered to look for other top brass that support ending DADT, but I bet they also outnumber those who are opposed.

And to call Obama's administration perhaps the most radical left is genuinely misleading. Does it make him a socialist to return tax levels to what they were during the first Bush administration? A quick glance at history reveals a president that was even more controversial in similar circumstances, FDR. He did what he had to do in order to remove us from the depression, which included an expansion of the size of federal government never seen before. But I'd say it worked. And I'd say if anything, this administration needs to be spending even more right now than they currently are to get us out of the tail end of this recession. But of course all the deficit hawk conservatives out there, the ones who must have been asleep for 8 years previously, are using this issue to score cheap political points, hurting Americans even more.


This is a little more off the DADT subject and more to the point of the GOP's general operating strategy: lie, scare, deceive, lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html


Also, if anyone of the 4-5 repeat posters opposed to ending DADT woud answer the two questions I posed earlier, that would be great. Reminder: I asked whether you believe that homosexuality is a choice, and where exactly do you draw the line on who is homosexual, and who is not.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Conversely, you could also recognize the vailidity of the words being spoken, except the ones I quote are from greater authorities than you will find on this forum. And I am not even mentioning all the retired generals coming out in support of ending DADT. I have not even bothered to look for other top brass that support ending DADT, but I bet they also outnumber those who are opposed.

And to call Obama's administration perhaps the most radical left is genuinely misleading. Does it make him a socialist to return tax levels to what they were during the first Bush administration? A quick glance at history reveals a president that was even more controversial in similar circumstances, FDR. He did what he had to do in order to remove us from the depression, which included an expansion of the size of federal government never seen before. But I'd say it worked. And I'd say if anything, this administration needs to be spending even more right now than they currently are to get us out of the tail end of this recession. But of course all the deficit hawk conservatives out there, the ones who must have been asleep for 8 years previously, are using this issue to score cheap political points, hurting Americans even more.


This is a little more off the DADT subject and more to the point of the GOP's general operating strategy: lie, scare, deceive, lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html


Also, if anyone of the 4-5 repeat posters opposed to ending DADT woud answer the two questions I posed earlier, that would be great. Reminder: I asked whether you believe that homosexuality is a choice, and where exactly do you draw the line on who is homosexual, and who is not.

It not a little off the DADT subject, it is completely off.

The opinion piece by premier Progressive dog washer Paul Krugman is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion chiefly because it focuses only on the politics of fear employed by Republicans and completely ignores the very same tactic used copiously by Democrats.

Conclusion: It is a one one-sided political hit piece which lends no credibility to your argument.

Finger pointing will not lead to success in this discussion.

Highlighting the success of DADT as a means of integrating gays in the military is much more likely to do the job. DADT did not transform our military into a bunch of effeminate nancy boys. Neither will revoking DADT.

 

[CrackerJax]

 

[fdd2blk]

RickWhite stated "What this thread demonstrates is that some people just are not capable of setting aside their dogma and seeing an issue clearly even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary from a person with genuine knowledge and experience. Nothing is more demonstrative of closed mindedness and an inability to employ critical reasoning skills."

I would 100% agree. Which is why I tend to side with the people with the most knowledge and experience, like Gates and Mullen, and not the one ignorant yahoo with '20 years experience' who likes to post on this forum.

fdd2blk, how am I lost? You need to elaborate on whatever thoughts are going on in your head bro. Or post an actual answer to the questions I posed. Four words do no prove or disprove anything, besides that you are incapable of thinking in full sentences.

"you are lost" is a full sentence.

just goes to show you how lost you are. i really don't have that much time. sorry.

 

[olishell]

I served in the Navy 74-80.There were about 200 or so gay guys on my ship(aircraft carrier...5,500 crew members.).We were all part of a team doing an important job.I don't remember many problems between them and the rest of the crew.When you realize no one can make you do anything you don't want to do...it's all cool.I think "don't ask don't tell" should be shitcanned.

 

[CrackerJax]

There was a poll conducted quite recently concerning repealing the ban. All respondents were active duty or had retired no more than 1 year ago, 83% were 50 years or younger, and 30% had served in Iraq at least once while 13% were in Afghanistan for at least one tour. The results concerning DADT were almost the same: only 23% of respondents favored repeal.

23%

 

[dukeofbaja]

Alright, so 23% of a segment of the voting population that represents about, let's say, 2-5% of the whole of voters. I believe the other 95+% would outbalance them in favor of repeal.

Still waiting to hear an honest answer as to whether you think homosexuality is a choice and what would qualify an individual as gay. At least think about those questions introspectively and then decide whether or not you want to single out and target a group of folks who simply want to serve their country.

 

[fdd2blk]

Alright, so 23% of a segment of the voting population that represents about, let's say, 2-5% of the whole of voters. I believe the other 95+% would outbalance them in favor of repeal.

Still waiting to hear an honest answer as to whether you think homosexuality is a choice and what would qualify an individual as gay. At least think about those questions introspectively and then decide whether or not you want to single out and target a group of folks who simply want to serve their country.

i'd kinda like to hear your answer.

 

[jeff f]

i'd kinda like to hear your answer.

sometimes i dont give you enough credit

 

[jeff f]

Jeff F has done a great job of clarifying this issue through his experience and insight. Despite him becoming understandably irate, I fail to see how any rational person could still be arguing with him at this point. The man spelled out the whole issue in detail based on first hand experience and made perfect sense of all of it.

What this thread demonstrates is that some people just are not capable of setting aside their dogma and seeing an issue clearly even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary from a person with genuine knowledge and experience. Nothing is more demonstrative of closed mindedness and an inability to employ critical reasoning skills.

At this point, we should consider not whether DADT is a sound policy, but why some people feel compelled to force others to accept their ways when they could just as easily keep their mouth shut. Hell, there are many things we all do that we don't make public. Anyone feel the need to advertise their need to chronically masturbate? Do people with embarrassing medical conditions like Chron's disease demand special recognition? What about people who practice necrophilia or bestiality - do they qualify for special treatment? Why is it so hard to just keep your business to yourself?

thanks for the pat on the back but let me make few more points.

i dont know what will happen when they lift DADT. quite possibly and most likely nothing will change.

my problem is with who is driving this bus. this isnt a bunch of normal soldiers who happen to like cock (i know, i have a way with words) this is your hard core leftist gays who want to disrupt the military.

may turn out to be no big deal.

 

[dukeofbaja]

I hope we are both correct, that it will be no big deal. Frankly, I put a lot of stock in the military because of the competency of people like yourself (compliment to your years of service, not any type of a swipe at your stance on the issue) and other friends I've known whose opinion on similar matters I often disagree with, but whose personal ability to carry out one of the most difficult and stressful jobs imaginable I admire. I could not fathom being located somewhere thousands of miles from my family and love dones in a dangerous spot risking my life daily. Whoever does that has bigger balls than I, figuratively speaking.

That said, I will answer my own question and simply state that I do believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality, and although sometimes it is a choice/decision, often times it is just how the person was built. And second, I believe there is no point at which one is gay or straight, the whole point of the question is to make you realize that everyone falls somehwere along a continuum, and that the whole straight/gay question in the first place is just another false dichotomy (ie bullshit).

 

[CrackerJax]

Alright, so 23% of a segment of the voting population that represents about, let's say, 2-5% of the whole of voters. I believe the other 95+% would outbalance them in favor of repeal.

Still waiting to hear an honest answer as to whether you think homosexuality is a choice and what would qualify an individual as gay. At least think about those questions introspectively and then decide whether or not you want to single out and target a group of folks who simply want to serve their country.

No no no.... 23% of the military personnel .... the respondents were all either active or recently active and most served at least a year in a war zone.

23% is not much..... they don't WANT it. You've got it backwards.... 23% are in FAVOR of it..... the rest are NOT.

 

[fdd2blk]

I hope we are both correct, that it will be no big deal. Frankly, I put a lot of stock in the military because of the competency of people like yourself (compliment to your years of service, not any type of a swipe at your stance on the issue) and other friends I've known whose opinion on similar matters I often disagree with, but whose personal ability to carry out one of the most difficult and stressful jobs imaginable I admire. I could not fathom being located somewhere thousands of miles from my family and love dones in a dangerous spot risking my life daily. Whoever does that has bigger balls than I, figuratively speaking.

That said, I will answer my own question and simply state that I do believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality, and although sometimes it is a choice/decision, often times it is just how the person was built. And second, I believe there is no point at which one is gay or straight, the whole point of the question is to make you realize that everyone falls somehwere along a continuum, and that the whole straight/gay question in the first place is just another false dichotomy (ie bullshit).

no shit?
you ever think that's why none of us answered it? it was rather OBVIOUS.

 

[dukeofbaja]

So if there is no such thing as gay or straight, why do you favor kicking some out of the armed forces and not others? Shouldn't we just treat them all equally?

 

[fdd2blk]

So if there is no such thing as gay or straight, why do you favor kicking some out of the armed forces and not others? Shouldn't we just treat them all equally?

nowhere did i say i favored anything. and i did not say there was no such thing either.

you are set on your own agenda. you are here to find others to follow you. that is all.

 

[CrackerJax]

Realize that OPENLY gay means ACTING gay. How does that increase military efficiency.

No one runs around saying they are openly heterosexual in the military....so why do we need to have ppl floating around saying their gay?

It's counter productive.