Don't Ask, Don't Tell is Over

Tiny Bubbles wrote: My brother in law says he is investing in a compny that is developing camouflage KY jelly cause of this law. Maybe there are more positives than being said here.

Hi VL!

If the argument if really just about sexual orientation, then why not make the entire military co-ed everything. We could have co-ed housing, co-ed showers, co-ed latrines, and that should just about satisfy everyone. Thank God I'm retired!

I really appreciate the input on this subject from all of those who have served. I also appreciate your service to our country. I never had the privelidge to serve so forgive me if I come off as naive on this:
I keep hearing about all the "distractions" this will cause our troops (mainly from McCain). What type of distractions are we talking about exactly? If you are in the service, there are certain ways you must behave, dress, march and present yourself, are there not?
It sounds like they expect the gay soldiers to be skipping in formation, applying make-up or wearing pink uniforms...If they can get past basic training and boot camp, and must conform to military code and every thing else that distinguishes that particular branch of service, what inefficiencies could they possibly physically manifest that would be a distration in combat? And wouldn't the display of any of these distractions be grounds for reprimand/dismissal?

navycpo7 wrote: Those presently serving do not have to like it or agree with it, but so long as they are serving they have to follow the orders and regulations that is part of good order and discipline of the military. Again this comes down to a choice. When ones enlistment is up, they will have to decide what they want to do. For officers it is even easier, they can resign. The law has been changed, nothing anyone serving can do to change it. So now we have to deal with it and that is where I believe it will be interesting. Orders and regulations will come down about it and will be required to be followed.

And where was this following of orders and regulations when they said that homosexuality was not conducive to service in the military? Presumably the homosexual knew of their sexual orientation prior to enlisting. They knew that the regulations prohibited them from being part of the military, and yet enlist they did, in violation of the regulations. They knowingly violated the good order and discipline of the military, didn't they Chief?

Now, I happen to believe that one's patriotism and ability to contribute to the defense of our liberty and nation is not incumbent upon their sexual orientation, and that this end can still be achieved when the sexual orientation of the person in the foxhole next to you is known rather than a secret. I don't disagree with the change in the regulations at all and I agree that the folks now serving will get to make a choice about whether or not they wish to continue to do so when their enlistment is up and that the officers can resign their commission if they disagree with the new regulations. No worries there at all. But why should the enlisted be required to wait until their enlistment is up when the terms of their enlistment have changed? Why not open the door to allow them to be honorably discharged now if they have an issue with it? Wouldn't that cut down on the number of problems the military would encounter within its ranks as a result in the change of the regulations? Let's face it Chief, some of the folks in the military are going to have a big problem with this change. That they have a problem with it will impact the morale, good order and discipline of the military and will ultimately result in some very fine and brave young people facing some legal or disciplinary problems because the regulations were changed during the period between when they enlisted and when they will have the opportunity to decline to reenlist and receive an honorable discharge from their service. We know that this will happen to some, don't we? Why put them through it rather than simply allow them to depart honorably now?

PrintSmith wrote: Presumably the homosexual knew of their sexual orientation prior to enlisting. They knew that the regulations prohibited them from being part of the military, and yet enlist they did, in violation of the regulations. They knowingly violated the good order and discipline of the military, didn't they Chief?

No, the regulation was "Don't ask, don't tell"... They enlisted without being asked...and they didn't tell. You can take your skewed interpretation of the "regulations" and stuff it, since by not telling, and not volunteering, they didn't break the regulations.

Those that have a problem with it now, I invite them to leave.

LadyJazzer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Presumably the homosexual knew of their sexual orientation prior to enlisting. They knew that the regulations prohibited them from being part of the military, and yet enlist they did, in violation of the regulations. They knowingly violated the good order and discipline of the military, didn't they Chief?

No, the regulation was "Don't ask, don't tell"... They enlisted without being asked...and they didn't tell. You can take your skewed interpretation of the "regulations" and stuff it, since by not telling, and not volunteering, they didn't break the regulations.

Those that have a problem with it now, I invite them to leave.

Yes LJ, they did violate the regulations of the military. The regulations prohibited those who were known to be homosexuals from serving in the military. It was deemed incompatible with military service and any homosexuals who became known were dismissed from the military for violating the regulations against homosexuals serving in the military. DADT was an end around the regulations. If you didn't tell, and no one asked, there was no evidence that military regulations were being violated and such evidence was necessary to dismiss a homosexual from their military service. If being a homosexual didn't violate the regulations of military service, the military would not have been able to dismiss homosexuals from the services. Logic is a wonderful thing - you should try it from time to time.

So should you... They didn't violate anything.

And you can take your snarky sarcasm and shove that too.

PrintSmith wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: And where was this following of orders and regulations when they said that homosexuality was not conducive to service in the military? Presumably the homosexual knew of their sexual orientation prior to enlisting. They knew that the regulations prohibited them from being part of the military, and yet enlist they did, in violation of the regulations. They knowingly violated the good order and discipline of the military, didn't they Chief?


But why should the enlisted be required to wait until their enlistment is up when the terms of their enlistment have changed? ?

PS

To your first question, no. That is how it was before DADT.

To your second question, that is insane. Every Time a regulations is changed anyone who disagrees can get out. rofllol
Sorry, I just cannot think of a more cogent way to express my thoughts on that right now.

BTW, I know you were addressing a diffwrent Chief, but as I believe I am senior (Sept, 1985) I am exercising my right to answer for him.

Sticking your penis in the anus of another male makes you special. A woman licking another woman's vagina makes you special. Welcome to open perversion in America.