residenttroll wrote: 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.
hey, if America is open to trolls like you, why not to everyone?
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.
Hmm, interesting take. I am not a sea lawyer, perhaps you have the letter of the law, I only know how it worked in the Navy.
residenttroll wrote: 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.
hey, if Alerica is open to trolls like you, why not to everyone?
Imagine the amount of diseases the federal government is now going to cover when the gays who want free education start joining the military in droves. I can't wait to see the first Gay Officer's Club on a military base.
PrintSmith wrote: Then why, if they were not violating any regulations, were they kicked out of the service if their sexual orientation was discovered to be homosexual?
Hum, good question...the spin answer....the officer who reported them was jealous and trumped up charges. :thumbsup:
Photo-fish wrote: 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?
1) Whenever anyone in the military is perceived as "different" or given different responsibilities from those they are stationed with, it is a distraction. Whether it is a viable excuse or not...a lot of peers and co-workers do not know extenuating circumstances unless the military member makes it known. These kinds of perceived favortism lead to low morale and disgruntled people.
-- Single parent not able to find someone to care for your child(ren) while deployed and allowed to skip the deployment? Favortism.
-- Member with a medical condition and can't fire the M16? Perceived as favortism.
-- Allowed to wear only the Battle Dress Uniform because of allergies to the material in the other uniform? Perceived as favortism.
-- Only put on day duty because of night-blindness? Perceived as favortism.
-- Not deploying because homosexuals are killed in the country everyone is going to? Perceived as favortism.
2) I was always told that any kind of "difference" that could be exploited by our enemies could lead to a security breach...And a lot of these types of individuals have become spies for the enemy.
3) It isn't that the people are going to flaunt their gayness, it is the perception of differences and possibly favortism.
Photo-fish wrote: 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?
1) Whenever anyone in the military is perceived as "different" or given different responsibilities from those they are stationed with, it is a distraction. Whether it is a viable excuse or not...a lot of peers and co-workers do not know extenuating circumstances unless the military member makes it known. These kinds of perceived favortism lead to low morale and disgruntled people.
-- Single parent not able to find someone to care for your child(ren) while deployed and allowed to skip the deployment? Favortism.
-- Member with a medical condition and can't fire the M16? Perceived as favortism.
-- Allowed to wear only the Battle Dress Uniform because of allergies to the material in the other uniform? Perceived as favortism.
-- Only put on day duty because of night-blindness? Perceived as favortism.
-- Not deploying because homosexuals are killed in the country everyone is going to? Perceived as favortism.
2) I was always told that any kind of "difference" that could be exploited by our enemies could lead to a security breach...And a lot of these types of individuals have become spies for the enemy.
3) It isn't that the people are going to flaunt their gayness, it is the perception of differences and possibly favortism.
Oh, boo-friggin'-hoo... Why don't you worry about something of substance? This dog ain't gonna hunt...
DADT is GONE.... Get over it.
(This is starting to sound like a warmed-over version of "special rights--not equal rights." Y'know, the "special rights" crap didn't work 20 years ago in Colorado; it didn't work with Prop-8 in California; it's not working now... Somebody needs to go back to the Homophobe Talking-points Generator and get some new material... "Special rights" ain't working' for ya..."
But here's the issue, the liberals don't want a military...they want a gay party.
