Don't Ask, Don't Tell is Over

LadyJazzer wrote:

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.

Yeah, it's gone for just a few months....just like Obamacare.

neptunechimney wrote: 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.

We're not talking about the regulations for the polishing of boots, or how the cover is to be worn Chief. This change goes a bit deeper than that, on this we can agree, can't we? This is a 180 degree reversal of existing regulations that prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military. That is not a minor thing to a fair number of existing military personnel, especially to some of the younger people who are a bit more high strung that might be sharing living conditions under combat conditions.

Whether we like it or not, the majority of the bullying that goes on aimed at homosexuals is committed by the age group that compromise the majority of the grunts in military service. That truth has to be realized and acknowledged in any of these discussions. The problems with morale, good order and discipline by and large are likely to come from this age grouping as well. There would be a certain level of truth in a private's statement that he didn't sign up to take showers with homosexual men when he volunteered to join the army. If the army is now going to require that of him as a result of this change in the regulations, I would think it proper to first allow him the opportunity to honorably separate himself from the army to avoid having to submit to something like that if he finds it objectionable. That seems a reasonable course of action to undertake to allow the integration of openly homosexual men into the units with the fewest instances of disturbing the good order and discipline of the military. To make the private wait another 2 or 3 years before having the opportunity to honorably end his service will only increase the amount of time necessary for the new regulations to be accepted. The private isn't going to reenlist if he finds the new regulations extremely objectionable anyway, so why not allow him the opportunity to honorably separate himself now rather than make him wait until his current enlistment is up?

I was always taught that the best way to avoid trouble was to avoid putting yourself into situations where trouble was likely to be found. If you never consume alcoholic drinks and then drive, you will never find yourself answering for your actions of driving while intoxicated, right? To ensure that the new regulations are implemented with the fewest amount of disruption to the good order and discipline of the military, doesn't it make sense to allow those that have the most disagreement to honorably leave before that disagreement causes problems?

I don't remember the privates back in 1948 that were racial bigots being allowed to honorably leave when it became apparent that they were going to have to start sharing their quarters and their units with black folks... Do you? You got a reference for that?

LadyJazzer wrote: I don't remember the privates back in 1948 that were racial bigots being allowed to honorably leave when it became apparent that they were going to have to start sharing their quarters and their units with black folks... Do you? You got a reference for that?

So gays and lesbians are now officially recognized as a new race of people?

JusSayin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: I don't remember the privates back in 1948 that were racial bigots being allowed to honorably leave when it became apparent that they were going to have to start sharing their quarters and their units with black folks... Do you? You got a reference for that?

So gays and lesbians are now officially recognized as a new race of people?

Absolutely! Chose to insert penis into the anus of another male...and that makes you a different race/ethnicity of people. now go teach all the little kiddos that....

LadyJazzer wrote: I don't remember the privates back in 1948 that were racial bigots being allowed to honorably leave when it became apparent that they were going to have to start sharing their quarters and their units with black folks... Do you? You got a reference for that?

No, but the military still had segregated units that were sent into Korea to fight, and IIRC the last segregated unit in the armed forces was around when we started our involvement in Vietnam. Do you think for even a New York minute that this slow evolution of change is going to be allowed in this instance? Me either.

I served and fought along side homosexuals. It makes no difference whenever it comes to combat. They will save your butt just as you will save theirs. There is no difference in courage or survival instinct.
I do not cotton to their bent but that has nothing to do with surviving a war.

neptunechimney wrote:

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.

When they enlisted, they were in direct violation of military regs. What I am curious about is how it says NAVYCPO7 said, and those comments I do not ever remember saying

I think that came from your fellow Chief attempting to quote part of what I said and somehow ending up with it being attributed to you. I'm not sure how to fix it at this point Chief, so I guess I will simply say that the post attributed to you that you are referring to is mine and mine alone.

Thanks for confirming that a homosexual violated the regulations of the service branch they were enlisting in when the volunteered to serve in the armed forces and that they were in violation of the existing regulations from the moment they put their signature at the bottom of the enlistment papers. FWIW, I don't blame them for taking advantage of the loophole that Clinton created with his EO that came to be known as DADT. I actually have a lot of respect for their willingness to risk being kicked out in order to serve their nation and wish that the political "leadership" of the nation had a fraction of their integrity and devotion to the nation.

I also have a lot more respect for the elected representatives who voted to change the regulations than I do for the ones who decided that the end around them that Clinton created was an acceptable solution politically (though in many instances they are the same ones, but I digress). It essentially said that it was OK to violate the laws on the books in the military so long as you weren't caught doing so. Not exactly the type of message you want to instill in the folks who are charged with protecting our liberties and our nation in my opinion.