Don't ask, Don't tell repealed

#79
#79
DinkinFlicka said:
"Heterophobe?" Seriously?

The change was needed because DADT contradicted with the open forum of ideas, lifestyles, and liberties that we, as Americans, are very proud to say we have.

As long as they kept their business to themselves, there were no problems? Are you being sarcastic, or are you just that dense?

Rewriting the UCMJ over this would be necessary if it said anything about homosexuality. It doesn't. As for adultery, how is that even relevant to this? Sounds as though you believe homosexuality simply means you can't stop thinking about butts all day... which, like many of your stances and reasons for taking them, is asinine.

Yeah, the exterminations that came with the third reich didn't include homosexuals, so there must be a reason for it.

Oh WAIT! Homosexuals were a specifically targeted group for extermination in Nazi Germany. What's next, you gonna say the African slave trade in the 1600's was orchestrated by the tribal chiefs?

Bunk, bunk, bunk, bunk. It's all you post.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: Good stuff right there. 100% in agreement with ya. Oh and I'm sure he will find some super obscure blog to support all his claims. Then post some pictures while thinking he is all smuuurt.
 
#82
#82
MG1968 said:
how is this vote "imposing" homosexual behavior on the military? I can just about guarantee you that under DADT, homosexual military members were probably honest with their closest friends. The only people who are going to have a problem with this repeal are the people who probably also think that having a black Commander in Chief is a bad thing.

I know several homosexuals, none of whom are the flaming caricatures of the kind you see prancing around San Francisco. They are very serious and well-educated people who love their country. There is absolutely no reason why they should be denied the privilege of serving their country.
Click to expand...


you know them as civilians or you served with them?

just curious
during my service, I didn't know anyone who was gay or even percieved to be..
 
#84
#84
JTrainDavis said:
The fact of the matter is that there were likely a % of queers enlisted proportionate to the total population. The bumpkins who act as if things will change in the least are the same ones who miss segragated drinking fountains. Incurable bigots.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Now you're going to deploy the old liberal standby of comparing any views contrary to your own as racist. When was race even mentioned before you brought it up?
 
#86
#86
DinkinFlicka said:
I guess in this case, I wish it was.
Click to expand...


So, let me get this straight, you don't think an openly gay person should be kept from serving in the military but you believe that proponents of "don't ask, don't tell" should not be allowed to serve?

And I guess you don't realize how few people would be left in the military if all those in favor of "don't ask, don't tell" were forced out.
 
#87
#87
Vol_4_Life said:
So, let me get this straight, you don't think an openly gay person should be kept from serving in the military but you believe that proponents of "don't ask, don't tell" should not be allowed to serve?

And I guess you don't realize how few people would be left in the military if all those in favor of "don't ask, don't tell" were forced out.
Click to expand...


I don't think soldiers who lack the self-security to stand next to another man and shower will be able to do jack squat when the poo hits the fan out in the field.

And I never said anything about being forced out. If you can't handle your fellow soldiers, then you should be allowed to leave.
 
#88
#88
DinkinFlicka said:
I don't think soldiers who lack the self-security to stand next to another man and shower will be able to do jack squat when the poo hits the fan out in the field.

And I never said anything about being forced out. If you can't handle your fellow soldiers, then you should be allowed to leave.
Click to expand...


I'd say that when a large portion of our society thinks of a homosexual they think of a character out of the Village People or one of the guys who makes it on to CNN during a gay pride march while prancing around in a short pair of cut off jeans and a pink halter top (much like Gainesville). It's wrong and most of us know it, but perception is what it is. I'm kinda torn on this, having never served I don't think I should have any say in the matter.
 
#89
#89
MG1968 said:
how is this vote "imposing" homosexual behavior on the military? I can just about guarantee you that under DADT, homosexual military members were probably honest with their closest friends. The only people who are going to have a problem with this repeal are the people who probably also think that having a black Commander in Chief is a bad thing.

I know several homosexuals, none of whom are the flaming caricatures of the kind you see prancing around San Francisco. They are very serious and well-educated people who love their country. There is absolutely no reason why they should be denied the privilege of serving their country.
Click to expand...


That's why I see no need to change the DADT policy.

DADT doesn't deny homosexuals the opportunity to serve their country in the military.

I served on a base for a year and a half once and the base commander was known to be a homo, he just didn't go walking around holding hands with his boy friend.

(this was back in the mid sixties.)

He was really a good commander, he never busted anyone's rank but if they got in trouble he fined them and the money just didn't disappear, he put it in the base recreational fund and bought stuff we could all use, we had ski boats and all sorts of things to enjoy when we were off duty.

Surprised you would play the race card, you and LG get more alike every day.




DinkinFlicka said:
"Heterophobe?" Seriously?

The change was needed because DADT contradicted with the open forum of ideas, lifestyles, and liberties that we, as Americans, are very proud to say we have.

As long as they kept their business to themselves, there were no problems? Are you being sarcastic, or are you just that dense?

Rewriting the UCMJ over this would be necessary if it said anything about homosexuality. It doesn't. As for adultery, how is that even relevant to this? Sounds as though you believe homosexuality simply means you can't stop thinking about butts all day... which, like many of your stances and reasons for taking them, is asinine.

Yeah, the exterminations that came with the third reich didn't include homosexuals, so there must be a reason for it.

Oh WAIT! Homosexuals were a specifically targeted group for extermination in Nazi Germany. What's next, you gonna say the African slave trade in the 1600's was orchestrated by the tribal chiefs?

Bunk, bunk, bunk, bunk. It's all you post.
Click to expand...

The only homosexuals the nazis exterminated were political opponents, the whole top level of the third reich were homos.

The only think in your bunk is a dikleberry.





BearCat204 said:
What does it say about murder?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It says don't do it but you probably know that,
why do you ask??

I'm glad you brought up murder though, once a young man who was living the homosexual life style asked me privately what I would do if I was in his shoes, I said; "I would settle down, get married and raise me a nice family."

He asked; "what woman would have me now?"

I said; "They would be lined up to marry you, you're young, handsome, make good money, have a nice place with stables and horses, plenty of women would marry you if you asked."

So he broke up with his live in boy friend who was nothing by a freeloading jerk anyway and after the guy had moved most of his stuff out he came back to pick up the last of his stuff and when he caught my young friend with his back turned he stabbed him with a kitchen knife and he kept on stabbing him until the blade broke off and then he got another knife and continued his gruesome work.

Someone just brought that up a couple of weeks ago, quoting a deputy who said it was the most brutal crime he had ever had to work, the victim had 77 wounds.

The sad part was the the perp only got eight years for the murder of which he would only serve about six.
 
#90
#90
I ask because you say homosexuality is an abomination. Yet, you have no problem with the killing our military does during war. Also what does your story have to do with this thread. Are you suggesting homosexuality leads to murder? If you are, that is a about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#91
#91
mreed90 said:
:thumbsup: Good stuff right there. 100% in agreement with ya. Oh and I'm sure he will find some super obscure blog to support all his claims. Then post some pictures while thinking he is all smuuurt.
Click to expand...

How long have you two been dating smilie?
 
#92
#92
BearCat204 said:
I ask because you say homosexuality is an abomination. Yet, you have no problem with the killing our military does during war. Also what does your story have to do with this thread. Are you suggesting homosexuality leads to murder? If you are, that is a about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No I said the Bible states that homosexuality is an abomination before God.

Well actually there is a difference between murder and killing the enemy during a war, although that might be lost on someone with your mentality.

As for the story, I suggest the word 'gay' might just be a misnomer.
 
#93
#93
gsvol said:
Well actually there is a difference between murder and killing the enemy during a war, although that might be lost on someone with your mentality.
Click to expand...

I dont think the Bible stipulates a difference. Just says "thou shall not kill"
 
#94
#94
gsvol said:
The only homosexuals the nazis exterminated were political opponents, the whole top level of the third reich were homos.

The only think in your bunk is a dikleberry.
Click to expand...

The emboldened portion of your post indicates that you're either distorted in your world history or just plain stupid. Sorry, but it's hard to be civil when debating a post this far down the toilet drain.

You're just a homophobic, discriminatory, bitter old man who figured out how to insert pictures on forums from silly, biased, borderline fanatical sources. What's sad is that it's taken me so little time to figure this out about you.

I feel sorry that you hold these ignorant white/black views. This country was founded on the fact that our fathers wanted this to be a free shade of gray. The United States is hardly a land of extreme ideologies. We're too varied in lifestyles, ethnicities, and religions
to be so segregated about anything... military included.

I dunno, man. You can't back up the views or words you've exhibited in this thread with anything that goes beyond a book that's been written and edited for thousands of years containing many things that have either been proven false, or have yet to proven at all.

You can't come up with a viable, secular reason against the concept of EVERY physically able man or woman from any walk of life to serve in our military and defend everything this country has stood for since its inception.
 
#96
#96
rmsmith said:
I dont think the Bible stipulates a difference. Just says "thou shall not kill"
Click to expand...

You think wrongly, it would be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers that you know very little about the Bible, why don't you try reading it?? :clapping:
 
#97
#97
rmsmith said:
I dont think the Bible stipulates a difference. Just says "thou shall not kill"
Click to expand...

One of the first gentile christians in New Testament was a Roman Centurion.

There was another account in the Bible where Jesus praised the faith of a Centurion and healed his servant. He did so with out mention or opinion of the centurions occupation.
 
#99
#99
DinkinFlicka said:
I don't think soldiers who lack the self-security to stand next to another man and shower will be able to do jack squat when the poo hits the fan out in the field.

And I never said anything about being forced out. If you can't handle your fellow soldiers, then you should be allowed to leave.
Click to expand...


Let me pose a question to you. Should males and females shower and change together in basic training? Allowing a gay person shower next to someone of the same sex is no different than allowing a straight person to shower next to someone of the opposite sex.

Your claim that soldiers who feel uncomfortable showering next to a gay person of the same sex would be totally inept in a combat environment is completely ludicrous. Do you really think that every soldier who has shown bravery in battle was opposed to "don't ask, don't tell?"

And allowing anyone uncomfortable around gays to get a "get out of the military free card" would result in chaos. People who wanted out of the military, but who couldn't care less about "don't ask, don't tell," would have a field day.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top