Don't ask, Don't tell repealed

[droski]

Evidently Volatile and Dunkinflunky are quite passionate about the topic.

From a wider scope the question is about whether or not there will be any significant disruption of national defense capability which should entail at least some 'care' from every citizen.

I havn't mentioned it before but this can potentially lend credence to the islamic claims that America is the 'great satan' and the babylon that should be destroyed because of the koranic condemnation of homosexuality.

forgive me for having some faith in our military men that they wont jepordize national security because they are homophobic.

 

[vol_in_ar]

I think he's concerened about new recruits joining, vs how current armed service members will react

 

[DC Vol]

forgive me for having some faith in our military men that they wont jepordize national security because they are homophobic.

Well, why care about bombs and bullets when you have one of them homosexuals next to you?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Still don't see any new homosexual recruits flaunting their sexuality like a few in this thread are assuming. You don't join the military to make a political/social statement. You join to defend your country.

Right?

 

[vol_in_ar]

my reason was a litle more selfish, "to pay for college", but was fortunate to be a leader of great soldiers and defend our country

 

[gsvol]

You are bending the responses, yet again. Volatile and DF are not quite passionate about some "line in regards to flaunting."

They are passionate about equality. If a homosexual feels the need to "flaunt," then they are within their rights to do so.

You asked for a definition, and received one. You then absurdly bent the response, uselessly.

In short, you are bad at this.

Oh, look... you and Islam have something in common.

Your question was; 'who cares?' and I pointed out a couple of posters who seem to care deeply.

You want to talk about hypocrisy and bending responses??

You posted in another thread that I shared the same view as moslems on homosexuality.

You aren't so stupid as to actually believe that, I have never advocated as islam does that homosexuals should be put to death, all I have done is say that it isn't good policy to repeal DADT and rewrite the UCMJ to appease a political special interest group.

It may escape your nimble brain but there is a difference between tolerance and praise and there is a difference between equality and preferential treatment.

The last regime to praise homosexuality was the nazis, how did that experiment turn out??

are you really that daft?

when you can show us that recruiting levels are down because of the repeal of DADT, I'll concede the point to you.

You do that.

The main point is that the civilian controled defense department reporting on the subject was a complete sham that didn't truthfully reflect how our men at arms felt about the subject.

 

[RhodeIslandVol]

Your question was; 'who cares?' and I pointed out a couple of posters who seem to care deeply.

You want to talk about hypocrisy and bending responses??

You posted in another thread that I shared the same view as moslems on homosexuality.

You aren't so stupid as to actually believe that, I have never advocated as islam does that homosexuals should be put to death, all I have done is say that it isn't good policy to repeal DADT and rewrite the UCMJ to appease a political special interest group.

It may escape your nimble brain but there is a difference between tolerance and praise and there is a difference between equality and preferential treatment.

The last regime to praise homosexuality was the nazis, how did that experiment turn out??




You do that.

The main point is that the civilian controled defense department reporting on the subject was a complete sham that didn't truthfully reflect how our men at arms felt about the subject.

How is it praising homosexuality to let people to fight for their country? That sounds pretty equal to me. Praise for hoosexuals would be letting them join, then letting them get special "gay pays."

And I don't know where you're getting your survey results:

To be sure, these survey results reveal a significant minority – around 30 percent overall” who believe that there would be negative effects of repealing DADT, according to the survey. That number was higher among Marines, at 43 percent overall.

The vast majority, 70 percent of US troops, predicted that having a gay or lesbian service member in their unit would have a “positive, mixed, or no effect” on the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done.

The source? The Christian Science Monitor.

It goes on to say that 92 percent suspected there was a gay person in their immediate workstation, and their ability to work was either "good, very good, or neither good nor poor."

But yeah, keep posting pink tanks.

 

[volfanbill]

Still don't see any new homosexual recruits flaunting their sexuality like a few in this thread are assuming. You don't join the military to make a political/social statement. You join to defend your country.

Right?

No, pretty much everyone I know is using the GI Bill, the student loan repayment program, providing for their family or something like that. There's only one person I know that
I truly believe is serving only because he wants "to serve his country". There are even a lot of foreigners serving just to get their citizenship.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MG1968]

The main point is that the civilian controled defense department reporting on the subject was a complete sham that didn't truthfully reflect how our men at arms felt about the subject.

The military isn't a democracy and the civilian controlled defense department is under no obligation to poll the individual service members about any change in policy.

Funny that you claim to value service but don't seem to mind if there is mutiny over one or two homosexuals allowed to openly serve.

 

[fl0at]

Your question was; 'who cares?' and I pointed out a couple of posters who seem to care deeply.

That was a rhetorical question you blithe ......

It was in response to YOUR question about some imaginary line. Are you incapable of following a discussion?

My response, to clarify for those of us 65 and older was simply:

Who cares if they carry over some "imaginary line" involving flaunting?

Got it now?

And the answer is nobody should care. As I stated earlier, yet you somehow missed it, was that Volatile and DF don't care about the flaunting, they care about the equality.

You want to talk about hypocrisy and bending responses??

Yes, I do. Because you are once again doing said bending and practicing said hypocrisy. Read the above... Then put 10 after ID and follow with a T. You will have my current view of you.

You posted in another thread that I shared the same view as moslems on homosexuality.

You aren't so stupid as to actually believe that, I have never advocated as islam does that homosexuals should be put to death, all I have done is say that it isn't good policy to repeal DADT and rewrite the UCMJ to appease a political special interest group.

Fine, I will retract. GS is a beacon to the homosexual world. He doesn't want them put to death...

It may escape your nimble brain but there is a difference between tolerance and praise and there is a difference between equality and preferential treatment.

An just how is DADT practicing equality?