Dont ask Dont tell is history

[turbostud]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html)

[JR2004]

I'm sure this will be argued quite a bit on talk shows and such, but I don't have a big objection to this.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

I think this is a good thing. Clinton did the best that he could, but it is time step away from prejudices and accept people for who they are and not let the government deprive anyone of the same rights that are applied to heterosexuals. This is the first step in the right direction.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I think this is a good thing. Clinton did the best that he could, but it is time step away from prejudices and accept people for who they are and not let the government deprive anyone of the same rights that are applied to heterosexuals. This is the first step in the right direction.

Agreed 100%

[Trashman]

I told my Battilion Commander that I would accept gays serving openly in the military, just as soon as they let me start showering with heterosexual females.:D

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I think this is a good thing. Clinton did the best that he could, but it is time step away from prejudices and accept people for who they are and not let the government deprive anyone of the same rights that are applied to heterosexuals. This is the first step in the right direction.
I agree. I want me and gary to finally be able to express our love for each other on here without being ridiculed!

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Agreed, but not in the case of the military. Handicapped people are not allowed in the military at all, and women are not allowed in combat roles, b/c they are more of a liability than an asset. This is/will be the same thing. Im all for equal rights. Even an advocate of gay marriage. But the military should, and does, follow a different set of rules.

I dont see how homosexuals will be a liability..A man is a man, whether gay or not. If he can survive boot camp he will earn the trust of his mates

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Emerson1
I agree. I want me and gary to finally be able to express our love for each other on here without being ridiculed!


I'm not homosexual. Speak for yourself.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I'm not homosexual. Speak for yourself.



hahaha reminds me of a scene from scary movie

I cant repeat on here..but needless to say FUNNY

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I'm not homosexual. Speak for yourself.
GARY. It is OK! We can come out of the cloest now. There is no shame, hold my hand and step out under the rainbow and sunshine with me!

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Lots don't share that opinion. That makes it a liability. Surviving basic training(only the Marines have Boot Camp) only goes so far. Military men aren't exactly known for being open-minded or "progressive thinkers".

ahhh I see what u mean..Well only way we found out is when it happens

and I had meant survive it simply by able to show he could do as much and be trusted in a bad situation..you mean survive it by outlasting the Code Red

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass

I also think it's cute that Emerson and Gary found each other on this site. I do believe that Emerson is a year away from the age of consent, Gary, so be carefull. Don't forget, 16'll getcha 20.
I am almost 19 buddy. Where have you been?

and our relationship is strictly emotional. We have a poetry reading every night and I am a closet a&m fan :D

[Trashman]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Lots don't share that opinion. That makes it a liability. Surviving basic training(only the Marines have Boot Camp) only goes so far. Military men aren't exactly known for being open-minded or "progressive thinkers".

Wrong! The military is a sample of the general population. Soldiers, Saliors and Airmen come from all parts of the nation and the world. The Army was integated long before the schools or most of the nation.

[JR2004]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I'm not homosexual. Speak for yourself.

Bi-sexual perhaps? :)

I kid, I kid...lol.

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Aww, well, that's awfull sweet. In that case, Gary, have at it!(pun intented)
Txbroadcaster is the head of a book club

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Okay, first of all, I would like to clarify that my relationship with Emerson1 was strictly platonic, but due to recent events no longer is even that. Further, I would like to say that some have put forth the idea that homosexual men are not capable of participating in combat. That is utterly false, as we have no way of actually knowing (at least with the policy that is currently enacted), whether or not any one single soldier is heterosexual or homosexual within the last sixteen years (the same soldiers who you have praised, regardless of sexual orientation). Making an argument based on assumptions is completely unreliable and facetious at best. That is like a tobacco company saying that because there have been no scientific studies to prove that tobacco is directly related to lung cancer (which there have not been, thus why the tobacco companies say that the cigarettes MAY cause cancer is on the package) is about as meaningful as your argument saying that just because a man is homosexual means that he does not have the capacity to point and fire a rifle at a threat towards our freedom as a person. Basically what I'm saying is that an argument based on a fallacious assumption is pointless and should not be brought to the table. I have met homosexual men who are more masculine than some of the male posters on here, and while I'm not saying that to shame some of you (you know who you are), I'm saying it to prove the point that you cannot judge the merit of a soldier based on his sexual preference. When there is a valid argument and not one that is based on a "hunch" brought to the table, then let us discuss it, but until then let's keep the meaningless and prejudiced based assumptions to ourselves shall we?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JR2004
Bi-sexual perhaps? :)

I kid, I kid...lol.

I am strictly heterosexual, and I love nothing more than an attractive female.

[sinton66]

No matter what policy or law is enacted by the feds, homosexuality is unlikely to become "socially acceptable". Laws can change people's outward actions, but not their inner beliefs. Most Christian religions depict it as an "abomination". That's not likely to change anytime soon.

[charlesrixey]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I think this is a good thing. Clinton did the best that he could, but it is time step away from prejudices and accept people for who they are and not let the government deprive anyone of the same rights that are applied to heterosexuals. This is the first step in the right direction.

i'm in the military, and no one in the military thinks this is a good idea

imagine going to boot camp with an openly gay man sleeping next to you, showering next to you, etc.

i believe gays should be able to express themselves just like anyone else, but in this situation, there are no winners

that doesn't make the entire military homophobic, but it does inherently endanger the most important part of a military unit---the esprit de corps

i am an open-minded, acceptance-oriented individual, and so are a lot of men in my particular service, but anyone that thinks this is a good idea and hasn't served doesn't understand the effect it would have on servicemen/women, gay or not

[charlesrixey]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Okay, first of all, I would like to clarify that my relationship with Emerson1 was strictly platonic, but due to recent events no longer is even that. Further, I would like to say that some have put forth the idea that homosexual men are not capable of participating in combat. That is utterly false, as we have no way of actually knowing (at least with the policy that is currently enacted), whether or not any one single soldier is heterosexual or homosexual within the last sixteen years (the same soldiers who you have praised, regardless of sexual orientation). Making an argument based on assumptions is completely unreliable and facetious at best. That is like a tobacco company saying that because there have been no scientific studies to prove that tobacco is directly related to lung cancer (which there have not been, thus why the tobacco companies say that the cigarettes MAY cause cancer is on the package) is about as meaningful as your argument saying that just because a man is homosexual means that he does not have the capacity to point and fire a rifle at a threat towards our freedom as a person. Basically what I'm saying is that an argument based on a fallacious assumption is pointless and should not be brought to the table. I have met homosexual men who are more masculine than some of the male posters on here, and while I'm not saying that to shame some of you (you know who you are), I'm saying it to prove the point that you cannot judge the merit of a soldier based on his sexual preference. When there is a valid argument and not one that is based on a "hunch" brought to the table, then let us discuss it, but until then let's keep the meaningless and prejudiced based assumptions to ourselves shall we?


i DO know several homosexual members of the military, and they either have occupations that keep them from others, or they never re-enlist

all of them i spoke with wanted don't ask don't tell to stay, for at the very worst it gives them a legal way out

if the ACLU gay community really believes in it, maybe they should investigate it further, but i would venture to say that most of them have never served

[Trashman]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
i'm in the military, and no one in the military thinks this is a good idea

imagine going to boot camp with an openly gay man sleeping next to you, showering next to you, etc.

i believe gays should be able to express themselves just like anyone else, but in this situation, there are no winners

that doesn't make the entire military homophobic, but it does inherently endanger the most important part of a military unit---the esprit de corps

i am an open-minded, acceptance-oriented individual, and so are a lot of men in my particular service, but anyone that thinks this is a good idea and hasn't served doesn't understand the effect it would have on servicemen/women, gay or not
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Silverback 04]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Agreed, but not in the case of the military. Handicapped people are not allowed in the military at all, and women are not allowed in combat roles, b/c they are more of a liability than an asset. This is/will be the same thing. Im all for equal rights. Even an advocate of gay marriage. But the military should, and does, follow a different set of rules.


The army allows soldiers with handicaps which occur on active duty to stay on active duty as long as they can perform their duties ranging from cooks to clerks to pilots.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Wow, you completely missed the point of what I said. Never did I say anything about a homosexual's fighting ability. I was refering to the reaction and more than likely, lack of acceptance by other soldiers.

I have to agree! I have 5 family members serving in the military....3 of them have said that an openly gay man is a distraction, they would rather not know....one even went so far to say that it just gives them another reason to have "watch their back!"

[pancho villa]

The Cowboys let Troy Aikman play quarterback for them. So why can't gays be in the service?

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by pancho villa
The Cowboys let Troy Aikman play quarterback for them. So why can't gays be in the service?

because bicycles have two wheels.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by sinton66
No matter what policy or law is enacted by the feds, homosexuality is unlikely to become "socially acceptable". Laws can change people's outward actions, but not their inner beliefs. Most Christian religions depict it as an "abomination". That's not likely to change anytime soon.

Take a good look around you 66. It is becoming more and more "socially acceptable" every day. Heck there are even openly gay clergymen popping up all the time. It’s a further sign of our moral decay as a society, and with the ultra liberals in charge now, it will become more prevalent even faster now. Sad state of affairs for sure.

[Rocket Dad]

Gay/homosexual = wrong, check the Holy Bible. There are reasons males and females have different body parts that match up, and create a new life. Zero tolerance for gays - there are no "rights" for people that defy God and nature. Thanks.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Take a good look around you 66. It is becoming more and more "socially acceptable" every day. Heck there are even openly gay clergymen popping up all the time. It’s a further sign of our moral decay as a society, and with the ultra liberals in charge now, it will become more prevalent even faster now. Sad state of affairs for sure.

:bigcry: :rolleyes:

I knew it wouldn't be long before the labels would start flying!