[qd0vhq4f]

More like Gay's Anatomy. The policy is important, because the military is all about expressing masculinity, by shooting people and being fearless, and none of this mushy gushy kiss me on the bed table and have all the related videos link to softcore gay porn on Youtube stuff.

[iroxmxinau]

Silly intolerant gay-hating tv depicts gayness as result of having a brain tumor and people are supposed to learn from that???

[Usogwdkb]

You don't think those soldiers would be pained by such a policy?

[baxodrom]

I suppose it is an inconceivable situation for you. Even though we've had several members on Apolyton alone in the US armed forces directly affected by don't ask, don't tell...

[Britfunclubs]

Originally posted by Asher
does anyone here remember connorkimbro? I'm more interested in what happened to connor. Haven't seen him in a long time.

[largonioulurI]

Originally posted by Asher
You don't think those soldiers would be pained by such a policy? I'm not trying to argue, I just wanted you to explain what evils of the policy you think the story in the OP was demonstrating.

For example, the father isn't in the army. Hence his actions\reactions at the situation could be the same, policy or no?

[seervezex]

Gay people should be restricted to the navy since it's pretty obvious the navy can't get any gayer than it already is now.

[TubOppomo]

Originally posted by MrFun
I completely agree with you on this, Asher. Dishonorable discharges and discrimination against gays and lesbians has actually INCREASED due to Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" compromise with a Republican-dominated Congress. People kicked out under DADT don't get dishnorable discharges.

In fatc, linguists who have gotten kicked out under DADT have found themselves recalled anyway, something that would have been impossible under a BCD.

[Quonuttott]

Originally posted by Verto
Sexual orientation shouldn't be any more of a factor than race, IMO (kudos to Truman, btw). Oh, I totally agree. If for no other reason that it prevents jackasses using DADT to get training/education from the DoD and then get out.

[ditpiler]

Why should you have to choose second.

People who aim for second place will never get first place.

[Txaizdxx]

Originally posted by Asher
Why should you have to choose second.

People who aim for second place will never get first place.
Unless first place fails to live up to the responsibilites of being number 1. Like posing in Playboy..........


ACK!

[Lolita Palmer]

I guess because I think DADT is a step in the right direction - it's better than no service, right? You can't expect psycho religious right folks to suddenly go from "eww gays are evil let's stone them" to "Let's give them guns and bathe with them" in one step Hence, DADT was not a bad thing, it was a step that allowed gays to serve, if not openly; then at some (hopefully soon) point, we get over this whole thing and drop DADT.

It just sounds to me when people complain about DADT that they'd rather go back to the pre-DADT times... which seems weird.

[Bymnbypeten]

When a woman joins the army, does she bunk and shower with the men? No.

So in an environment where you share (read as 'give up') personal space, having somebody there with you, who might be looking a little too closely will be very distressing to a lot of people. Remeber that a lot of military personel are recruited from small rural towns and may have NEVER been exposed to homosexuality.
So in order to avoid the 'gay bashing' you are expected to hide it, or not join up.

Can't say I have anything against dis-allowing gays from joining...


And just to note... I'm gettin dressed to go to a gay bar right now... (no I'm not gay, but quite a few friends are. TIC)

[zCLadw3R]

So in an environment where you share (read as 'give up') personal space, having somebody there with you, who might be looking a little too closely will be very distressing to a lot of people. Remeber that a lot of military personel are recruited from small rural towns and may have NEVER been exposed to homosexuality. It's basic common sense here. There is a line between being colourblind, and between making it an issue for everyone else.

I don't see any reason why they should expect preferential treatment from the military, it should be irrelevant to the performance of their duty.

Honestly, people need to get themselves off their hangups with nudity in nonsexual situations. Whatever. Reminds me of the guys at the gym that jumps around like idiots stealthily trying to change or wait 20 minutes in line for a private shower stall when there's 40 free shower heads in the communal showers available. They need to get over themselves. So women should shower with the men? Not going to happen. You might feel these hangups are 'outmoded', but they are a concern. Asher, do you believe that making it an issue will improve job performance?

I can't serve in the military due to disability. That isn't discrimination, it is a fact that there are certain expectations that are required of all military recruits that are considered essential to the safety of everyone else there. If what you are looking for is self-affirmation, then the military is the wrong place for you.

[wooclosmercob]

Come to think of it, aren't relationships between comrades-in-arms discouraged, regardless of their respective bits n' pieces? I remember Lynndie England wasn't supposed to be screwing that Graner fellow...

[TolleyBoymn]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see any reason why they should expect preferential treatment from the military, it should be irrelevant to the performance of their duty. Why is it preferential treatment to receive equal treatment?

You have a very distorted view of the world.

I can't serve in the military due to disability. A mental one, assuredly.

IIRC you have a hearing disability. This makes sense to forbid such soldiers -- if you can't hear orders all the time, you're not that much use in uniform.

This is a terrible comparison for a few obvious reasons -- Gays are allowed to serve, they just have to keep in the closet the whole time. People with hearing disabilities can't do this, for obvious reasons. There is a physical and practical reasons for this "ban".

On the other hand, gays can be (and are) physically competent soldiers.

[Freeptube]

If he had a female partner (but not official, say a girlfriend) in a similar situation, would he have been able to go see her without going AWOL? It depends on the needs of the command. If you are deployed, then no.

Yes The expert speaks. No, they wouldn't. You are only assured special liberty for immediate family members, and then it depends on the type of surgery, remember that military members are not sent back home for child births. In addition that just means they will make every reasonable effort, you can't always get back in time for immediate medical emergencies but they will get you back as soon as possible. Planes and ships only move so fast. We sent several sailors home the last time out.

Without having seen the show, I am not so sure what the level of the relationship was, but as Asher describes it seems to have been a marriage level relatiohship which means that they were denied the same privelage a straight couple would have because they obviouly can't get married to qualify as immediate family.

The problem is that there's no difference between what DADT and pre-DADT, because the military continues to "ask" in spite of the policy against it and interprets "tell" to include being told by a third party The above statement is absolutely false. In fact, the training on this policy that is mandatory for all hands every year (I just had it last week) goes out of its way to make it clear the above is not the case.

There are only three things that will get you discharged, and then only if it is in the interests of the military (they don't have to discharge you).

1.) Admission.
2.) Homosexual acts (this means sex only)
3.) Marriage or attempted marriage.

You can be as campy (or whatever other steriotypical gay behavior you think the steriotypical right-wing zealot might vidictively report) as you want and nothing official will come of it.

[Clolmemaexata]

Being an officer in the army, I have a lot of power over if a Soldier can take off time due to any number of things.
My unit is about to deploy, so this makes it even more relevant.

If it was a girlfriend, then no, he couldn't stay behind.

Same for a close friend.

For fiancees, it would really depend on the relationship.

For wives or immediate family members, these people would be put on the "trail" party, which would give them maybe three or four weeks at most.

Furthermore....

In the month and a half before you deploy, there really isn't much to do. Most of your vehicles and equipment is on a ship. Presuming the Soldier is deployable and has current qualifications and whatnot, I wouldn't have a problem giving half-days to anyone with a good reason (like seeing a dying friend) as long as the Soldier isn't a **** bag and still needs help getting his **** together.

[Acciblyfluila]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That of course is not what the training is doing. You probably find it pathetic regardless, but no reason to misscharacterize it. So how is training that tells you not to have sex with other males not telling people how to avoid being gay.

[casinobonusese]

My brother said that in basic even admission wasn't enough to get you out. It pretty much had to be explicit sex...

This was back in 2000 or 1999 though.

JM