Repeal of Military Gay Ban Clears Final Senate Hurdle Before Passage

Sudden Impact:

But it’s not just militant homosexuals who want this.

True enough. It’s the incredibly politically correct who are afraid to admit, even to themselves, why it’s such a bad idea.

[QUOTE=2cent;4180431. ]Nonsence. Coercion and brainwhashing has done a fantasitc job of it.

  1. Huh? :confused: So-called ‘straights’ in the education profession and almost every other profession under the earth have consistantly proved to be SO politically correct that they can’t help BUT proliferate the gay agenda.

  2. What story? The one in this article, or the fact that a previously very heterosexual male was coherced by his NCO?

  3. Who ever said he didn’t play a role? He obviously did. What’s your point?[/QUOTE]

  4. :rofl:

  5. You’re generally the ones who make gay babies. Gay people don’t usually have biological children at all, and second-gen gay kids are extremely rare.

  6. The second one, and lol at “previously heterosexual male”. XD

  7. You’re not blaming him. You’re only blaming his sex partner. If he didn’t coerce the man, they share the blame in equal parts. And I still have no idea why you brought this up; it’s totally irrelevant. =/

I don’t really have an opinion on gays in the military. =/ I’m torn on it, like abortion. We’ll never know unless we try it, though. But of course you don’t want to try it in a way that could hurt the military, either. I wish they would run a small-scale, single-blind scientific study for a few years comparing the efficiency of different units where open homosexuality is tolerated, where “closed” homosexuality is tolerated (i.e. DADT), and where no homosexuality at all is tolerated. But I suppose no matter what the conclusion reached, someone would still scream about it being rigged. sigh

Laugh all you like. I’ve seen enough of it in my lifetime to make a person PUKE, rather than laugh. But if you think it’s funny, laugh your silly head off. Just please don’t try to tell somebody who’s 40 years older than you are that it hasn’t been going on for 40 years.

  1. You’re generally the ones who make gay babies.

That’s about the most infantile thing I think I’ve ever heard you say.

Gay people don’t usually have biological children at all,

Bwhahahaha!!! Just what world did YOU grow up in?

and second-gen gay kids are extremely rare.
If gay people don’t usually have biological children, then how can there be second-generation ones?

[quote[3. The second one, and lol at “previously heterosexual male”. XD[/quote]
Again, I’m so glad YOU can laugh. I, otoh, didn’t find his heart-broken wife and three children all that thrilled about it, though.

re not blaming him. You’re only blaming his sex partner. If he didn’t coerce the man, they share the blame in equal parts. And I still have no idea why you brought this up; it’s totally irrelevant. =/

Don’t put words in my mouth. There is nothing more aggravating. I never SAID he didn’t play a part or wasn’t to blame. But he WAS young, under the influence of a CAMANDING OFFICER (ahem), and probably as impressionable as you are.

WHAT??? :freaked: We’ll never know about ABORTION unless we try it???
And if it’s gays serving in the military that you’re referring to not knowing about until we try, believe me, they’ve been serving, AFAIK, at LEAST since the '60’s. IOW, I believe they’ve ‘tried it’. Hasn’t worked out so well yet. Just how many times do you want them to continue trying it?

But of course you don’t want to try it in a way that could hurt the military, either. I wish they would run a small-scale, single-blind scientific study for a few years comparing the efficiency of different units where open homosexuality is tolerated, where “closed” homosexuality is tolerated (i.e. DADT), and where no homosexuality at all is tolerated. But I suppose no matter what the conclusion reached, someone would still scream about it being rigged. sigh

You’d be at the top of my list for people most likely to scream ‘rigged’.

  1. snort Even the gay-to-straight conversion therapy organizations admit being gay isn’t a choice. They only disagree on the cause. That myth has been so thoroughly busted it’s impossible to even take someone seriously if they believe it.
  2. You don’t think the majority of homosexuals have heterosexual parents?
  3. It’s true. Something like 25% of same-sex COUPLES are raising biological children, and when you only count by individuals the number drops dramatically.
  4. You must not understand the meaning of the word “usually”.
  5. I don’t think it’s funny he cheated on his wife. I think it’s funny you’re describing him as “previously heterosexual”.
  6. You only had harsh words for the officer, not the husband. BTW: “commanding”. =)
  1. No! I was talking about DADT.
  2. Did you completely miss the experiment I outlined? DADT was put in place during the Clinton administration, and before that homosexuality was completely banned, so no, they have not “tried it”. There have always been gay men in the military and there always will be - it’s not something that can be weeded out, since determining its existence currently depends 100% on the cooperation of the person involved. What we’re looking for is the best way of managing it. To do that, you need to objectively test all the methods of dealing with it and adopt the method that works best.
  3. Really? You think so? That’s funny, considering I don’t even support gays serving openly with straights in the military. =P I find you a much more likely candidate for the position of screamer, seeing as how you’re obviously not interested in finding which method works best, but already have your mind made up.

This is the sad truth people ignore when quoting polling results.

ONLY those in the military or veterans can speak to the issue AND the Pentagon did a very poor job of investigating military opinions and totally IGNORED veterans.

[SIZE=“2”]The leader of the nation’s largest veterans’ service organization expressed alarm over this latest effort to swiftly overturn the controversial law.

“One must ask, ‘What’s the rush?’,” said American Legion National Commander Jimmie L. Foster. [SIZE=“3”]**“And why should this matter of social policy take precedence over the far more critical matter of national security?” **[/SIZE]

Good questions.

Why does a relatively small number of people get to decide America’s national security ???

.[/SIZE]

Agreed, pretty much.

you watch. There will be such flambuoyant homos joining which will mean a change in uniforms and regulations and everything else. Then will come the suits because some homo doesn’t feel comfy or he/she/it doesn’t want to obey this or that, then living together on base and money issues. Back door…excuse the pun into legalizing marriage for these perverts.

  1. The militant homosexuals will attempt to have a position of superiority of the heterosexual population just like they do in schools. [SIZE=“3”]The will demand and receive special treatment and will have a shield that protects them from negative evaluations and disciplinary action.[/SIZE]

This is the biggest concern. “The superior officer made me clean the head (bathroom) because I’m gay…:crybaby:”

.

This is one reason there was little trouble with gays in the military before DADT - one little misstep, and you’re out. In many cases, all that needed to happen was to expose a person as a homosexual, and the standard practice was immediate discharge. If they really wanted to serve, they did their very best to stay in the closet, and keep their sexual preference locked in there.

raises eyebrows And you don’t see a problem with this policy?

Say I’m in the military, and I have a bunkmate, Susan. Well, one night, Susan and I get into an argument about whose mother bakes the nicest cookies, and I come away from it pretty steamed at her. So I tell my superior that she’s gay. She denies it, but I insist. Who should the superior believe?

That would not be enough to cause discharge.

The policy bans military recruiters or authorities from asking someone about his or her sexual orientation, but it also prohibits a service member from [SIZE=“3”]revealing if he or she is gay.[/SIZE]

So IF the person in question does NOT reveal that she is gay, nothing happens.

.

This was the strict discharge policy I was talking about, not DADT.

Enlistment and, more importantly, retaining good soldiers, will also go down.
This is not my opinion. It’s what I’ve heard miltary personel say over and over again.
I also heard a retired JAG officer state that it’s going to make discharging for ‘conduct unbecoming an officer’ VERY difficult. According the the USMCJ, sex is verbotun, and cause for dismissal. And, yes, that’s whether it’s a woman and a man, or a guy and a guy, or a woman and a woman. This new policy is going to make JAG’s jobs all the more difficult because the line needed to be crossed to prove someone was having sex is going to get very fuzzy. I suppose we’re going to have to go back to defining “is” again. :rolleyes:
Bottom line, it’s going to make keeping discipline more difficult, and without discipline, we have no military.
Hey, if someone who happens to be gay wants to serve, is qualified, and keeps his sexual preferances to himself, go for it.
Start making demands for special treatment? You’re outa there!

Regardless what the mediablah is telling us as well as our estemmed honorable congressmen, the majority of our military does not want to serve along side pink lace pantied homos. Then you have idiots like this one:

Jimmy Carter: Americans Will Be Ready to Elect a Gay President ‘In The Near Future’ | CNSnews.com

jimmie carter…retard

This is interesting AND contrary to popular belief;

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

http://www.[SIZE=3]law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
[/SIZE]

Liberals in Congress just politicizing the military, and risking our national security for no reason.

.

I think we can be sure that it would have taken a lot stronger evidence than she-said-she-said. This is more than a non-judicial punishment issue; the U.C.M.J. would be invoked, and there would be a court martial if there was substantial evidence. It wouldn’t have on the basis of just one claim, unless it came from an officer (I never cared for that “officer and a gentleman” concept of weighing testimonies; but officers are a far and away the minority in the military).

Even if it didn’t get anyone discharged, can you imagine the bad blood it would cause? The entire unit would have to take sides. Of course, I suppose that isn’t unique to this sort of conflict, but still…one of the main arguments against it is that it would disrupt troop cohesiveness, so it is relevant.