The Efficacy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[afallan]

Pretty good article on the topic:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf

afallan

[Hollis]

Drawing a comparison with segregation is a poor comparison. IMHO.

The Military is not in the *** industry, so as far as a person ****** desires is, it supposed to be kept out of the military operations. It doesn't matter if it is hetero****** behavior or homo****** behavior it has no place in the military.

DADT, works. During business hours, keep your hands to yourself. Among consenting adults in the privacy of their own place............. who cares.


There are also a number of gays who do not want to be "outed". DADT was never a utopian choice. It was a practical choice. Probably among close co-workers it was more open.

[commanding]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

[Lasse]

What is your fear during a firefight?
- Being shot
- Being touched in a ****** way by a fellow same-*** soldier?

I'm sorry, I can't see any harm with gay soldiers, no matter if they are secretly gay or openly gay. IMO if the person is gay, it's better to tell "everyone" upfront, rather than having them find out and start the whole rumor mill at his\hers base.

[little icebear]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that.

I bet if a WW2 veteran had cheated on his age to enlist, he would be a brave hero in your eyes and you certainly would´t bitch about benefits he derives...


To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

And to me your attitude is not far from the attitude of those guys our millitary is currently fighting in Afghanistan.

[happyslapper]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

My goodness, how gracious of the US Gov't to extend equal benefits to a homo******.

:roll:

''Land of the Free''
gotta love it...

[Hollis]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.


Your post says more about you that the other guy. What does it matter? Again the military is not in the *** industry, one's *** has nothing to do with anything the military does and your failing to see that this person served honorably.

[timetraveller]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

You are a prized tit ,,

BFD is he was Gay ,

He served with distinction something you still can't acknowedge because of your blatent ignorance of that fact and further more you slander him when he is not here to defend himself ethier

What a coward you are and further more you wouldn't have the baws to say to his except on a website speaks volumes of your character ..

[Enders]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

So his 20+ years of service earned him nothing? For not discussing something that would have seen him kicked out of something he probably loved doing? (That's an assumption, but if you're doing it for 20+ years you prolly at least like it a little).

I think as long as the other people beside me can drag my ass out of danger, I don't care if they're gay or straight, or female.

[commanding]

13) The prohibition against homo****** conduct is a
longstanding element of military law that continues to be
necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that
exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create
an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of
morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homo****** acts
would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of
morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
essence of military capability.
(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated
from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and
approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such
regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or
solicited another to engage in a homo****** act or acts unless
there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with
procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has
demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and
customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to
recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force,
coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the
member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent
with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline,
good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage
in homo****** acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homo******
or bi******, or words to that effect, unless there is a further
finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set
forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that
he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,
has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homo******
acts.

link: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/37/654

Well I still find his actions to be defrauding the US government, and a friend I know who is an active duty full bird colonel who knows him agrees with me. If I am wrong in your eyes, so be it.

[afallan]

Times are changing and to be an effective force, the military has to change as well. I know of several homo******s and or at least suspect them to be, ever since I joined and they all seem to be good people. They're all dedicated and put the mission first. I've never seen their personal lives affect their performance.

[Niels]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.
OH MY LORD. I am disgusted. Deport him to a homo****** re-education camp. How DARE he serve his country for 20 plus years and receive government benefits, all the while being possessed by the Gay demon. Truly horrific.

[hank2222]

i joined in the 70s time frame for we all knew who was little light in the loafs typles..


little bit of history here for the people that did not know this ..half of General Eisenhower female staff was gay ..did you know that ,, he knew it and keep it to himself on the matter ..when told about the problem with gay women in is command he was told that half the women where gay under is command his comment was to get rid of them ..when one of the sergants that work around told him this....that when the female first sergant told them if you get rid of half the staff.. you will lose me and a lot more of the top female staff around the headquaters..

she told him that under my section of females ..there is no getting pregnant and getting set home ..or problems with male soldiers etc etc..she said they show up and do there job and keep there mouth shut about things and all around good soldiers she told him..

he said ok and keep the info to himself..and never spoke about it again..

do you think that over half the guys in the military broke some form of the rules by the way thy acted towards women when over seas ..

give me a break ..they join keep there mouth shut about the way they go and they bleed red just like me and you ..and they have died for this county ..so get off the high horse about them beening in the military ..there here and they are going to stay ..

[JJC]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.
Which part of the DADT in his 20 years did he violate? DADT doesn't prohibit gays from joining, it only wants them to hide it. You should be grateful that he served for 20 years even though he is second class citizen in the U.S.

[martinexsquaddie]

even the britsh army allows gays to serve openly.
There have always been gays in every military since forever get over yourself he served leave him alone.

[happyslapper]

The Military is not in the *** industry, so as far as a person ****** desires is, it supposed to be kept out of the military operations. It doesn't matter if it is hetero****** behavior or homo****** behavior it has no place in the military.

DADT, works. During business hours, keep your hands to yourself. Among consenting adults in the privacy of their own place............. who cares.




I completely agree. But do you not feel that those sentiments completely negate the need for a DADT policy? Why have something in place which is grossly immoral, goes against the grain of the country's constitution, and against what the US Military is supposedly fighting for. Why bother?

[Holycrusader]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

Wow... With all respect, I must disagree.

[Goldfishsoldier]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.

Your just a grumpy old man Commanding.:)

[Noons86]

I know of a man who is retired after 20 plus years in the US army and he is a homo******. He continues to derive benefits from the US govt. via medical benefits, and many other benefits, all based on his service in the military which was done in violation of the ban on homo******s in the military. This bothers me, to see someone who served under pretense of being straight and continues to reap benefits based on that. To me it is not far from the guys who claim to have been Navy seals or who claim to have been decorated with the MOH, etc.


By "served under the pretenses of being straight" what does that mean? Did he lie about anything? Did he make up stories about having a girlfriend? Did he bring a friend to formal events who pretended to be his girlfriend?

It seems that unless this kind of thing was going on, he wasn't serving under the pretense of being straight at all. He was complying perfectly with DADT rules.

What's the difference between an open homo****** and a closet homo******? One is more easily blackmailed.

[afallan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLJXPVZywY&feature=player_embedded#

[HGRazorR]

Your just a grumpy old man Commanding.:)

Don't forget jacknola and his theory of the homo****** agenda hahaha :hug:

[marlowwe]

Drawing a comparison with segregation is a poor comparison. IMHO.

The Military is not in the *** industry, so as far as a person ****** desires is, it supposed to be kept out of the military operations. It doesn't matter if it is hetero****** behavior or homo****** behavior it has no place in the military.

DADT, works. During business hours, keep your hands to yourself. Among consenting adults in the privacy of their own place............. who cares.


There are also a number of gays who do not want to be "outed". DADT was never a utopian choice. It was a practical choice. Probably among close co-workers it was more open.


What you say would be true only if homo******s had always been treated equally and with as much respect as a hetero****** throughout the history of the United States. One would have to be pretty close-minded not to realize that homo******s today are widely perceived in a negative way and having a policy such as DADT keeps people from thinking of homo******s as the same as anyone else in the context of serving in the military..

[KilledByAGirl]

Your just a grumpy old man Commanding.:)

lol, I was going to say the same thing. And so is the "full bird Colonel" you mentioned, commanding.

As if rank is even relative in this :roll:

In fact, commanding, your first post was so ridiculous that I thought you must be being sarcastic.

[Kit]

Could you all get off commanding's balls? The point he's trying to make is that the man KNEW he was homo******, continued being a homo****** while serving, and is now receiving benefits as if he wasn't. In a parallel universe, that man could have been caught with his boyfriend, and dishonorably discharged. In the Air Force, one of our core values is "Integrity first". That man lied to the military, that he would not practice homo******ity. That's what's bothering commanding. It wasn't "homophobia" fueling the frustration. Rules are rules, don't bend or break them, because if you're caught, they will break you.

But I do agree that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to go. Because that man that commanding was talking about, did serve his country and served it well, even though he lied about his lifestyle. In fact there are probably thousands in the military right now who're serving in the closet. They want to serve, despite that they're told their lifestyle is against regulations.
But you will find people in the military with all sorts of lifestyles. You'll find men and women who have one-night stands. You'll find men and women who've done threesomes. You'll find men and women who like to go to strip clubs. So I'm not sure how not allowing homo******s is adding or subtracting to the professional appearance of the military, since homo******ity is practiced in private anyway, like these other hetero****** lifestyles.

All of our men should serve openly and honestly.

[marlowwe]

Could you all get off commanding's balls? The point he's trying to make is that the man KNEW he was homo******, continued being a homo****** while serving, and is now receiving benefits as if he wasn't. In a parallel universe, that man could have been caught with his boyfriend, and dishonorably discharged. In the Air Force, one of our core values is "Integrity first". That man lied to the military, that he would not practice homo******ity. That's what's bothering commanding. It wasn't "homophobia" fueling the frustration. Rules are rules, don't bend or break them, because if you're caught, they will break you.


If the military instituted a rule that said African Americans cannot join the military and receive benefits because they would pose "an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion" - you would be O.K. with that right? Rules are rules!

Having a homophobic military should not exclude you from serving your country, even if that means breaking rules.

[Hollis]

You'd have to be pretty close-minded not to realize that homo******s today are widely perceived in a negative way and having a policy such as DADT keeps people of thinking of homo******s as the same as anyone else in the context of serving in the military..



Let keep insults out of the discussion.

Probably among friends, co-workers, it is not a issue or a issue that has been dealt with. It is because of the negative way homo******s are perceived, along with type A studs who will react before thinking that DADT offers a way homo****** can serve while reducing some of the violence that could be inflected on them. I don't know if it should be reversed and open tolerance should be the way to go. It is/was a step in the right direction, IMHO. Personally I could less if a person is a homo******. There are other human traits that I consider something to be concerned about rather than someone's ****** preference.

[marlowwe]

Probably among friends, co-workers, it is not a issue or a issue that has been dealt with. It is because of the negative way homo******s are perceived, along with type A studs who will react before thinking that DADT offers a way homo****** can serve while reducing some of the violence that could be inflected on them.

Hiding one's homo******ity in order to prevent a possible act of violence is not good for morale or team cohesion. Why should anyone have to pretend they are a hetero****** for fear of retribution from their comrades? I don't think that's the kind of atmosphere the American military wants to foster among their troops.

PS: I wasn't referring to you in my post that you quoted, I meant 'you' as anyone thinking about this matter. I've edited the post for clarification.

[Kit]

If the military instituted a rule that said African Americans cannot join the military and receive benefits because they would pose "an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion" - you would be O.K. with that right? Rules are rules!

Having a homophobic military should not exclude you from serving your country, even if that means breaking rules.

If that rule was there, I would enforce it. But that doesn't mean I would like it. If you don't like a rule, take charge and change it, legally. The military is the wrong place to practice civil disobedience.

You can't really conceal being African American. But you can conceal homo******ity. That's a trait that you discover about a person as you get to know them. So, lets take a hypothetical real world situation: I'm an officer, and I just discovered one of my NCOs is gay. Say I saw him at a local football game holding hands with another man, and being obviously affectionate. What will I do?

"Don't ask don't tell" was founded based on the assumption that "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." If this NCO is not damaging order and discipline in my unit, not risking the safety of my men or himself, and is keeping his homo******ity concealed in the work environment, I'm willing to overlook it. If he is caught by someone else, I can play dumb about it.

But if he is being open with his ******ity in the work environment, I'm directly accountable for that, and I would be forced to remove him. Or, if somebody informed me that he was a homo******, I would be obligated to start an investigation.

[T-5 Killer]

even the britsh army allows gays to serve openly.
There have always been gays in every military since forever get over yourself he served leave him alone.

+1 The Europeans have had no issues with openly gay people serving. I don't see why it has to be an issue in the US, if you want to serve your country you should be allowed to PERIOD.

[Hollis]

Hiding one's homo******ity in order to prevent a possible act of violence is good for morale or team cohesion. Why should anyone have to pretend they are a hetero****** for fear of retribution from their comrades? I don't think that's the kind of atmosphere the American military wants to foster among their troops.




Pretend what, the military is not the a *** industry. One does not go around having *** in public.

Are you in the military? Have you ever been in the Military? Do you know what Professional means?

[marlowwe]

If that rule was there, I would enforce it. But that doesn't mean I would like it. If you don't like a rule, take charge and change it, legally. The military is the wrong place to practice civil disobedience.


I guess we'll have to disagree then. I suppose we could look at a parallel case during the Nuremburg trials where German soldiers were not given immunity from prosecution when they tried justifying their actions with "But my superior told me to do it!". If someone or something issues an order or decree that is blatantly wrong then you are well within your right to disobey such an order or rule.



You can't really conceal being African American. But you can conceal homo******ity. That's a trait that you discover about a person as you get to know them. So, lets take a real world situation: I'm an officer, and I just discovered one of my NCOs is gay. Say I saw him at a local football game holding hands with another man, and being obviously affectionate. What will I do?

"Don't ask don't tell" was founded based on the assumption that "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." If this NCO is not damaging order and discipline in my unit, risking the safety of my men or himself, and is keeping his homo******ity concealed in the work environment, I'm willing to overlook it. If he is caught by someone else, I can play dumb about it.

But if he is being open with his ******ity in the work environment, I'm directly accountable for that, and I would be forced to remove him.

I don't see how being homo****** and posing a risk to discipline and unit cohesion are in any way related. You would enforce discipline within your unit whether your subordinates were gay, black, or anything else - them being a homo****** should not exclude them as being different in any way.

[Hollis]

I don't see how being homo****** and posing a risk to discipline and unit cohesion are in any way related. You would enforce discipline within your unit whether your subordinates were gay, black, or anything else - them being a homo****** should not exclude them as being different in any way.


It would be easier to explain, if you lived in the states and was in the military. This is a social issue the US has not ahead of the curve on. DADT was a step forward. At the time I think everyone knew it was going to go all the way and end the restrictions on being homo****** and being in the military.

Homo******ity is a very heated issue in the states, like the abortion issues. When something thing gets that politically heated it polarizes and people take extreme positions. Partisan politics in the states, tend to move the US backwards.

DADT will eventually end, a matter of time. One can force it, but part of the idea of positive social change is to do it the less painful way. Compared to 50 years ago, this is still a giant leap forwards. For some way too much too soon, for others not enough. I would personally not want to let the politicans come up with a solution.

[marlowwe]

Pretend what, the military is not the a *** industry. One does not go around having *** in public.

Are you in the military? Have you ever been in the Military? Do you know what Professional means?

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say. I know the military is not the *** industry - however someone's ******ity might become a topic of discussion because, you know, soldiers have lives outside of combat. They go out for drinks together, barracks chat etc... If during this time someone 'hid their homo******ity' and it somehow became known that they were a homo****** then it would most likely affect that person in a negative way. Having DADT in place places homo******s in that 'other' category, meaning being a homo****** is somehow undesirable in a military environment. It obviously isn't and it's no one's business anyway.

[plato]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/FKOTX0OmlNk

[Kit]

I guess we'll have to disagree then. I suppose we could look at a parallel case during the Nuremburg trials where German soldiers were not given immunity from prosecution when they tried justifying their actions with "But my superior told me to do it!". If someone or something issues an order or decree that is blatantly wrong then you are well within your right to disobey such an order or rule.
Godwin's Law proven again.

Kicking people out of the military is hardly a crime against humanity compared to gassing thousands of Jews.
If I was ordered to put my gay NCO in front of the firing squad, I joined the wrong army.




I don't see how being homo****** and posing a risk to discipline and unit cohesion are in any way related. You would enforce discipline within your unit whether your subordinates were gay, black, or anything else - them being a homo****** should not exclude them as being different in any way.

Well... yeah. That's what I'm getting at. I don't think that homo******ity poses any risk to a unit. Thus why I won't tell on him if I ran into him with his boyfriend during afterhours. You can keep those situations hush-hush.

But again. If he presents his homo******ity in the work environment, AS HIS SUPERIOR, I AM ACCOUNTABLE. So if somebody higher in the chain-of-command discovers his homo******ity and also discovers that I blatantly overlooked it, that will slow down my career.

[marlowwe]

DADT will eventually end, a matter of time. One can force it, but part of the idea of positive social change is to do it the less painful way. Compared to 50 years ago, this is still a giant leap forwards. For some way too much too soon, for others not enough. I would personally not want to let the politicans come up with a solution.

Whichever way you do it, the military's perception of homo******s will partly be a reflection of how much it cares about its men in women in uniform and those that put their lives on the line for their country.

[gaijinsamurai]

It is my opinion that allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military WILL hurt morale. But, it's something that we, as a society, need to deal with. In time, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines will get over their homophobia, just like I did.

The military should still prohibit ****** relations between military personnel within the same unit, whether they be hetero or gay.

There was a time when I was totally against allowing homo******s in the military, but the more I've thought about it, it's really not a big deal, and those who choose to dwell on other peoples' ****** orientation probably need to grow up and get a life.

[marlowwe]

Kicking people out of the military is hardly a crime against humanity compared to gassing thousands of Jews.
If I was ordered to put my gay NCO in front of the firing squad, I joined the wrong army.


Who said anything about crimes against humanity or the gassing of Jews? Instances where Nazis renounced responsibility for their actions due to the orders of their superiors covered a wide range of non-lethal cases, similar to this one.




But again. If he presents his homo******ity in the work environment, AS HIS SUPERIOR, I AM ACCOUNTABLE. So if somebody higher in the chain-of-command discovers his homo******ity and also discovers that I blatantly overlooked it, that will slow down my career.

You'll have to define "present". Surely you don't think homo******s in the military go around after hours naked, 'prodding' their helpless sleeping comrades, do you? If by 'present', you mean that they simply mention that they are gay then there's no reason for you or anyone else to pursue any action that would inhibit their or your career.

[Kit]

Who said anything about crimes against humanity or the gassing of Jews? Instances where Nazis renounced responsibility for their actions due to the orders of their superiors covered a wide range of non-lethal cases, similar to this one.
Comparing American anti-gay policy to Nazi Germany is just being dramatic. The Nazis had a much different agenda to what the American military has.


You'll have to define "present". Surely you don't think homo******s in the military go around after hours naked, 'prodding' their helpless sleeping comrades, do you?
Surely I don't. But if they do, that's plainly ****** harassment. I think it's obvious how our laws feel about that.


If by 'present', you mean that they simply mention that they are gay then there's no reason for you or anyone else to pursue any action that would inhibit their or your career.

US CODE: TITLE 10 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10.html) > Subtitle A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A.html) > PART II (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II.html) > CHAPTER 37 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_37.html) > § 654
b.A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
2. That the member has stated that he or she is a homo****** or bi******, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homo****** acts.

According to Federal Law, I'll have to call up an investigation.

[marlowwe]

Comparing American anti-gay policy to Nazi Germany is just being dramatic. The Nazis had a much different agenda to what the American military has.


Listen, my point had nothing to do with comparing America to Nazi Germany. I merely wanted to show you that one shouldn't follow rules which are blatantly wrong, or this case discriminatory regardless of who issued them.



Surely I don't. But if they do, that's plainly ****** harassment. I think it's obvious how our laws feel about that.
All right..so there's no need for a DADT policy if we already have a law that punishes individuals that engage in ****** harassment.




US CODE: TITLE 10 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10.html) > Subtitle A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A.html) > PART II (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II.html) > CHAPTER 37 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_37.html) > § 654
b.A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
2. That the member has stated that he or she is a homo****** or bi******, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homo****** acts.

According to Federal Law, I'll have to call up an investigation.I meant that there should be no reason for you or anyone else to inhibit their career - meaning the DADT policy should be discarded...

[HGRazorR]

The military should still prohibit ****** relations between military personnel within the same unit, whether they be hetero or gay.



Yup, I've seen more hetero relationships cause more damage to a unit's morale then a homo****** in the midst of a unit.

[11 Bravo]

Yup, I've seen more hetero relationships cause more damage to a unit's morale then a homo****** in the midst of a unit.

You are a duplicitous Phuccstick with such drivel. I'd rather have two hetero****** couples have problems outside the "unit" than a single queer one inside .Don't take your job/mission home.

[HGRazorR]

You are a duplicitous Phuccstick with such drivel. I'd rather have two hetero****** couples have problems outside the "unit" than a single queer one inside .Don't take your job/mission home.

What happened? He break your heart?

[Kit]

What happened? He break your heart?

rofl........

[Soldat_Américain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLJXPVZywY&feature=player_embedded#

Wow, that woman is such a bigot.

[Daft Ego]

The wonders of religion.

[profall]

People act like the moment they lift the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy there's going to be hordes of homo******s lining up outside the recruiting office ready to enlist.

It's not going to be like that. I doubt very little gays want to join the military, it's going to be something talked and discussed about for months and months, millions of dollars will be raised etc... to advertise and lobby to promote the ban of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and it would be an over-estimate to say the Military may get an extra 500 recruits that join just because they lifted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.