"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" REPEALED!

[3113]

At fucking last!

In a historic victory for the military, the Senate Dem leadership, the White House, and the civil rights of embattled gay and lesbian service-members -- and in a massive rebuke to John McCain, Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate minority's efforts to maintain legalized discrimination in defiance of common sense and decency -- the Senate just cast a key vote in favor of the stand-alone bill to repeal don't ask don't tell.

I thought I should post a separate thread on this as the news was getting lost there at the end of the "gays in the military" thread.

I'm relieved and glad they finally did away with DADT--yet pissed that it took them so long to do it, and that they destroyed/upset so many lives while they argued and played politics with it.

I hope that every gay member of the military who was discharged under it but wanted to continue serving can now go back into the military if they wish. And I'm glad that every gay member now serving can start to serve openly without fear of being discharged for nothing more than sexual orientation. We, as a country, should really be ashamed of maintaining this pointless farce for so long, especially after so many other countries showed us there was no point in holding onto it.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yay!!!

At fucking last!



I thought I should post a separate thread on this as the news was getting lost there at the end of the "gays in the military" thread.

I'm relieved and glad they finally did away with DADT--yet pissed that it took them so long to do it, and that they destroyed/upset so many lives while they argued and played politics with it.

I hope that every gay member of the military who was discharged under it but wanted to continue serving can now go back into the military if they wish. And I'm glad that every gay member now serving can start to serve openly without fear of being discharged for nothing more than sexual orientation. We, as a country, should really be ashamed of maintaining this pointless farce for so long, especially after so many other countries showed us there was no point in holding onto it.

Yup. Doing away with DADT was a good start. Next is doing away with DOMA and enacting ENDA.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You guys keep ignoring the recent election. The Democrats simply pounded one more nail in their coffin for 2012. The voters made it clear they want jobs and we're screwing around with faggots.

 

[theravenfox]

Yay! Welcome to the 21st century, America! It's about time. I wish that we could give retroactive compensation to all the 13,500 military members who were discharged because of DADT.

Now, I hope they pass the DREAM Act and the START Treaty before Christmas. C'mon Legislature...let's get going!

 

[Pure]

the vote

it's a historic vote.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...vote-Senate-moves-to-end-don-t-ask-don-t-tell

Six Republicans – Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and George Voinovich of Ohio – broke with their party to give Democrats the votes needed to break a GOP filibuster. The measure subsequently passed, 65 to 31. Sens. John Ensign (R) of Nevada and Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina also joined Democrats on the final vote.

--
65 votes is a pretty decisive majority, and two new-to-senate Republicans, Brown and Kirk are among those breaking ranks.

this particular issue would appear settled, depending on Obama and Gates 'certififying' that the military units are ready.

it might be noted that 'gays in military, openly' is the existing policy in most of the 'advanced' world--e.g. France, Israel. etc.

 

[wet_special]

Political Correctness Strikes Again

Soldiers are supposed to be strong, train, and make daily, constant sacrifices. There is a masculine warrior ethos that goes along with that. Perhaps one of those sacrifices includes not advertising your sexual orientation to the detriment of your unit. Eh, who knows. It could all be fine in the end, but it's an experiment. Lots of militaries in the advanced world are demotivated and lack the will to fight effectively. Israel may be the exception as they are in a constant struggle against an immediate threat and it's a simple question of numbers. We could learn something from them.

Females in the military are a problem. Why bother giving them fitness tests, seems to me they have no point being in the military, but instead they're constantly leapfrogging over males in promotion boards because of one thing - their genitalia is politically protected.

Then there is the widespread pregnancy problem the DoD is trying to keep hush-hush. Overall, females do not represent the aforementioned masculine ethos, particularly those that get knocked up during their first term. But wow, look at all those benefits that come their way when they do. Aww. It's only fair, right?

Now, thanks to the repeal, the masculine warrior ethos must be asked to accommodate homosexual males. It's another blow to the military culture, fine, but one you all are happy to inflict. They sacrifice, you ask for more, laughing and jeering at anyone who says this is not motivated by concerns for defense or security, it's merely political correctness.

Those of you who feel that this is so wonderful and great, isn't it special how this had to be passed on a Saturday by a lame duck congress before they lose the votes to do so, under effective cover of darkness on the last shopping weekend before Christmas. What a grand statement about the righteousness of your cause that this all makes.

It's Historic.

Celebrate.

A toast. Here's to social experimentation. Let's hope our military stays motivated and effective despite this new burden. I hope I don't have to go to the sensitivity training classes before I get out .. yeah, not likely. The indoctrination begins in January. Whee.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Soldiers are supposed to be strong, train, and make daily, constant sacrifices. There is a masculine warrior ethos that goes along with that. Perhaps one of those sacrifices includes not advertising your sexual orientation to the detriment of your unit. Eh, who knows. It could all be fine in the end, but it's an experiment. Lots of militaries in the advanced world are demotivated and lack the will to fight effectively. Israel may be the exception as they are in a constant struggle against an immediate threat and it's a simple question of numbers. We could learn something from them.

Females in the military are a problem. Why bother giving them fitness tests, seems to me they have no point being in the military, but instead they're constantly leapfrogging over males in promotion boards because of one thing - their genitalia is politically protected.

Then there is the widespread pregnancy problem the DoD is trying to keep hush-hush. Overall, females do not represent the aforementioned masculine ethos, particularly those that get knocked up during their first term. But wow, look at all those benefits that come their way when they do. Aww. It's only fair, right?

Now, thanks to the repeal, the masculine warrior ethos must be asked to accommodate homosexual males. It's another blow to the military culture, fine, but one you all are happy to inflict. They sacrifice, you ask for more, laughing and jeering at anyone who says this is not motivated by concerns for defense or security, it's merely political correctness.

Those of you who feel that this is so wonderful and great, isn't it special how this had to be passed on a Saturday by a lame duck congress before they lose the votes to do so, under effective cover of darkness on the last shopping weekend before Christmas. What a grand statement about the righteousness of your cause that this all makes.

It's Historic.

Celebrate.

A toast. Here's to social experimentation. Let's hope our military stays motivated and effective despite this new burden. I hope I don't have to go to the sensitivity training classes before I get out .. yeah, not likely. The indoctrination begins in January. Whee.

Spoken like a true war wimp civilian.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So glad to hear this this morning! Of course it isn't the end of the battle. But it's a decisive victory-- the more so because of the bipartisan voting pattern.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Soldiers are supposed to be strong, train, and make daily, constant sacrifices. There is a masculine warrior ethos that goes along with that. Perhaps one of those sacrifices includes not advertising your sexual orientation to the detriment of your unit. Eh, who knows. It could all be fine in the end, but it's an experiment. Lots of militaries in the advanced world are demotivated and lack the will to fight effectively. Israel may be the exception as they are in a constant struggle against an immediate threat and it's a simple question of numbers. We could learn something from them.

Females in the military are a problem. Why bother giving them fitness tests, seems to me they have no point being in the military, but instead they're constantly leapfrogging over males in promotion boards because of one thing - their genitalia is politically protected.

Then there is the widespread pregnancy problem the DoD is trying to keep hush-hush. Overall, females do not represent the aforementioned masculine ethos, particularly those that get knocked up during their first term. But wow, look at all those benefits that come their way when they do. Aww. It's only fair, right?

Now, thanks to the repeal, the masculine warrior ethos must be asked to accommodate homosexual males. It's another blow to the military culture, fine, but one you all are happy to inflict. They sacrifice, you ask for more, laughing and jeering at anyone who says this is not motivated by concerns for defense or security, it's merely political correctness.

Those of you who feel that this is so wonderful and great, isn't it special how this had to be passed on a Saturday by a lame duck congress before they lose the votes to do so, under effective cover of darkness on the last shopping weekend before Christmas. What a grand statement about the righteousness of your cause that this all makes.

It's Historic.

Celebrate.

A toast. Here's to social experimentation. Let's hope our military stays motivated and effective despite this new burden. I hope I don't have to go to the sensitivity training classes before I get out .. yeah, not likely. The indoctrination begins in January. Whee.

So finish your tour and get the fuck out if you don't like it. That is, if you are actually in service. You don't sound like you're able to deal with it anyway.

By the way: The same noise was made by white racists when confronted with integration way back in the day...........Like I said: Get the fuck out....you can't handle it......it's ok to be a non-hacker.....

 

[wet_special]

Spoken like a true war wimp civilian.

I'm not a civilian, and don't go parading your history of service.

 

[wet_special]

So finish your tour and get the fuck out if you don't like it. That is, if you are actually in service. You don't sound like you're able to deal with it anyway.

By the way: The same noise was made by white racists when confronted with integration way back in the day...........Like I said: Get the fuck out....you can't handle it......it's ok to be a non-hacker.....

This ain't about me, but gee don't you get angry when your true political motives are exposed. Who's looking out for the troops?

 

[mynameisben]

We, as a country, should really be ashamed of maintaining this pointless farce for so long, especially after so many other countries showed us there was no point in holding onto it.

We, as a country, have far more than this to be ashamed of, but your point is well taken. Still, if I could no longer depend on consistently sustained misguided puritanism, hypocrisy, and self-interest legislation, then there would be nothing left about my government to depend on.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This ain't about me, but gee don't you get angry when your true political motives are exposed. Who's looking out for the troops?

What kind of stupid question is that, and what does it have to do with you being called on your bullshit?

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[Awful Arthur]

Soldiers are supposed to be strong, train, and make daily, constant sacrifices. There is a masculine warrior ethos that goes along with that. Perhaps one of those sacrifices includes not advertising your sexual orientation to the detriment of your unit. Eh, who knows. It could all be fine in the end, but it's an experiment. Lots of militaries in the advanced world are demotivated and lack the will to fight effectively. Israel may be the exception as they are in a constant struggle against an immediate threat and it's a simple question of numbers. We could learn something from them.

Females in the military are a problem. Why bother giving them fitness tests, seems to me they have no point being in the military, but instead they're constantly leapfrogging over males in promotion boards because of one thing - their genitalia is politically protected.

Then there is the widespread pregnancy problem the DoD is trying to keep hush-hush. Overall, females do not represent the aforementioned masculine ethos, particularly those that get knocked up during their first term. But wow, look at all those benefits that come their way when they do. Aww. It's only fair, right?

Now, thanks to the repeal, the masculine warrior ethos must be asked to accommodate homosexual males. It's another blow to the military culture, fine, but one you all are happy to inflict. They sacrifice, you ask for more, laughing and jeering at anyone who says this is not motivated by concerns for defense or security, it's merely political correctness.

Those of you who feel that this is so wonderful and great, isn't it special how this had to be passed on a Saturday by a lame duck congress before they lose the votes to do so, under effective cover of darkness on the last shopping weekend before Christmas. What a grand statement about the righteousness of your cause that this all makes.

It's Historic.

Celebrate.

A toast. Here's to social experimentation. Let's hope our military stays motivated and effective despite this new burden. I hope I don't have to go to the sensitivity training classes before I get out .. yeah, not likely. The indoctrination begins in January. Whee.

Just exactly what are you? Ranger? Seal? Recon? If you aren't then the guys who are undoubtedly look down on you as a chicken-shit wimp who can't hack the real-man stuff--and a lot of those guys are gay as hell.

 

[amicus]

Please take notice that you have your 'political thread', with no objections, no name calling, no Porn Spamming, even though it is a controversial issue you still maintain that anyone who disagrees with you is something less than a caring, compassionate human being.

I am forcing myself to view and listen to CSPAN as they replay the Congressional debate on the issue, and I agree with WS, a lame duck Congress, in the dead of night, sneaking the legislation through and then scurrying away back into the dark.

Fortunately, my military serviced ended long ago, before these issues arose; even about women aboard naval warships, which, I personally would not have tolerated.

I also agree that 2012 will see a total rejection of this underhanded, phoney Congressional action that threatens the very nature of military service.

Amicus

 

[Carnevil9]

Personally, I think that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is good policy. Not just for the military, but for ALL of life!

I really, really don't care if you are gay. I don't care if you like to suck dicks or fuck your buddy in the asshole. If that makes you happy, FINE. I'm cool with that. Just please, please, DON'T FORCE ME TO HEAR ABOUT IT!!!

I promise, I won't ASK you if you are a faggot. Just promise in return that you won't TELL me about it. I really don't want to know. And I think most people feel the same way.

We all have our perversions. Some people like to screw chickens. Some like to have sex wearing a Little Bo Peep outfit. Some need Latex, or enemas, or nipple clamps. Some like to pretend they are fucking their Mommy. FINE!!! Do whatever you want to behind closed doors. Just keep it to yourselves and don't march down Main Street proclaiming how PROUD you are of your perversion! The rest of us really don't want to know......Carney

 

[Boxlicker101]

My father just turned 80 years young. Vietnam vet.

He is pleased with the repeal.

According to him, everyone always knew which soldiers were gay. A few couldn't deal but most never gave a fuck, as long as the "gay" soldiers did their jobs.

What's your issue? Are you afraid someone's gonna peek at your nekkid bits in the shower?

Grow up.

Are you really sure that your father and the men who served with him could always tell who was gay. If I were to say such a thing, I would probably be flamed so badly my computer screen would burst into flame, so I won't make that claim.

Another reason I won't make that claim is that it would not be true. With most men, you cannot look at him or hear him and really know his sexual orientation. However, there are some exceptions. There are some men who are known, derisively, as "flaming pansies." These are men who, because of their mannerisms, their style of speaking and their appearance, you know are gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, at least not in most instances.

However, such men, flaunting their homosexuality among a group of young men in close quarters, could be deleterious. Whether it will be when members of that group join the military remains to be seen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the repeal. I believe in equal opportunity, etc., but I can't help thinking how this might cause problems, especially in combat units. The majority of the military members allegedly expressed little or no problems anticipated when gay persons serve openly, but the majority of combat units did not like the idea. They just might have something there; none of us can really know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Fortunately, my military serviced ended long ago, before these issues arose; even about women aboard naval warships, which, I personally would not have tolerated.

And what could you have done about it? Stomped your foot and had a hissyfit?

I promise, I won't ASK you if you are a faggot. Just promise in return that you won't TELL me about it. I really don't want to know. And I think most people feel the same way.

You're right. I certainly feel the same way-- You should keep your hetero nature out of my face, and promise me that you won't tell me ALL about it, because I really don't want to hear it.
Put your picture of your wife in a private place, she is none of my business.

 

[amicus]

Carnevil....I think the societal damage being done by the gay community in schools and in the arts, films and television, are the most harmful aspects of the homosexual lifestyle; that, and the marriage and raising children portion of those who wish to be an open and contributing part of the community.

Heterosexual marriage and family is the glue that keeps our society orderly and expressive of the basic values of America. Destroy these, and the social order begins to deteriorate, as it has with unwanted children, single mother families and the chastizement of 'dead beat' dads who get trapped into a situation when seduced by a female looking for support but who does not want a traditional marriage.

There is often a backlash against Court or Legislatively imposed moral sanctions and it will not surprise me in the least if such a backlash turns violent and ugly.

All the Best....

amicus

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

Just exactly what are you? Ranger? Seal? Recon? If you aren't then the guys who are undoubtedly look down on you as a chicken-shit wimp who can't hack the real-man stuff--and a lot of those guys are gay as hell.

AA I would recommend you think before you type. Nether you or I know anything about the poster you just denigrated. One does not have to be in any of the Special Operations forces you mentioned to be a warrior. He could be an army specialist who has just finished his first combat tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. He could be a SSgt. who is getting ready for his 3rd combat tour. He could be a Marine Capt. who has led men in combat and has seen some of them die while he led them. All of them the pointy end of the spear. He could also be an E-3 supply clerk just expressing his opinion. No matter what, you don't know, you owe him an apology.

Since you brought up he subject of special operations the military survey indicated about 58% of special operators and army troops with combat experience, and 60% of Marines said repeal of DADT would be a problem.

25% of all troops said they would reconsider where to stay in the military or retire at the first available time. That could be one hell of a loss of military experience, combat experience, and leadership ability.

Assuming you believe the vote with your feet idea who will volunteer and where will we get them.

Go you believe GLBT people will step up? I sincerely doubt it. Some will of course but, in my opinion, not in near the numbers needed to replace those who leave.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Are you really sure that your father and the men who served with him could always tell who was gay. If I were to say such a thing, I would probably be flamed so badly my computer screen would burst into flame, so I won't make that claim.

Another reason I won't make that claim is that it would not be true. With most men, you cannot look at him or hear him and really know his sexual orientation. However, there are some exceptions. There are some men who are known, derisively, as "flaming pansies." These are men who, because of their mannerisms, their style of speaking and their appearance, you know are gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, at least not in most instances.

However, such men, flaunting their homosexuality among a group of young men in close quarters, could be deleterious. Whether it will be when members of that group join the military remains to be seen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the repeal. I believe in equal opportunity, etc., but I can't help thinking how this might cause problems, especially in combat units. The majority of the military members allegedly expressed little or no problems anticipated when gay persons serve openly, but the majority of combat units did not like the idea. They just might have something there; none of us can really know.

Box - you really don't have a clue.

If you mean I don't know the answer, you're right, and I said as much. But I don't believe you have any answers either. At least, you haven't provided any to me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Are you really sure that your father and the men who served with him could always tell who was gay. If I were to say such a thing, I would probably be flamed so badly my computer screen would burst into flame, so I won't make that claim.

Another reason I won't make that claim is that it would not be true. With most men, you cannot look at him or hear him and really know his sexual orientation. However, there are some exceptions. There are some men who are known, derisively, as "flaming pansies." These are men who, because of their mannerisms, their style of speaking and their appearance, you know are gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, at least not in most instances.

However, such men, flaunting their homosexuality among a group of young men in close quarters, could be deleterious. Whether it will be when members of that group join the military remains to be seen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the repeal. I believe in equal opportunity, etc., but I can't help thinking how this might cause problems, especially in combat units. The majority of the military members allegedly expressed little or no problems anticipated when gay persons serve openly, but the majority of combat units did not like the idea. They just might have something there; none of us can really know.




If you mean I don't know the answer, you're right, and I said as much. But I don't believe you have any answers either. At least, you haven't provided any to me.

LOL! .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Are you really sure that your father and the men who served with him could always tell who was gay. If I were to say such a thing, I would probably be flamed so badly my computer screen would burst into flame, so I won't make that claim.

Another reason I won't make that claim is that it would not be true. With most men, you cannot look at him or hear him and really know his sexual orientation. However, there are some exceptions. There are some men who are known, derisively, as "flaming pansies." These are men who, because of their mannerisms, their style of speaking and their appearance, you know are gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, at least not in most instances.

However, such men, flaunting their homosexuality among a group of young men in close quarters, could be deleterious. Whether it will be when members of that group join the military remains to be seen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the repeal. I believe in equal opportunity, etc., but I can't help thinking how this might cause problems, especially in combat units. The majority of the military members allegedly expressed little or no problems anticipated when gay persons serve openly, but the majority of combat units did not like the idea. They just might have something there; none of us can really know.




If you mean I don't know the answer, you're right, and I said as much. But I don't believe you have any answers either. At least, you haven't provided any to me.

Few people give a shit about sexual orientation, and those who do will ambush rather than confront; like liberal perfessers treat conservative colleagues. Flipping the coin, Gays will now litigate every instance of imagined discrimination by superiors.