Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[Vandy Vol]

And you checked where?  Last time I checked, you provided nothing on which to base your comments but the glib phrase (and attempt to score points) "last time I checked".   If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when it was flipped back on you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mongoloid

Main Entry: Mon·gol·oid
Pronunciation: \ˈmäŋ-gə-ˌlȯid\
Function: adjective
Date: 1868

1 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Asia and classified according to physical features (as the presence of an epicanthic fold)
2 often not capitalized usually offensive : of, relating to, or affected with Down syndrome

Because not all homosexuals are neither of Asian descent or afflicted with Down Syndrome or a related mental affliction, your application of "mongoloid" to homosexuals is uninformed and incorrect.

With all of the functioning gay people in this world, many of which who do much better for themselves than you and I, it's absolutely absurd for you to suggest that they are somehow mentally challenged or otherwise unable to decide for themselves whether they want to be "cured."  Sure, you can try to play it off and state that "mongoloid" was only a comparison, but when I made the comment that sexual proclivities have nothing to do with one's intelligence or ability to reason, you responded that they do.  Thus, whether you believe that homosexuals are mongoloids or not, you obviously have an unfounded opinion that they are somehow less intelligent and unable to determine whether they want to be "cured."
 

It most certainly DOES matter.  Timing and context are extremely important.  If I don't make any public comment until and unless the topic is raised in a public setting, I'm hardly "flaunting" anything.  I'm simply minding my own business -- which is EXACTLY what I ask of people who wish to engage in sexual perversion.  Mind their own business and keep it to themselves.

You can ask of people what you want.  However, as I've repeated multiple times, they have free speech.  And it does not matter whether their speech was provoked or not; free speech is free speech.

Sorry, pal.  You should know the rules.  You opened that door when you made the comment (and attempt to score points) about gays breaking down the door of my church.   You brought that into the debate, I merely answered it.  Objection overruled.

I opened the door because you attempted to claim that someone's voicing of their opinion "denied" you of your right to religion.  The fact that I stand out in the streets and scream anything doesn't deny you of any right.  The fact that I parade around and flaunt anything doesn't deny you of any right.  The fact that I enlist in the military and mention how I banged my wife last night doesn't deny you of any right.  My example of gays blocking the door of your church (not breaking it down) was an attempt to show you how absurd your argument was.  Unless they are actually impeding your right to religion by somehow restricting you from practicing your religion, you can not claim a denial of a right.

Oh, and your response to my "opened door" was that someone wanted to sing in your choir.  You prevented them from doing so.  Denial of your right to practice religion?  Doesn't sound like it to me...

When you know what you're talking about you have the right to open your mouth.  When you don't, perhaps you should keep it shut.  First, the homosexual couple was lesbian.  Second, they were openly affectionate during the service and after, holding hands and other outward displays to make it obvious that they were more than just friends.  Third, this "couple" was on a mission and trying to prove a point.  Their intent was never to quietly fit in and worship, their entire agenda (admitted during discussions with the preacher and the board) was to see how tolerant and accepting the church would be toward practicing homosexuals.

Your response to my "opened door" which utilized this gay couple still doesn't even begin to show how your right to practice religion was denied based upon their attempt to get into your church.  Your choir is still fag free, and you're still able to go listen to the heterosexual harmony every Sunday, so I'm not sure where a denial of your right comes in.
 

This is, and I apologize for being blunt, but the most ignorant argument in a long line of ignorant arguments.  The "turn off the TV" defense is pathetic.  If it were as simple as that, then there should be no restriction at all on content of any kind ever.

The reason for content restrictions is that minors often have access to public TV, radio, the internet, etc.  Additionally, the content restrictions deal with nudity, sexual content, violence and adult language.  They don't deal with minority points of view with which you don't agree.  Thus, when Jesse Jackson starts screaming about affirmative action, you can't call the FCC and demand that they restrict the content simply because it's a minority view and you don't like it.

Similarly, when gays are voicing their opinion and having a protest that's on the news, there is no grounds upon which you can demand that the content be restricted.  Unless, of course, they're living up to an imaginary stereotype by raping defenseless men in the streets and pillaging the local Village People outfitters.  Those would probably qualify as scenes of sexual content and violence that would need censorship.

And as I've stated, the ability to openly express their sexual preference is also irrelevant to the issue of whether a person can serve efficiently in the military.  Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to demand the right to express such preference in a public manner.  End of story there.

You don't quite understand free speech, do you?  Regardless of whether it's relevant in a political debate or not, you have the right to say it.  Something doesn't have to be up for vote or at stake for you to have the right to publicly say something.  Additionally, from the points made by others (within this forum and in the real world), it's obvious that there are people who wish to make homosexuality a reason to not be able to serve in the military.  Therefore, it is relevant to the debate on whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military.  Within that debate, a person's sexual preferences has no relevancy (or maybe as a better phrase, "has no effect") on whether they can serve efficiently in the military.
 

You said five, not me.   Age does play a role in consent.  But if you're going to make those kind of choices, my point was that this too will eventually be challenged.  
 
And there you go again.  Five year old.  Okay, I view a rapist of a five year old as a sick predator bastard.  But what about ten?  What about twelve?  I once met a 13 year old girl in a bar in Tuscaloosa.  She looked 21 to me.  Is that okay?

I view a child molester as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on preference.   I view a homosexual as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on sick preference.  In terms of their behaviors, no, there is no difference to me.  They are both sick.  

That does not mean, however, that the consequences for acting on those illnesses should be the same and it's a fraudulent argument on your part to equate the two.

In a round-about way, while trying to derail the topic into another issue (which we can easily talk about in another thread), you admitted that the consequences for the rapist of a five year old should be different from that of a gay man.  You may view them both as sinners equally, but you still stated that the consequences would differ.

Again, all I was trying to point out is that an individual who chooses to do something with their own life and share that decision consensually with another like-minded person does not actually affect anyone else's rights.  A person who non-consensually forces their lifestyle on another person and invades their personal rights does affect someone else, and they do so illegally.  There is obviously a difference between one who chooses to live a lifestyle that does not impede upon anyone's rights, and one who chooses to live a lifestyle that does impede upon others' rights.

I have no problem accepting people who believe differently.  My problem, again, comes when it is demanded that I alter MY thinking to accommodate theirs.  

Free speech my ass.  That's a bullshit blanket that's used to justify all manner of offenses.  It was never the intent for that amendment to be interpreted in the way it has been warped today.  
 
Yes, we've lost the concept of majority rule.  That's just awesome.  

And free speech my ass, again.

As mentioned above, you have been unable to show that an offense has been committed against you or anyone else.  A person voicing their opinion inside the military or outside in the public eye doesn't affect your rights.  If it does, then every time you open your mouth publicly with an opinion, you are also affecting someone else's rights.

It's a shame that you honestly think that free speech was designed so that only the majority view could be expressed.  That makes it "allowed speech," not free speech.  It's also very strange that you think that one person's ability to speak their mind somehow alters your thinking.  If you're that easily swayed or affected by someone voicing an opinion, then that's not a problem with free speech; that's a problem with your sensitivity.  

Read a few Supreme Court cases on it.  Hell, you probably think that the Supreme Court has been infiltrated by ass ramming liberals anyhow, so read a history book if you want the initial intent of free speech.  That was exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape from:  oppression of religion and ideas.  They didn't want to submit to the King's "majority views;" they wanted the freedom to say what they wanted.  Hence the creation of freedom of speech.

And you've STILL failed to grasp the most simple concept.  

I don't give a flying fuck at a surf-boarding squirrel if they want to choke on dicks or take it up the ass and serve in the military.  That never has been and never will be the issue.  The issue is not whether they can serve -- because they already can and already do.  The issue is whether they should have the right to parade around and openly declare their gayness.  

As you've stated eloquently, being gay has no impact on their ability to serve.  If that's the case, then why is there a need to point out those who are?  

Don't ask.  Don't tell. Mind your own fucking business.  Pretty simple.  

Don't ask, don't tell if you're Christian.  It doesn't affect your efficiency in the military, but we don't want you talking about it, so when you enlist, just forget you're Christian.  Some people don't like Christians and don't agree with their views.  Telling anyone about your views in the military may upset them and cause them not to perform efficiently.  So, the military is instituting a new policy:  If you tell that you're Christian, you could be discharged.  If someone asks if you're a Christian, they could be discharged.  If someone asks and you tell, you both can be discharged.  And, of course, no one gives a "flying fuck" about your religious views, so there's no point in being able to express them at any point in the military, right?

What does it matter if you tell someone who you are and what you do?  The don't ask, don't tell policy is useless; open gays in the military do not effect efficiency, as is evidenced by Saniflush's obvious "don't give a shit, just do your job" policy, Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.  No one is advocating that they perform Elton John songs during PT, do their jumping jacks in speedos, or fellate a banana during the USO tour.  No one's even advocating that they be allowed to use their homosexuality as a reason to get out of any military activity after enlisting.

The point is that they are restricted from telling anyone about their sexual preference because it's a minority view, yet heterosexuals and Christians can jibber jab all day in the military about how wet their girlfriend's crotch gets and how Jesus loves the smell of flowers (and depending upon whether one prays to Baby Jesus or Raptor Jesus, how Jesus loves the smell of their girlfriend's crotch).  Until, of course, a drill sergeant comes by and instructs you to stop pussy-footing around and serve your damn country, which is exactly what will happen if any overzealous Christian or flamboyant homosexual expresses their opinions to the point that it does interfere with the efficiency of the military.  Problem resolved.  You can be as open with you want about anything until the point at which it begins to interfere with your service.  That's how it currently is handled with everyone but homosexuals; I see no reason why they should be targeted and given specific rules about what they can't talk about, meanwhile everyone else is free to openly talk about Satanism, bestiality, kiddie porn, etc.

This isn't Europe, Mr. Obama.

Actually, it was Mr. Clinton who requested the study and instituted the policy.  But they're both liberals who are hell bent on destroying the country, so there's no difference, right?

And, of course, let's conveniently forget about the fact that the UK completely banned gays from the military and that Germany has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy similar to our own.  It's obviously Europe, so it's safe to jump to illogical conclusions that they don't think like us or operate like us in any manner whatsoever.

Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military.

I'm actually quite tolerant of many homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that I want them showering with me.

Unless he's inferring that homosexuals be given separate showers, I'm pretty sure this is a reference to not wanting them to serve in the military.  And, of course, outside of this thread and in the real world, there are those who want to see a complete ban of homosexuals in the military.  So yes, there are people saying that homosexuals can't serve in the military.


Everything considered, my posts are getting quite long (as I often have the tendency to do, and I apologize for any annoyance or difficulty to read that this may cause), so I'll provide a summation of the argument in two points:

1.)  You have freedom of speech.  They have freedom of speech.  Your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion, their opinion is their opinion, and all can be voiced, as they have on this thread.  Neither of us are necessarily wrong, because we are, at times, speaking of subjective morals that can't be proven or disproven.  However, it must be realized that these opinions can't be forced upon others, and that we should not ban people from the military or alter their ability to freely speak within the military based upon subjective opinions.

2.)  No study has shown that open homosexuality in the military will affect efficiency any more than Christians, Satanists, criminals, pedophiles, racists, minorities or anyone else affects the efficiency of the military.  Problems arise with everyone, and problems are solved by the current operating procedure of the military.  The presence of open homosexuals in the military has not resulted in catastrophic military failures (or failures of any kind, for that matter).  Your opinion may be that homosexuality is immoral, and your opinion may be that they shouldn't be in the military, but as mentioned above, that is a subjective opinion.  When making decisions upon objective facts (as we should if we are going to attempt to apply laws to people), we see that, whether you agree with the lifestyle or not, it has no effect on military efficiency.  Thus, there is no legitimate, objective reason to deny them a right that every other person has.

[Vandy Vol]

No…  I never suggested that.  I’m not sure how you would have even come to that conclusion…  unless you’re stereotyping the homosexual community.

Pray tell, explain to me how exactly we are accommodating homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals by allowing them in the military?  At what "expense?"  When you vaguely make such references with no explanation, I'm left to infer what you mean.  Obviously my inference was wrong, so explicitly inform me.

I trust those so-called analysts and experts behind this RAND report about as much as I trust Obama to improve the economy.  It means nothing.  There were an awful lot of reports written about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Many of them were proven wrong.

Unfortunately, you're not a military researcher, so you have no independent evidence to offer us.  Nor am I.  As with most things in life, we are not the ones who find the facts; we rely upon others to do it for us, and we rely upon their conclusions.  I guess I could attempt to re-invent the wheel and mathematically check Einstein's theory of relativity, but most of us take documented reports and facts on their face.  No, they're not always correct, but unless you do it yourself, sometimes you have to rely upon others' information.  Otherwise, you have nothing upon which to rely.

If you're honestly going to call every report and survey into question, then you have no objective evidence to rely upon except your own experiences.  And, unless you've had an experience in the military which led you to know that homosexuals will ruin the efficiency of the military, then you have no objective evidence whatsoever.  As I've stated with Kaos, you're free to your opinions.  If I come off as trying to change your mind or prove your opinions as wrong, I apologize; that is not my goal.  My point is that we can't go about subjecting laws on a specific group of people that alter their rights based upon subjective opinions.

It’s a far cry from the military, but I’m managing a fairly large project right now.  For the first six months, I had this one resource on the team who did not relate well with the other team members.  He seemed to be a nice enough guy, and I tried to integrate him into the team several times.  He just had an awkward sense of humor, and his personality was strange.  His mannerisms “freaked people out” as many on the team felt it necessary to speak to me about him.  Eventually, these differences led to professional issues.  They didn’t trust him.  They didn’t value his opinion.  And sometimes, they would discredit him in front of other team members, and eventually, they started doing this in front of the client team members.  I had to let him go.  He became a disruptive force on the team, and I could not continue to support him.  I’m sure that he was a capable resource, and at times, he impressed me with his work product.  But, I could not continue to keep him on the team. 

The workplace is more of a social organization than the military.  I could afford to take a chance with him by staffing him on a project.  Since then, I’ve staffed him on another engagement.  The military is different.  By design, it’s not meant to be a social organization, and these types of experiments are far more risky and dangerous.

People often disagree with each other, as is evidenced by our discussion.  Some people don't agree with and don't like Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, criminals, pedophiles...the list goes on and on.  For every belief and opinion that you have, someone doesn't like it.  For every time that you voice one of those beliefs and opinions, someone doesn't like it.  If you think that every person in the military keeps their beliefs, opinions, mannerisms, etc., to themselves, then you have unrealistic expectations for service members.

You, and several other people within this thread, appear to be seeking to suppress one particular belief/opinion/lifestyle/mannerism from the military: homosexuality.  If this is incorrect, then please do correct me; I'm left to infer many of your actual opinions only from responses that you make, some of which don't completely expound upon your view.

Unless you're willing to bar anyone with any opinions or preferences (which, by the way, is everyone) from the military, then you can't point to one particular group of people and ban them because some people may be uncomfortable with it.  Claiming that others won't get along with them because of their views or that we would be accommodating homosexuals at someone else's "expense" is ignoring the fact that many people don't get along with others because of many views, ranging from the most controversial to the silliest of minutia.  The military already deals with people who don't get along.  They have a system of building group cohesion amongst those who may not want to deal with each other.

You’re a military expert now.  Great…  It still sounds, smells and tastes like discrimination, no matter how you color it.

I'm no more of an expert than you.  However, it's common sense based upon history that wars and military conflicts happen.  They happen on foreign soil and they happen here.  They have also required active duty of every troop we have at particular points in time.  Our most recent war on terrorism has required that we send National Guard members overseas.  You'd think that, because of its very nature, the National Guard is safe in regard to remaining within our nation and not having to fight abroad.  That's obviously not the case.

My point is that, military expert or not, history has shown us that there is no real "safe" enlistment.  You enlist to serve our country in times of need.  If those times of need require any or every member to serve, then you need to be able to serve.  It can be objectively shown that some people with physical disabilities and diseases will be unable to serve.  That's not discrimination no more than refusing to hire an armless person as a welder is discrimination.

I never said that.  Are you building one of those straw-tigers to battle?  And, as far as capability of a person with Downs Syndrome, I’ve seen some with incredible physical attributes,  probably greater than our average GI.  So, why would you discriminate against him if he's fully capable of military service?

I stated that you were complaining that homosexuals would interrupt other service members.  This is based upon your comment that we would be accommodating homosexuals at others' "expense."  As mentioned above, this "expense" is vaguely referred to and is not particularized.  If my inferences were incorrect, I apologize, but it's all I had to work with.  Feel free to correct me and fully explain yourself at any time.

As far as individuals with Down syndrome, they have physical and mental limitations which will affect their ability to serve.  For example, they can and often do have muscle hypotonia, atlanto-axial instability, congenital heart defects, mental retardation, hearing deficits, Alzheimer's, immune deficiencies, epilepsy, and many other symptoms.  Strength is not the only concern with the military.

[Kaos]

Because not all homosexuals are neither of Asian descent or afflicted with Down Syndrome or a related mental affliction, your application of "mongoloid" to homosexuals is uninformed and incorrect.

With all of the functioning gay people in this world, many of which who do much better for themselves than you and I, it's absolutely absurd for you to suggest that they are somehow mentally challenged or otherwise unable to decide for themselves whether they want to be "cured."  Sure, you can try to play it off and state that "mongoloid" was only a comparison, but when I made the comment that sexual proclivities have nothing to do with one's intelligence or ability to reason, you responded that they do.  Thus, whether you believe that homosexuals are mongoloids or not, you obviously have an unfounded opinion that they are somehow less intelligent and unable to determine whether they want to be "cured."

As you know full well this is not what I said, I find your attempt to stoop to this level extremely weak.  While many of your arguments have been (long-winded) but cogent, this was most definitely a step back.  Based on what I've seen from you thus far, for you to stoop to this gross misrepresentation is one of two things:  Desperation or pandering.  Since I don't sense desperation on your part, I will assume pandering.  It is, however, beneath you.  
  

there was a lot of blah, blah, blah free speech, blah blah free blah speech prior to this, but we'll return to that momentarily
The reason for content restrictions is that minors often have access to public TV, radio, the internet, etc.  Additionally, the content restrictions deal with nudity, sexual content, violence and adult language.  They don't deal with minority points of view with which you don't agree.  Thus, when Jesse Jackson starts screaming about affirmative action, you can't call the FCC and demand that they restrict the content simply because it's a minority view and you don't like it.

The decisions to restrict nudity, sexual content and adult language are based on standards of morality.  WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!! I thought the concept of "free speech" eliminated such backward morality-based restrictions.  What the fuck is going on?  Somebody better get on the horn to the FCC immediately.  The next time my daughter tunes in to iCarly, there better be some titties, some lesbians, some murder, some profanity and somebody better be fucking.  

So where do you draw the line?  When I was a kid they couldn't show two married people sleeping in the same bed.  Is what's on the TV today better since you "free speechers" have pushed the dial further and further toward the vulgar?  (Please remember Rome.  Would be a good lesson for us all).  

If it's okay to restrict profanity or bestiality from the airwaves essentially on a moral basis -- free speech, remember? -- why is it not okay to restrict homosexuality?  

You don't quite understand free speech, do you?  Regardless of whether it's relevant in a political debate or not, you have the right to say it.  Something doesn't have to be up for vote or at stake for you to have the right to publicly say something.  Additionally, from the points made by others (within this forum and in the real world), it's obvious that there are people who wish to make homosexuality a reason to not be able to serve in the military.  Therefore, it is relevant to the debate on whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military.  Within that debate, a person's sexual preferences has no relevancy (or maybe as a better phrase, "has no effect") on whether they can serve efficiently in the military.

I'm not sure you understand free speech either, but we'll get back to that in a moment.

In a round-about way, while trying to derail the topic into another issue (which we can easily talk about in another thread), you admitted that the consequences for the rapist of a five year old should be different from that of a gay man.  You may view them both as sinners equally, but you still stated that the consequences would differ.

The punishment for running a red light is a monetary fine.  The punishment for murder is death.  So?  Different actions require different consequences based on the severity and who else is harmed.

Free speech, free speech, blah blah blah.  Free blah speech blah blah.  Free blah blah blah speech. Back to that in a moment

Don't ask, don't tell if you're Christian.  It doesn't affect your efficiency in the military, but we don't want you talking about it, so when you enlist, just forget you're Christian.  Some people don't like Christians and don't agree with their views.  Telling anyone about your views in the military may upset them and cause them not to perform efficiently.  So, the military is instituting a new policy:  If you tell that you're Christian, you could be discharged.  If someone asks if you're a Christian, they could be discharged.  If someone asks and you tell, you both can be discharged.  And, of course, no one gives a "flying fuck" about your religious views, so there's no point in being able to express them at any point in the military, right?

Fine by me.  If the military has a don't ask don't tell religious policy I'd have no objection. Given the level of mistrust that could be generated by having Islamic soldiers, I'm surprised this isn't already in effect.

What does it matter if you tell someone who you are and what you do?  The don't ask, don't tell policy is useless; open gays in the military do not effect efficiency, as is evidenced by Saniflush's obvious "don't give a shit, just do your job" policy, Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.  No one is advocating that they perform Elton John songs during PT, do their jumping jacks in speedos, or fellate a banana during the USO tour.  No one's even advocating that they be allowed to use their homosexuality as a reason to get out of any military activity after enlisting.

I like Sani.  Nice guy.  Not a military expert.  Neither is PCT.  Neither are you.  Neither am I.  When the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military?  Then let's talk.  When it comes from external factions who are more about agenda than they are the realities and ramifications?  It doesn't move me.

I'm sure you'll point to comments from Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, but I think it's telling that they didn't offer these opinions of their own volition, they were pressed by the current administration's agenda.  The military didn't ask for this, the administration did.  You won't concede this, but that's a significant distinction. This is the same BS that Clinton attempted to jam down the military's throat when he was president (double pun intended) but he was rejected.  Not an issue for eight years and then magically when a democrat with socialist leanings and a misguided messiah complex becomes president it's a flaming (another pun) issue again?  Right.

The point is that they are restricted from telling anyone about their sexual preference because it's a minority view, yet heterosexuals and Christians can jibber jab all day in the military about how wet their girlfriend's crotch gets and how Jesus loves the smell of flowers (and depending upon whether one prays to Baby Jesus or Raptor Jesus, how Jesus loves the smell of their girlfriend's crotch).  Until, of course, a drill sergeant comes by and instructs you to stop pussy-footing around and serve your damn country, which is exactly what will happen if any overzealous Christian or flamboyant homosexual expresses their opinions to the point that it does interfere with the efficiency of the military.  Problem resolved.  You can be as open with you want about anything until the point at which it begins to interfere with your service.  That's how it currently is handled with everyone but homosexuals; I see no reason why they should be targeted and given specific rules about what they can't talk about, meanwhile everyone else is free to openly talk about Satanism, bestiality, kiddie porn, etc.

You never played organized sports did you?  You don't understand the dynamic of male interaction when in close quarters, do you?  A homosexual in the locker room WILL interfere with the efficient function of the team.  Call it fear, call it latent whatever you want, call it ignorance, call it insecurity or brand it in any way you like but the insertion of an openly gay man into a group of heterosexual males will without fail cause some controversy. It WILL impact the performance of the team. Can it be overcome? Maybe. But no matter how you spruce it up, it adds another level of difficulty to the development of the team.  I can't imagine that it would be any different in the military, particularly since you're dealing with young men of roughly the same age and intensity as you find on the football fields on Friday night.  It won't affect all, but it will affect some.  

Actually, it was Mr. Clinton who requested the study and instituted the policy.  But they're both liberals who are hell bent on destroying the country, so there's no difference, right?

One's white, one was born during the 24 hours that Kenya was annexed.  I have little admiration for either.

And, of course, let's conveniently forget about the fact that the UK completely banned gays from the military and that Germany has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy similar to our own.  It's obviously Europe, so it's safe to jump to illogical conclusions that they don't think like us or operate like us in any manner whatsoever.

Hair splitting because you don't have a point.  But whatever.  Obama models his decisions on the European model and draws at various times from France, Portugal, Spain, England, etc.  Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the European way of thinking about things is different than the typical American.  

Unless he's inferring that homosexuals be given separate showers, I'm pretty sure this is a reference to not wanting them to serve in the military.  And, of course, outside of this thread and in the real world, there are those who want to see a complete ban of homosexuals in the military.  So yes, there are people saying that homosexuals can't serve in the military.

And here you took two statements, one from GarMan and one from me, mixed them together and arrived at the conclusion that they are somehow created a single thought -- when neither of us said what you deduced.  

But okay, Sherlock.  Nice work.

Everything considered, my posts are getting quite long (as I often have the tendency to do, and I apologize for any annoyance or difficulty to read that this may cause), so I'll provide a summation of the argument in two points:

Blah, blah, blah freedom of speech, freedom blah of blah speech blah, freedom blah blah of blah speech

Okay.  Now it's time to address this.  

While I'm not a lawyer, I deal with them enough to know that when a lawyer has no real defense, when they know they can't win on the merits of the issue, when they have no logical or legitimate argument they typically wrap themselves in the flag of free speech and aim for blanket immunity.  

Over the years the concept of free speech has been tortured, abused, stretched, twisted and pulled until it is hardly recognizable.

It's your opinion that the nebulous term "free speech" gives people the right to say anything they want at any time they desire.  I disagree, but let's back up just a minute first.  

The concept of "free speech" is outlined in the first amendment and is decidedly vague.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law abridging the freedom of speech.  Hmmmm.  Well what exactly does that cover?  It's not really defined there.  Does it extend to the right of someone to display portraits of Michelle Obama painted out of dog shit?  Some would say yes.  

The bounds of "free speech" are ever shifting.  What is considered "free speech" today, wasn't permitted a decade or two ago.  "Free speech" is essentially determined by cases brought before the Supreme Court -- cases brought by lawyers down to their last gasp -- and as such has been stretched to include (and exclude) all manner of things. Sometimes the court has decided one way only to reverse itself years later based on the political leanings of its members.   The concept of free speech in two decades will likely not be the same as it is today.  

But let's assume that your contention that anyone can say anything at any time is true.  

You're neglecting to mention that even if you have the right to say something, that doesn't mean there are no consequences for your words.  

Maybe you disagree on a political or moral issue and the person with which you disagree has cro magnon tendencies and punches you in the face.  Your words have consequences.  

You're welcome to criticize the president all you want.  Freedom of speech and whatnot.  Try writing in a blog that you'd like his head on a pike (Dear Secret Service, I am using this as an analogy and am making no threats directly or indirectly).  Would your words have consequences?  Bet your happy ass they would.  

What if you don't like Mickey Mouse.  Can you stand at the gates of Cinderella's castle and shout "Mickey's a fucking fag!" over and over?  Your speech has consequences.  

Nobody is denying them the right to say whatever the fuck they want.  But if they choose to speak up, they know the consequences.  Free speech and all, you know.  

In case you missed it there, your entire free speech flag is limp.  It doesn't fly.  Get another pony to ride, that one's worn out. Freedom of speech does not, never has and never will mean freedom from consequences.  Nor should it.  

[Kaos]

Another situation where the govt needs to STFU and stay out of it.

Going back to the very first page, I discovered this.  And I agree 1000%. 

Since the push to change the policy is coming from the government, from this administration, from this Congress....

well....

STFU and stay out of it.  Let the military make its own determinations. 

Could have saved a lot of bytes if we'd just shook on this. 

[Tiger Wench]

Could have saved a lot of bytes bites if we'd just shook on this. 

FTFY.

I wondered if you had seen this.  Obviously you did not.  Skimming my posts in  order to post your newest epistle will catch up with you.   

[Kaos]

FTFY.

I wondered if you had seen this.  Obviously you did not.  Skimming my posts in  order to post your newest epistle will catch up with you.   

I have nothing else to say, really.  I've stated my position, although I do think it's been grossly mischaracterized in certain situations.

We could keep going around in the same circles, but I'm not going to change my mind. It would be a violation of my personal morality.  Would take a lot more than a message board discussion to evoke that kind of change. 

You're not going to change yours. 

Vandy Vol isn't going to change his because he's a lawyer and can't let go of the free speech blanket even when it doesn't fit!  There's some kind of oath they have to take about that but it's a secret. 

We could fill 110 more pages and at the end, I'd still be right where I am, you were you are and the rest where they are.  It was, for the most part, a fun exercise because --as I said -- anytime someone challenges your core beliefs it forces you to re-examine them and review them in the light of additional information.  It helps you to understand why you think what you think.

I'm not one for agreement.  Nothing is really accomplished by agreement.  It's only in disagreement that you're exposed to different ideas.  Some you accept, others you don't. 

[AUChizad]

As you know full well this is not what I said, I find your attempt to stoop to this level extremely weak.  While many of your arguments have been (long-winded) but cogent, this was most definitely a step back.  Based on what I've seen from you thus far, for you to stoop to this gross misrepresentation is one of two things:  Desperation or pandering.  Since I don't sense desperation on your part, I will assume pandering.  It is, however, beneath you.  

Perhaps you should be more clear on your position, as everyone who read this thread interpreted your statements this way. Sorry to burst your bubble that only I had "comprehension problems".
  

I like Sani.  Nice guy.  Not a military expert.  Neither is PCT.  Neither are you.  Neither am I.  When the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military?  Then let's talk.  When it comes from external factions who are more about agenda than they are the realities and ramifications?  It doesn't move me.

I'm sure you'll point to comments from Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, but I think it's telling that they didn't offer these opinions of their own volition, they were pressed by the current administration's agenda.  The military didn't ask for this, the administration did.  You won't concede this, but that's a significant distinction. This is the same BS that Clinton attempted to jam down the military's throat when he was president (double pun intended) but he was rejected.  Not an issue for eight years and then magically when a democrat with socialist leanings and a misguided messiah complex becomes president it's a flaming (another pun) issue again?  Right.

No, I won't concede this. You say you'll discuss this "when the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military", and then poo-poo away the fact that this is only up for discussion because this is coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. What military expert's opinion are you waiting on? Colonel Sanders? And what an out to say "Yeah, well, everyone who I just said should be making these decisions are the ones that are advocating repealing DADT, but they really don't want to. Their arms are being twisted and their hands forced." Seriously? Even former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs & Defense Secretary Colin Powell is scratching his head at how you can make such an illogical argument.

 

You never played organized sports did you?  You don't understand the dynamic of male interaction when in close quarters, do you?  A homosexual in the locker room WILL interfere with the efficient function of the team.  Call it fear, call it latent whatever you want, call it ignorance, call it insecurity or brand it in any way you like but the insertion of an openly gay man into a group of heterosexual males will without fail cause some controversy. It WILL impact the performance of the team. Can it be overcome? Maybe. But no matter how you spruce it up, it adds another level of difficulty to the development of the team.  I can't imagine that it would be any different in the military, particularly since you're dealing with young men of roughly the same age and intensity as you find on the football fields on Friday night.  It won't affect all, but it will affect some.

Link? Studies to back up this claim? Oh right, there was a study done, and it was presented to you already. But the Rand Corp is just some hippie commie pinko garbage because it doesn't jive with my predetermined position.
 

One's white, one was born during the 24 hours that Kenya was annexed.  I have little admiration for either.

Really? You're a birther too?
 

Hair splitting because you don't have a point.  But whatever.  Obama models his decisions on the European model and draws at various times from France, Portugal, Spain, England, etc.  Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the European way of thinking about things is different than the typical American.

You certainly are. Nothing with European origin is of any merit? I thought you were the one that said this:

This is all funny except for the fact that in recorded human history no other ethnic group has been able to create the kind of industrial and technolgical advances that us white folks have.  Now maybe we stole some math from the Arabs and we borrowed some engineering from the Egyptians, but we made it all work together.  

So were we just in the dark ages until 1776?
 

And here you took two statements, one from GarMan and one from me, mixed them together and arrived at the conclusion that they are somehow created a single thought -- when neither of us said what you deduced.  

But okay, Sherlock.  Nice work.

Read your quote again. You said that Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military. GarMan did.

Okay.  Now it's time to address this.  

While I'm not a lawyer, I deal with them enough to know that when a lawyer has no real defense, when they know they can't win on the merits of the issue, when they have no logical or legitimate argument they typically wrap themselves in the flag of free speech and aim for blanket immunity.  

Over the years the concept of free speech has been tortured, abused, stretched, twisted and pulled until it is hardly recognizable.

It's your opinion that the nebulous term "free speech" gives people the right to say anything they want at any time they desire.  I disagree, but let's back up just a minute first.  

The concept of "free speech" is outlined in the first amendment and is decidedly vague.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law abridging the freedom of speech.  Hmmmm.  Well what exactly does that cover?  It's not really defined there.  Does it extend to the right of someone to display portraits of Michelle Obama painted out of dog shit?  Some would say yes.  

The bounds of "free speech" are ever shifting.  What is considered "free speech" today, wasn't permitted a decade or two ago.  "Free speech" is essentially determined by cases brought before the Supreme Court -- cases brought by lawyers down to their last gasp -- and as such has been stretched to include (and exclude) all manner of things. Sometimes the court has decided one way only to reverse itself years later based on the political leanings of its members.   The concept of free speech in two decades will likely not be the same as it is today.  

But let's assume that your contention that anyone can say anything at any time is true.  

You're neglecting to mention that even if you have the right to say something, that doesn't mean there are no consequences for your words.  

Maybe you disagree on a political or moral issue and the person with which you disagree has cro magnon tendencies and punches you in the face.  Your words have consequences.  

You're welcome to criticize the president all you want.  Freedom of speech and whatnot.  Try writing in a blog that you'd like his head on a pike (Dear Secret Service, I am using this as an analogy and am making no threats directly or indirectly).  Would your words have consequences?  Bet your happy ass they would.  

What if you don't like Mickey Mouse.  Can you stand at the gates of Cinderella's castle and shout "Mickey's a fucking fag!" over and over?  Your speech has consequences.  

Nobody is denying them the right to say whatever the fuck they want.  But if they choose to speak up, they know the consequences.  Free speech and all, you know.  

In case you missed it there, your entire free speech flag is limp.  It doesn't fly.  Get another pony to ride, that one's worn out. Freedom of speech does not, never has and never will mean freedom from consequences.  Nor should it.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Period.

Nothing else really needs to be said, but all this diatribe did was solidify the notion that you don't understand freedom of speech. Of course I should have considered though, that you know all. Certainly more about the law than a lawyer. What do they know? Cooks know nothing about cooking. Accountants know nothing about accounting. Bankers know nothing about banking. 

[GarMan]

Pray tell, explain to me how exactly we are accommodating homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals by allowing them in the military?  At what "expense?"  When you vaguely make such references with no explanation, I'm left to infer what you mean.  Obviously my inference was wrong, so explicitly inform me. 

Read my previous posts...  You’re just being difficult. 

Unfortunately, you're not a military researcher, so you have no independent evidence to offer us.  Nor am I.  As with most things in life, we are not the ones who find the facts; we rely upon others to do it for us, and we rely upon their conclusions.  I guess I could attempt to re-invent the wheel and mathematically check Einstein's theory of relativity, but most of us take documented reports and facts on their face.  No, they're not always correct, but unless you do it yourself, sometimes you have to rely upon others' information.  Otherwise, you have nothing upon which to rely. 

OK...  Let me put it this way.  Apparently unlike you, I don't blindly "rely upon others to do it for us."  If I did, I'd believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy.  And, I did take an advanced physics course 18+ years ago where we did mathematically prove Einstein's Theory of Relatively.  He was right…   

If you're honestly going to call every report and survey into question, then you have no objective evidence to rely upon except your own experiences.  And, unless you've had an experience in the military which led you to know that homosexuals will ruin the efficiency of the military, then you have no objective evidence whatsoever.  As I've stated with Kaos, you're free to your opinions.  If I come off as trying to change your mind or prove your opinions as wrong, I apologize; that is not my goal.  My point is that we can't go about subjecting laws on a specific group of people that alter their rights based upon subjective opinions. 

 
Good points…  But, I do understand group psychology.  Many-many moons ago, when in college, I did take courses in industrial and social psychology.  Since then, I’ve jumped into the IT world and climbed the ladder to the executive ranks where team management, project management and larger organizational management are necessary skills.  I don’t need to know about the military or homosexuals to know how introducing an exception to the local norm would be disruptive.  To me, it’s common sense.   

People often disagree with each other, as is evidenced by our discussion.  Some people don't agree with and don't like Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, criminals, pedophiles...the list goes on and on.  For every belief and opinion that you have, someone doesn't like it.  For every time that you voice one of those beliefs and opinions, someone doesn't like it.  If you think that every person in the military keeps their beliefs, opinions, mannerisms, etc., to themselves, then you have unrealistic expectations for service members. 

 
EXACTLY!  BINGO!!!  And, this is exactly why introducing challenges to the local norm would be disruptive.  Military personnel should not be subjected to these types of challenges.  It’s simply not our right to impose, thereby challenging their personal values and beliefs.   

You, and several other people within this thread, appear to be seeking to suppress one particular belief/opinion/lifestyle/mannerism from the military: homosexuality.  If this is incorrect, then please do correct me; I'm left to infer many of your actual opinions only from responses that you make, some of which don't completely expound upon your view.   

 
You’re correct…  If we repeal DADT, then we should return to the original ban. 

Unless you're willing to bar anyone with any opinions or preferences (which, by the way, is everyone) from the military, then you can't point to one particular group of people and ban them because some people may be uncomfortable with it.  Claiming that others won't get along with them because of their views or that we would be accommodating homosexuals at someone else's "expense" is ignoring the fact that many people don't get along with others because of many views, ranging from the most controversial to the silliest of minutia.  The military already deals with people who don't get along.  They have a system of building group cohesion amongst those who may not want to deal with each other. 

 
First of all, this is your opinion, but I am willing to bar anyone over any SIGNIFICANT opinions, beliefs, preferences, mannerisms, practices, etc. that challenge and/or violate the status-quo in a team environment.  It’s just that simple.  Obviously, it’s the extent of that significance that may be called into question, but I personally find homosexuality to be of that significance. 

My point is that, military expert or not, history has shown us that there is no real "safe" enlistment.  You enlist to serve our country in times of need.  If those times of need require any or every member to serve, then you need to be able to serve.  It can be objectively shown that some people with physical disabilities and diseases will be unable to serve.  That's not discrimination no more than refusing to hire an armless person as a welder is discrimination. 

 
And, as I suggested earlier, EEOC does not directly apply to the military for a number of reasons.  You seem to want to draw your line at physical capability, but there are other issues that need to be considered.  Obviously, there are religions that would limit a person’s ability to serve as a soldier.  There are psychological disorders that would limit a person’s ability to serve.  And, there are practices and beliefs that would limit a person’s ability to serve.  If someone’s religion required them to slaughter a chicken every night in their sleeping quarters, you can see how this would be disruptive to military service.  The point here is that we already “bar” military service for various reasons. 

I stated that you were complaining that homosexuals would interrupt other service members.  This is based upon your comment that we would be accommodating homosexuals at others' "expense."  As mentioned above, this "expense" is vaguely referred to and is not particularized.  If my inferences were incorrect, I apologize, but it's all I had to work with.  Feel free to correct me and fully explain yourself at any time.   

Placing a homosexual in a unit of heterosexual is an accommodation.  I can appreciate the fact that you and others have grown to accept certain aspects of homosexuality, but the last time I checked, the majority opinion still isn’t comfortable with mainstreaming homosexuality.  That’s it… 

As far as individuals with Down syndrome, they have physical and mental limitations which will affect their ability to serve.  For example, they can and often do have muscle hypotonia, atlanto-axial instability, congenital heart defects, mental retardation, hearing deficits, Alzheimer's, immune deficiencies, epilepsy, and many other symptoms.  Strength is not the only concern with the military. 

Agreed…  But there are varying extents of these ailments.  To exclude the entire group, while some may be completely capable would be just as wrong as banning all homosexuals from serving.  (Turned it around on you...)

[Kaos]

Perhaps you should be more clear on your position, as everyone who read this thread interpreted your statements this way. Sorry to burst your bubble that only I had "comprehension problems".
  

No, I won't concede this. You say you'll discuss this "when the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military", and then poo-poo away the fact that this is only up for discussion because this is coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. What military expert's opinion are you waiting on? Colonel Sanders? And what an out to say "Yeah, well, everyone who I just said should be making these decisions are the ones that are advocating repealing DADT, but they really don't want to. Their arms are being twisted and their hands forced." Seriously? Even former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs & Defense Secretary Colin Powell is scratching his head at how you can make such an illogical argument.

 Link? Studies to back up this claim? Oh right, there was a study done, and it was presented to you already. But the Rand Corp is just some hippie commie pinko garbage because it doesn't jive with my predetermined position.
 
Really? You're a birther too?
 
You certainly are. Nothing with European origin is of any merit? I thought you were the one that said this:So were we just in the dark ages until 1776?
 
Read your quote again. You said that Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military. GarMan did.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Period.

Nothing else really needs to be said, but all this diatribe did was solidify the notion that you don't understand freedom of speech. Of course I should have considered though, that you know all. Certainly more about the law than a lawyer. What do they know? Cooks know nothing about cooking. Accountants know nothing about accounting. Bankers know nothing about banking. 

None of my comments were addressed to you. 
 
I disregarded your entire response.  Didn't read any of it, really. You can make of that what you will -- because as you've proven here and elsewhere, you typically make up what you think someone said, rather than what was actually said, and attempt to argue that. 

In this discussion, Chiz, you know who you are?  You're Andrew Jackson.  Except you're on the wrong side.   I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means. 
 

[AUChizad]

None of my comments were addressed to you. 
 
I disregarded your entire response.  Didn't read any of it, really. You can make of that what you will -- because as you've proven here and elsewhere, you typically make up what you think someone said, rather than what was actually said, and attempt to argue that. 

In this discussion, Chiz, you know who you are?  You're Andrew Jackson.  Except you're on the wrong side.   I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means. 
 

I know exactly what to make of it. Victory flag.

[Kaos]

I know exactly what to make of it. Victory flag.

You know where to put it, too. 

I wont' ask, so you don't tell.

[Pell City Tiger]

I like Sani.  Nice guy.  Not a military expert.  Neither is PCT.

I consider myself well versed in matters pertaining to the military. I read Sun Tzu for crying out loud. I live by his teachings.

Saying homosexuals are unfit for military service is the same backwards logic our grandfathers used against having blacks in service. Turns out they were wrong.

As I stated before, stringent safeguards are in place to keep the militant flamers out.

[Kaos]

I consider myself well versed in matters pertaining to the military. I read Sun Tzu for crying out loud. I live by his teachings.

I read The Godfather.  I'm a capo. 

[Saniflush]

As I stated before, stringent safeguards are in place to keep the militant flamers out.

How in the hell did you make it 20 years then?

[Godfather]

This thread has to many words.  Vaginal sex is good.

[Kaos]

This thread has to many words.  Vaginal sex is good.

Doo doo sex when neither of you have big boobs or a uterus is crossing a line. 

[AUChizad]

Doo doo sex when neither of you have big boobs or a uterus is crossing a line. 

Jesus approves, as long as there's big boobs or a uterus?

[Kaos]

Jesus approves, as long as there's big boobs or a uterus?

I don't know.  I'll ask His dad and get back with you, Andrew.

[CCTAU]

"All _____ing ______s must _____ing hang!" - Animal Mother

I'm all about the love!

[Tarheel]

This thread has to many words.  Vaginal sex is good.

Agreed.