Originally Posted by Redleg

Topic reminder: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy

I think we're going just a tiny bit off-topic here now..

Gotcha Red.

Spike.

Originally Posted by Lavite

03USMC: " Course if it's so minor and non threatening how bout you ruck the freak up, grab a rifle and walk point in Ramadi or Helmand province for a tour."

And that stunning piece of logic proves what? Do soldiers in Ramadi and Helm have some unique insight on homosexuality that just escaped me all these years?

I know a lesbian MP who could do more push ups with a rucksack on her back than any of ya'll all day long.

State your case, but spare me the macho stuff.

You really do have reading comprehension problem don't you ? You couldn't put that whole post together and seperate the different statements could you? If you could you would realize that that statement you are qouting was a direct response made about the current wars being minor. Have some problems wrappin yer lil brain housing group round stuff huh? You'd also realize that I addressed gays in the military and my opinion hasn't changed.

Spare you? Spare me, why don't go read another FM but I do have an idea for your sig line.

Lavite: I'm not an armor officer. But I play one on the internet.

So... That whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy.... Great stuff...

but still what i don't get is that if gay people are allowed to serve n the first place why arent they allowed say that they a gay????
or retrospectively why does it matter to them that much they can still serve if they want to???
and some how i think the people pushing this issue aren't even the people who are the ones serving...
so this makes me think who does this really benefit and what are the Ulterior motives?

Originally Posted by captiva303

but still what i don't get is that if gay people are allowed to serve n the first place why arent they allowed say that they a gay????
or retrospectively why does it matter to them that much they can still serve if they want to???
and some how i think the people pushing this issue aren't even the people who are the ones serving...
so this makes me think who does this really benefit and what are the Ulterior motives?

Simply put it's just another small step towards making the unacceptable appear to be acceptable.

The people pushing this agenda are those who are willing to keep taking just small, almost insignificant "wins" that no one really cares about individually. They just keep taking one crumb at a time, to which they hope no one will object, "Ahh, why should we deny them one small insignificant crumb?.... In the end, they've got the whole damned loaf, and your freedom to object, has gone with it, as you allowed it to happen.

It's an old, old ploy and it still works because we are (for the most part) fools, with very short memories.

Exactly. This really isn't about service in the military at all. There isn't going to be a great rush of gays to recruiting stations and we won't suddenly find out a large percentage of the military is gay. Beause they really don't care about the military and service as a group as whole.

What they care about is letgitamizing them selfs even though they can't convince alot of the general public of their letgitamacy. So they are using the military as a stepping stone.

BTW: Henderson mind your business.

03USMC: "Lavite: I'm not an armor officer. But I play one on the internet."

That's good to know. So I have a different opinion than you and your reaction is to essentially call me a liar about my military service? I don't recall insulting you, 03USMC, in the course of this discussion.

Interesting that you had to go their, not that I'll lose a whole lot of sleep over it.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

marsh;

While you in all your wisdom and experiance my choose to classify the current wars as "minor conflicts" of no great concern and no great threat, I can assure you that the men and women being sent to fight these wars do not share your blaise attitude.

So perhaps maybe, just maybe we should concentrate on training them to survive and not complicating their training with senesativity training and PC BS, for now.

Course if it's so minor and non threatening how bout you ruck the freak up, grab a rifle and walk point in Ramadi or province for a tour.

Did I say non-threatening? or that it wasn't dangerous? Answer: NO. Nor was I dismissing people's service or sacrifice in the current conflicts, so stop being so freaking hyper-sensative as per usual. You really shouldn't criticize Lavite reading comprehension skill, yours isn't much to brag about either.

What I said wasnt even an opinion, its a fact. And I don't have to be in the army to point that one out, you could figure it out in any 9th grade history lesson. If you really think Afghanistan or Iraq is as bad as say WWI, WWII, or Vietnam your're the one who needs a reality check...a serious one. Ill be happy to give you a guided tour of France if you don't believe me. Where would you like to go first? From where I am sitting within 4 hours I can take you to Omaha, Verdun, Somme, Saint Lo, Caen, Ypres, Marne, Bastogne, all of which where FAR more dangerous than on the worst day in Iraq. If my Grandfather was still alive he could tell you about Normandy -he had a front row seat, or my Great-grandfather at Verdun. So Ill say it again, Iraq and Afghanistan are MINOR conflicts. I can live with being "blase" because what I said was completely accurate.

I am not saying Iraq or Afghanistan isn't dangerous. What I am saying is more people are killed and injured on highways in a single day, then what we lost in a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is also A FACT.

Are the Taliban dangerous? Answer: Absolutely. Do the scare me? Answer: Yes, I have seen those types of militants in London (terrorists are tolerated there...for some reason), they are crazy. No question. But you know what? Like all whackjobs everywhere, F*** 'em! Just because they are dangerous doesn't mean I am going to piss my pants anytime someone mentions their name. That's why they are called "TERRORist", as in they want to scare you into complying to do what they want. I am not going to get into any macho BS, They could kill me if they wanted to, but I won't be intimidated, especially by a ignorant group that 3000 miles away.

If you want to piss your pants about them that's your business, but they don't impress me at all. The Nazis, the Soviet Union, the Confederacy, the Redcoats, were far more dangerous because unlike the Taliban or al-Qaeda our previous enemies had not only the desire but the ability to destroy us.

So this all gets back to my original point if Lincoln and FDR could get things done fighting a far more dangerous enemy, then there is NO EXCUSE for are own government to do the same now. Its not about lack of ability its about lack of desire.

Originally Posted by pixieboo

In general I want to know why this is such a big freaking issue.

Why do they want to serve "openly" to begin with? Why do they need to shout it from the rooftops?

Granted, I don't think they should be discharged for being "gay" (unless they are being unseemly in some sexual way), but really, why do they want the freedom to shout it out?

Well firstly they don't want to shout it from the rooftops. Imagine saying your husband is picking up the groceries tonight and getting fired for it. And why do they want the freedom? Isn't that what your country is all about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJ...layer_embedded


This is a GREAT video (from a former United States Soldier) explaining his views on equal rights...

Folks... Bottom line here... America was founded on the principle that people had the freedom to choose. Not only to choose who to worship or what taxes to pay, but the freedom to choose what makes you happy as an individual. That includes deciding who you want to love... NO ONE should be allowed to say ANYTHING to ANYONE when it comes to who a person loves. Logic bears no weight in matters of the heart.