Don't ask Don't Tell

[RoadToad]

Your post is right out of the same selective information playbook the libs you vote for use.

You forgot to mention the survey found 12% said they would not want to stay in the military if don't ask was repealed. That's 240,000 plus according to the article you cite. Wonder if that's more than the total number of gays in the military?

With "Don't ask" in place, I guess we'll never know, will we?

You also forgot to mention the survey did not ask whether those in the armed forces support repealing don't ask. If your heroes'd had the guts to ask that question, it would've come out just exactly like Mark said...70% against. Don't think so? Care to place a small wager? Bet I can dig up some other surveys...but it'll cost you.

You also forgot to put the statistics to the combat troops (the ones who actually have to spend time in a foxhole with each other) who are opposed to repealing it. The number quoted was 40 to 60% against. A pretty big variance, and compelling evidence your Dem heroes are playing politics with the numbers.

I didn't "forget" to post anything. I didn't see information indicating 70% were against repealing it, so I didn't post it. If you have it, go ahead and post it. Or don't, I don't care, but I'm not going to play games with you over it. And excuse the hell out of me for not actually copying into my post the stats on the combat troops, but I did make reference to them, and even acknowledged that that was a valid point!

The point is made in the article you cite that it probably isn't a good time to screw around with don't ask right now. You think now is a good time to throw a curve at the combat troops in Afghanistan in the name of a misguided social issue? Can't wait for you to rationalize that one for me.

That may be a good point. Not having been in the military myself, I can't say. But it seems to me that to say that it's going to cause such major disruption doesn't give our men and women in uniform enough credit. One thing I do know is they're highly trained, and able to plan and carry out highly complex and risky military operations. Given that, it seems to me that implementing a change like this wouldn't be all that big a deal for them. But maybe it would be. And I have nothing to "rationalize," since I never said it needed to be repealed right now. I simply pointed out one argument in favor of doing it sooner rather than later. If the arguments for doing it later outweigh that, then so be it.

Parker, everybody who's following this debate knows it was implemented by Bill Clinton, to avoid an outright ban on gays serving in the military. Did YOU know that he now regrets it?

[parker]

My answer to you comes in the form of a question, which is; "What does your question have to do with the price of beans in China?"

For the record, I don't know who pushed the policy through and really I could care less. It seems to me like the men and women in the field (the majority) are the one's who think things are fine as they are. I'm not a military guy but common sense tells me things are fine the way they are now.

My .02 on the subject is this is just another game the libs are playing in order to try to persuade more voters to their side of the fence, regardless of whether it's right or wrong or for better or worse. The liberal chips are down and right now they're reaching for whatever leverage they can.

I didnt know we were talking about the price of beans in china. I will enlighten you a little, the 1st agenda clinton pushed through was dont ask dont tell. The pubs went crazy and now they are defending his legislation! If it was so bad then why is it so great now?

[parker]

We can all google just like you. Why don't you just tell us dumb conservatives? Go ahead and enlighten us about why we can't have an opinion on an issue without considering who did what when?

Your facts and Liberal ideals don't seem to work with the opinion of the tax paying, voting people of the United States. Just look at the recent elections and the opinions of what many people have about the majority of Obamy/Pelosi/Reid/Frank/Dodd policies.

I would like to hear how the great plan of Obama with a Liberal Congress who could and did spend anything they wanted for two years did not work for the american people. What were the recent unemployment numbers? 9.8%?? What did obamy say about the numbers? If we spend "$787 Billion" amount of money the Unemply numbers would never get above what 8%?? Hmmmmm???

Wrong! I didnt have to google it, I was in the Army when Clinton pushed this legislation through and I remember everyone was in panic mode about the outcome, what would happen if you were in a foxhole with a gay person! I have never been in a foxhole with a gay but with an M-16 I doubt if I were he couldnt have much of an advantage with me! They bleed from a gunshot as much as anyone else or do they? IMO you either go fight with them or protect them.

[Chubminnow]

I didnt know we were talking about the price of beans in china. I will enlighten you a little, the 1st agenda clinton pushed through was dont ask dont tell. The pubs went crazy and now they are defending his legislation! If it was so bad then why is it so great now?

Guess you got my point...you're correct, we weren't discussing the price of beans, just like we weren't discussing who originally pushed the current Don't Ask deal through. And, Don't Ask, Don't Tell ain't all that great either, not sure why you think it is...but it sure as heck beats what the idiot libs are trying to do today. And to think...the ONLY reason they're doing it is to try to persuade more votes. Pathetic is the term that comes to mind.

In another thread you stated you never was in a foxhole with a gay...all I can tell you about that is "you'll never really know for sure". Gay's don't come with book covers, you can't always know.

[parker]

Guess you got my point...you're correct, we weren't discussing the price of beans, just like we weren't discussing who originally pushed the current Don't Ask deal through. And, Don't Ask, Don't Tell ain't all that great either, not sure why you think it is...but it sure as heck beats what the idiot libs are trying to do today. And to think...the ONLY reason they're doing it is to try to persuade more votes. Pathetic is the term that comes to mind.

In another thread you stated you never was in a foxhole with a gay...all I can tell you about that is "you'll never really know for sure". Gay's don't come with book covers, you can't always know.

You are correct. Why cant they serve in the military openly? I aint afraid of them, is anyone else?

[mhall]

You are correct. Why cant they serve in the military openly? I aint afraid of them, is anyone else?

Good point but alot of people don't see it that way. I work with a fella who's son just went through basics at Paris Island. He told his Dad a couple of fellas a bit light in the loafers were going through at the same time. They didn't advertise but most knew something was up. He said the Gunnies tried to kill them during the Crucibal, and this was just from suspecting, can you imagine if they had to have the tag on their shirt.

My point is just leave it alone, it doesn't have to be discussed, talked about, accepted, ect ect. If a person wants people to know he'll tell, if not it's his business, just leave it ALONE, why do you libs have to make everybody see everything through their rose colored glasses.

[HURRICANEBOB]

I think the policy ought to change to:

"Don't ask, because who cares"
Do we ask if a white soldier is married to a black girl?
Do we ask if a black soldier is married to a Chinese girl?
Do we care if the soldier is a catholic, protestant or jewish?
Do we care if he likes the Yankees or the Phillies?
Do you have to be married, or prevented from serving if you are not married?
Do you have to be single to serve?


It's a free and open society, and our constitution says folks can live and serve here from all walks of life and from all persuasions. We allow in our society for folks to follow any religious belief that does not violate law. Some religions frown on homosexuality, but relgion is not law. Nothing in the constitution forbids freedom of sexual preference. No law forbids this activity.

So, "Don't ask, because we don't care".

What we do care about is a citizens willingness to freely serve his country and to willingly go in harms way to protect it. Any human being who takes on that level of responsibility, dedication, and selfless service deserves my admiration, no matter what he or she elects as a sexual preference.

[DJD]

Your right HB....those are some great points. Served with a few men who were gay and never treated them any different. Have an employee now who is gay and again noone cares.

Is it me or is it a group that wants to be treated equal and not singled out who is asking to be special and singled out?

Oh wait that's the way we do it here...once you have established a few victories for your cause you can band together and demand more. Before long there will be special holidays for the great leaders of that group. Political leaders will beat their door down for their endorsement and promise them the world. They will run for office on their sexual preferrence and how they could change the world if we could only accept them for who they are.....Prolly have special Miss Gay America events, gay rights month, special scholarships, quotas, gay history month and so on...

[Chubminnow]

Your right HB....those are some great points. Served with a few men who were gay and never treated them any different. Have an employee now who is gay and again noone cares.

Is it me or is it a group that wants to be treated equal and not singled out who is asking to be special and singled out? Oh wait that's the way we do it here...once you have established a few victories for your cause you can band together and demand more.

Man you hit the nail on the head! I've known a few gays in my life...women and men both, they're ok by me...they've never pushed their lifestyle on anyone, everyone got along, business as usual....but the part you mentioned about the libs demand for more...heck man the proof is out there....like Parker pointed out, Clinton is the one who pushed for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, now look where we're at....the stinkin' libs are once again wanting to take it to the next level.

[RoadToad]

Is it me or is it a group that wants to be treated equal and not singled out who is asking to be special and singled out?

In what way are they asking to be special and singled out? They're already singled out in that if they acknowledge their sexuality, a basic part of who they are, they will be discharged from the military. It never ceases to amaze how any time gay people seek to treated equally under the law, it is always misconstrued as them asking for "special rights."

[HURRICANEBOB]

In what way are they asking to be special and singled out? They're already singled out in that if they acknowledge their sexuality, a basic part of who they are, they will be discharged from the military. It never ceases to amaze how any time gay people seek to treated equally under the law, it is always misconstrued as them asking for "special rights."

I think that's a good point. Seems like it works that way. Examples:
1. We say we want to avoid sexual discrimination, so we keep tons of statistics to see if females get better jobs than men.
2. We say we want to be "color and Race blind", and show no preferences, yet every government survey that comes out asks what race we are.
3. We say we want to treat people of all ages the same, yet all surveys ask how old we are.

To my way of thinking, if you want people to be treat without regrard to any type of category (race, sex, creed, age, habits, etc), then stop tracking them that way.

And to be fair, sometimes you have to track numbers to know if your goal is being achieved. Did more balcks get jobs? Do more womeno get executive positions. etc, etc.

Vicious circle, and I guess it all boils down to what we do with the numbers. I feel crazy saying this, but it seems sometimes we have to treat people exceptionally until they can be accpted as normal.

[DJD]

First off, I'm not wanting to come across as hating any one group of people because I don't. They were trying to get special legislation for same sex marriages in many states. Medical benefits for their partners and I believe it was U of L? Maybe UK? I don't remember for sure. I'm sure there are other states or universities that gave them what they wanted.

How does that work for men and women who live together and decide not to get married? Do they get to claim life partners and enjoy the same benefits? Tax benefits?

Call me old fashioned but same sex couples are not a normal match in life. It's not PC to say that but I don't care I'm not running for office. Couples or matches in life are usually done for one reason and that in the end is reproducing. (I understand love and attraction and all the things relationships encompass.)

It's a gift to have a child with someone.....an absolute awesome gift. It's so special and I see it as a miracle to see your child and watch the traits you passed on or the other sex passed on. How can that not be right? If your a parent you have to see that. Right?

The fact that it takes men and women to reproduce (not same sex) tells me more than all the justifying, equal rights and talk that this topic gets. Also, it's hard not to mention Adam and Eve as the way it's supposed to work.