"Don't Ask Don't Tell" and Obama Administration

[Solomwi]

How can you think about it too hard?

I guess "at all" probably would have been more appropriate.

[SlowwHand]

Let's be clear. You think it's ok for someone to lobby for someone else's entry into the service, while having no intention of enlisting? As contrasted to keeping your mouth shut and letting those that want to enlist lobby for it?

Hell, that figures.

[Solomwi]

Let's be clear. You think it's ok for someone to lobby for someone else's entry into the service, while having no intention of enlisting? As contrasted to keeping your mouth shut and letting those that want to enlist lobby for it?

Hell, that figures.

Why wouldn't it be? MrFun's future intentions aren't relevant to the issue, and he's not advocating that 50,000 open gays be conscripted like some flamboyant Janissary Corps. He's only lobbying for someone else's opportunity to enter the service, not the entry itself. It's "The same rules should be applied to gays and straights with respect to entry into the military," not "You guys should go pick up my flaming friend Keith and sign him up. He totally wants to join, even though he refuses to admit it."

[loinburger]

Let's be clear. You think it's ok for someone to lobby for someone else's entry into the service, while having no intention of enlisting? As contrasted to keeping your mouth shut and letting those that want to enlist lobby for it?

Hell, that figures.

Is this general opposition to those lobbying for equal rights when those rights don't directly affect them? F'rinstance, if a white person supports equal rights for blacks then should the white person just keep their fool mouths shut? Or a male supporting equal rights for females? Or a straight person supporting equal rights for gays?

Or do you only oppose gays who don't want to join the military lobbying for the rights of gays do who want to join the military?

I mean, I support equal pay for equal work WRT the gender wage gap, yet I have no intention of having a sex change operation. Am I supposed to not voice an opinion on the matter?

[zakubandit]

So I still see this moving in the direction that soldiers' views don't matter about the DADT policy. Great. Glad to see civilians want their ideals pushed onto the military.

[Dinner]

The military's job is to take orders from those civilians.

[DinoDoc]

Out of interest, how would the military handle fraternization within the ranks in the event of a repeal of DADT?

[SlowwHand]

Why wouldn't it be? MrFun's future intentions aren't relevant to the issue, and he's not advocating that 50,000 open gays be conscripted like some flamboyant Janissary Corps. He's only lobbying for someone else's opportunity to enter the service, not the entry itself. It's "The same rules should be applied to gays and straights with respect to entry into the military," not "You guys should go pick up my flaming friend Keith and sign him up. He totally wants to join, even though he refuses to admit it."

Nm. It's just recruiting a different set of people to do his job. You think that's OK. OK.

[SlowwHand]

The military's job is to take orders from those civilians.

Maybe in the Rock Hound Squadron.

DD, I don't know, but I would expect that if the policy was Do Ask and Do Tell, there would be separate quarters. It's hard to accommodate that policy under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[Zevico]

Separate quarters makes no sense. How does putting the gay enlistees together prevent the possibility of fraternisation between them at all? If anything the risk might increase. I'm betting gays weren't having sex all over the common quarters before, and I doubt they'd start if the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy were abolished. No change of policy regarding fraternisation between the ranks is necessary, I'm sure. It's not like armies that permit openly gay enlistees have become a 24 hour Mardi Gras as a result.

[loinburger]

I think the problem is that the straight soldiers will be worried that the gay soldiers are checking them out, thereby turning the straight soldiers gay.

[SlowwHand]

Separate quarters makes no sense. How does putting the gay enlistees together prevent the possibility of fraternization between them at all? If anything the risk might increase. I'm betting gays weren't having sex all over the common quarters before, and I doubt they'd start if the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy were abolished. No change of policy regarding fraternisation between the ranks is necessary, I'm sure. It's not like armies that permit openly gay enlistees have become a 24 hour Mardi Gras as a result.

Who cares if there is fraternization among them? I don't give a rat's ass what they do on their own time. Maybe I'm behind the times. Women and men used to have separate barracks. Do they still? This is a 3rd situation.

[zakubandit]

Wow you civis are ****ing stupid. Fraternization is not the issue. Right now frat happens with people who it is not supposed to, gay sex happens, blah blah blah. Right NOW if a gay guy is caught it is a big deal, but in a reform of the regs would cause discontent with a large number of straights due to the commonality that not all straights are ok with gays. You allow a gay guy to room with a straight guy, command does not ask the straight guy if he is ok with it...they will order him to be. That causes discontent, morale loss, eventually the straight soldier might not retain. Loss of soldiers.

You civilians just don't understand, but try to imagine you live in a house and the government tells you to live with someone who you are not ok with living with. Imagine the rough course you will have to run. Imagine perhaps you are a religious person and they make you board with a satanist or a scientologist who practices and will practice in the house. Will you be ok with that? Probably not because Americans are not very well known for tolerance when it hits their personal space (only ok with the world at large's differences).

Oerdin, wrong. Military is commanded by the government of the people, not take orders from civilians. If that was the case then you can bet your ass too many soldiers would never deploy if civis had any control over military. Can civis go into unauthorized areas? No. Can they hop into a tank just to check it out? No. Can they make a private salute them or stand at attention for them? No. Government officials? Yes. Come on soldier boy, you should know this ****, its soldier 101.

I'm telling you all, unless you have worn the uniform and served more than basic training then you have no ****ing clue as to what it is your wanting. And I reaffirm that until ALL 50 states allow gay marriages that DADT should not be changed. The military is made up of people from every state and not every state is ok with LGBT so therefore the military does not need to bend first.

[Solomwi]

Nm. It's just recruiting a different set of people to do his job. You think that's OK. OK.

To do whose job? Fun's? I think gays are already allowed to research dead presidents. Where are you dreaming up the recruitment aspect of MrFun's opposition to DADT?

[Solomwi]

Wow you civis are ****ing stupid. Fraternization is not the issue. Right now frat happens with people who it is not supposed to, gay sex happens, blah blah blah. Right NOW if a gay guy is caught it is a big deal, but in a reform of the regs would cause discontent with a large number of straights due to the commonality that not all straights are ok with gays. You allow a gay guy to room with a straight guy, command does not ask the straight guy if he is ok with it...they will order him to be. That causes discontent, morale loss, eventually the straight soldier might not retain. Loss of soldiers.

You civilians just don't understand, but try to imagine you live in a house and the government tells you to live with someone who you are not ok with living with. Imagine the rough course you will have to run. Imagine perhaps you are a religious person and they make you board with a satanist or a scientologist who practices and will practice in the house. Will you be ok with that? Probably not because Americans are not very well known for tolerance when it hits their personal space (only ok with the world at large's differences).

Oerdin, wrong. Military is commanded by the government of the people, not take orders from civilians. If that was the case then you can bet your ass too many soldiers would never deploy if civis had any control over military. Can civis go into unauthorized areas? No. Can they hop into a tank just to check it out? No. Can they make a private salute them or stand at attention for them? No. Government officials? Yes. Come on soldier boy, you should know this ****, its soldier 101.

I'm telling you all, unless you have worn the uniform and served more than basic training then you have no ****ing clue as to what it is your wanting. And I reaffirm that until ALL 50 states allow gay marriages that DADT should not be changed. The military is made up of people from every state and not every state is ok with LGBT so therefore the military does not need to bend first.

My lord, this is one of the finest pieces of zakudl we've seen since the early days.