DOD certifies DADT repeal
Tamn and Jerry920 want you guys to know that the Pentagon has certified that the military is ready for the repeal of the decades-old Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Jerry wonders where Dan Choi is today. Well, according to the Global Post, Choi is hoping to go to prison;
“I want the government to force me to go to jail,” Choi insists. “I’m not going to let them take the easy way.”
Yeah, I hope he punches someone in the chest in prison. I hope he gets jail time, too, then he won’t be able to enlist in the Army. lord knows there are enough drama queens in the military these days, they don’t need Dan Choi chaining himself to some military front gate to protest pulling guard duty over the holiday.
And, oh, Choi is now anti-war, according to that article in the Global Post, so the IVAW can look forward to him joining them soon, I suppose.
But, anyway, where are the thousands of gays who wanted to serve in the military but couldn’t because of their conscience? They should be lined up around the block at your local recruiters’ office. Can you see them?
Stars & Stripes Leo Shane laments that it’s decision for gays and lesbians to decide whether they want to come out of the closet or not.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Dumbass Bullshit, Military issues
Choi’s still a douche…..the official end of DADT doesn’t change that.
Shane has an odd take on this issue. This doesn’t mean homosexuals are going to be forced to profess or advertise biological inclinations anymore than straights did.
he should be disqualified for being mentally imbalanced. Didn’t he get put away in a rubber room?
The repeal of DADT, like Choi himself, is a stomach-churning disgrace. It amazes me how easily so many people simply accept the abject repugnancy of open homosexuality, be it in schools, on TV, or in the military. The homosexuals have won. Sodomy is not only okay, it’s to be appluaded. What a screwed up world.
@3 – “It amazes me how easily so many people simply accept the abject repugnancy of open homosexuality”
Some people value the personal liberty to live openly in accordance with their genetic makeup. Some people don’t.
Heard through the grapevine yesterday that some individuals were going to come out of the closet on base with their vehicles and apparently they want a coming out parade, wanting to mark this as a holiday only they can celebrate and basically just make everybody else on base feel miserable for no real reason.
Hey guys, I hear all the services just made monthly accession goal today with all the pickle puffers enlisting. 10 days early too. Gotta be a record.
We just got all the PA guidnace that we have to send down to our subordinate units. Its all rather depressing. Not so much for the subject matter (as bad as that is) but we allowed a minority agenda based on sex, to tell us what to do. Our commander mentioned last week that that the PX would be selling some type of gay service magazine, as she did this I scanned the audience and the look of disgust was priceless. I’m in a senior support unit currently and would expect that we’ll have a few actually feel comfortable coming out. Being away from combat arms is gay enough, this should be an interesting day. We wanted to have a pool on how many we’d have.
We wanted to have a pool on how many we’d have.
Same number as you did yesterday. They’ll just be a lot more “in your face” about it. Good order and discipline, my dying ass.
Constructing an argument that homosexuality is based on sex, whereas heterosexuality is not…..is not only patently false, but intellectual cowardice.
Yeah, it’s all over the news this morning. They’re running out and getting married. Expect the housing lists to swell now.
I guess the PX/BX/NX is also making a separate section for clothing and what not. I’m waiting for them to make new clothing regs yet again over this.
As with everything we’ll bend over backwards and do waaaay more then neccesary to accommodate this shit.
#12 I was down at Bethesda NNMC 2 months ago and they were running DADT indoctrination, er, orientation briefings back then.
IF anybody says we had adequate training is full of shit. They herded us all in and read from a script. The junior folks got the same thing. Our folks didn’t ask for questions nor was there any discussion. I expect that most people wanted to get out of there.
“Some people value the personal liberty to live openly in accordance with their genetic makeup. Some people don’t.” Yes, that’s true and supports the argument against changing one’s hair color but the jury remains out on queerhood and genetics. Additionally, being queer is one thing; acting on one’s queerness is quite another. Society is on your side. As I said, the homosexuals have won.
so what’s the bet on when the clamor for full spousal benefits starts? Since a Navy already flew to Vermont to get married as soon as DADT was fully repealed.
And yes, Dan Choi still a major league drama queen douchnozzle.
@15 – I’m not really sure I’d term it as ‘my side’. I support the individual liberty to live and love by your chemical and biological attraction.
You seem to imply that being homosexual is notionally ok…but actually pursuing the same goals as straights is too far out of bounds?
There has already been clamor over full spousal benefits. They aren’t happy until everybody who isn’t like them have less benefits and rights than they do. If memory serves me correctly isn’t that the same thing Hilter was doing?
@18 – “They aren’t happy until everybody who isn’t like them have less benefits and rights than they do.”
I would LOVE to hear a foundation for this comment.
No, your inference is mistaken. What I am saying is that even if one were to assume that homosexuality is nature, not nurture, that is not license to act on one’s homosexual impulses or inclinations. As for “on my side,” your postion (1) That homosexuality traces too genetics, and; 2) That denying homosexuals the freedom to practice sodomy is to deny their personal liberty, is the majority view.
I looked through the ALARACT messages yesterday and found clarifications on the Army’s housing and public display of affection policies that were posted in the past couple of weeks. The Army, at least, plans to minimize “in your face” displays of sexuality as well as claims of discrimination based on housing arrangements.
Of muchy more concern for me was the ALARACT concerning personally owned weapons (POWs). Unless one of three circumstances are met, one’s chain of command has no control over what a Soldier owns or carries (perhaps tossing aside the ban on carrying weapons in Alaska that was made policy by a Major General a few years ago).
I plan to print all three out to back me up if needed.
Gosh. Now that the missing component of gay warfighters has been added to the U.S. arsenal, the U.S. Armed Forces is no longer a second-rate fighting forces. How did we manage to survive all these 235 years?
This whole thing is much ado about nothing.
It won’t hurt our force and people have moved on. I am a Commander and no one has tried to get out because of it nor has there been much fanfare. It’s just business as usual in the Army.
@20 – That clarifies it a bit. You are correct, in the broad scope, nature v. nurture is not decided. The nature of the argument itself leads me to lean in one direction personally, but on the whole, personal and consensual liberty is always the deciding factor.
Cool. Another new protected class goes to the head of the line for promotions, schools, and assignments. Guess the services and the VA will have to recruit more proctologists to handle all of the anal tunneling.
Puns intended. Drink water!
Brian, didn’t the SEcDef say that no one could get out, based on their beliefs regarding homosexuality?
This from an article at Fox News, Gates responded that while any loss of troops, particularly those in the field, is “potentially of concern for the force as a whole, I don’t think any of us would expect that the numbers would be anything like the survey suggests, just based on experience. Plus you have the reality that they can’t just up and leave.“
@26: Yes, that’s my point and that no one has tried to fight that either.
CI: a lot of liberties are restricted in the military. The individual chooses to follow the rules of the service when he signs on the dotted line.
Other liberties that are restricted include styles of dress, body piercing, what soldiers put in their body, curfew restrictions, tattoos, and other sexual behaviors. Keep in mind that oral sex and adultery are still punishable under the UCMJ.
You’re a liberal, CI. You’re just borrowing this word “liberty” because you’re trying to convince us that if we weren’t such hypocritical conservatives, we would be fully supportive of the perverts’ agenda. You don’t care at all about liberty.
The liberty to say that wrong is wrong is now in jeopardy. That’s a “derogatory comment” and will not be tolerated in Obama’s Army.
So Choi is also “anti-war” Interesting.
Am I supposed to believe that he really can’t wait to get back to fighting a war that he thinks is wrong? That’s why he wants to go back in?
If I were opposed to the wars we’re fighting now I wouldn’t be so eager to join. I’d stay home in my comfortable Manhattan apartment.
As we’ve heard over and over again, Choi is an Arabic linguist. He’s also an infantry officer as I gather from the crossed-rifles on his lapel. His language skills won’t be needed in Iraq after December 31st. The natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but some of the foreign fighters surely do.
It’s almost as if he has another motivation for wanting to return to the military. You know, like an AGENDA. I wonder what it is…
>@26: Yes, that’s my point and that no one has tried to fight that either
Yeah, because they were told to STFU. Guess what, people aren’t going to tell you why they are getting out–they are just going to silently leave when their term is up. The repeal just started which means the problems just started.
@28 – “The individual chooses to follow the rules of the service when he signs on the dotted line.”
Of course, that’s why I didn’t support those who were discharged under DADT or prior. I do however, have a degree of respect form those who’s love of country and desire to serve outweighed the risks involved. But you break the regulations, you pay the price.
“You’re a liberal, CI. You’re just borrowing this word “liberty” because you’re trying to convince us that if we weren’t such hypocritical conservatives, we would be fully supportive of the perverts’ agenda. You don’t care at all about liberty.”
Of course I am. I must be. It’s the only way you can parse the argument without having to engage in critical thinking. Other than the fact that your statement made no sense. How’s this – you’re not a conservative. See how easy and baseless that was? Labeling someone as a political opponent is usually the last refuge for the intellectually dishonest and ideologically disingenuous.
There are factors of DADT that are arguable, but resorting to the tactics you have just makes you look weak.
“Of course I am. I must be. It’s the only way you can parse the argument without having to engage in critical thinking.”
I engaged in plenty of critical thinking. I just know a liberal when I see one. I’ve also read your comments on other posts.
I also know a liberal who’s trying to formulate his argument in the vocabulary of his opponent. That way, he thinks he can use the other person’s arguments against him. Remember, even the devil can quote scripture.
“If you were really concerned about liberty, as you conservatives seem to think you are, you would (fill in the blank).”
It’s the old “you’re such a hypocrite” argument that comes so quickly to the mouth–you guessed it–liberals. I’ve seen liberals pretend to be conservatives when arguing with conservatives, pretend to be libertarians when arguing with libertarians, pretend to be Christians when arguing with Christians.
Bullshit. I see through you.
By the way, my liberty was severely restricted while I was in the military. There were a whole lot of rules that governed my behavior. Most were rules that no civilian would have ever put up with. Gonna repeal them all now? I know that you care deeply about the libery of our soldiers.
Please tell me–what would a person who DID engage in critical thinking believe? I mean, IF I WERE engaging in critical thinking, as you say that I’m not, how would I respond to your ridiculous claims?
@32 – “I engaged in plenty of critical thinking.”
Well….no. You’re trying to assign motivations to someone else’s position in lieu of actually presenting an argument of merits.
“Bullshit. I see through you.”
Yeah, you’re seeing things alright. Who are you responding to in regards to ‘hypocrites’? Respond to what I’ve written, not what you want me to have written in order to win the argument in your head. Unless of course, you really have no argument and are just ranting from an emotional standpoint….sort of like liberals….
DADT has arguable components; the aspects of liberty do not, unless you’re not terribly concerned about that inconvenient facet.
Your whole argument boild down to the idea that I’m not really thinking.
I’m not thinking because I know a liberal when I see one.
Now answer my question–how would a “thinking person” respond to your non-arguments? I want to know. You seem to be saying that you’d value a good debate on this subject but I won’t have one with you because I’m just throwing out baseless accusations.
I’d love to have a debate with you about DADt. In fact, I have been doing just that and your only response has been avoidance.
“Well….no. You’re trying to assign motivations to someone else’s position in lieu of actually presenting an argument of merits.”
Actually, I HAVE presented arguments. As far as “assigning” motivations…Do you not have a motivation? Am I not supposed to talk about it?
I’m not “assigning” you a motivation. I’m identifying it. You don’t fool me. The internet is full of people like you. You aren’t the first to come up with this tactic.
All in all, the proof will be in the pudding:
– how many self-professed GLBT sign up
– of those who sign up:
o how many serve a full term honorably?
o how many make an honorable career of service?
– how many currently serving honorably out themselves
– how many currently serving other than honorably out themselves
Bottom line: with DADTDP gone, it should be up to the individual GLBT service member to serve successfully. Without lawsuits, subterfuge, or evasion to get ahead.
“DADT has arguable components; the aspects of liberty do not, unless you’re not terribly concerned about that inconvenient facet.”
And now CI decides what we can argue about. You’re a beauty, CI.
@34 – “I’d love to have a debate with you about DADt. In fact, I have been doing just that and your only response has been avoidance.”
I’ve been waiting for you to establish a premise. DADT has been repealed. What’s your argument other than you don’t like that fact?
“Actually, I HAVE presented arguments.”
See above.
“I’m not “assigning” you a motivation. I’m identifying it. You don’t fool me. The internet is full of people like you. You aren’t the first to come up with this tactic.”
Ok…..you think I’m a liberal because I support the freedom for all citizens to engage in the consensual pursuit of their biological attraction. I don’t think you’re much of a conservative because you don’t. I believe you and your accusation to be baseless and a poor attempt to make a point. Now what?
“And now CI decides what we can argue about. You’re a beauty, CI.”
Nope, by no means. I welcome an argument regarding individual liberty and sexual attraction. Bring it on.
Time was when you saw a sailor walking strangely and on land, you knew he was very recently on sea duty. Now, there’s a second possibility–but God help the fellow sailor who suggests that there’s something wrong with that.
What, that they’re drunk?
Actually, that’s a big no-no these days. Can’t have a beer, can’t smoke a Marlboro, but you can smoke a cock.
God help us, indeed.
Yes, CI–you have decided what we may debate on and what we may not. See this quote: “DADT has arguable components; the aspects of liberty do not” In other words, you have already decided what territory I may dispute and what I may not. We’ll have an argument according to your rules of engagement. You said it quite clearly. “Ok…..you think I’m a liberal because I support the freedom for all citizens to engage in the consensual pursuit of their biological attraction.” NOW WHO’s ASSIGNING MOTIVATIONS? At no time did I say, “CI, I can tell you’re a liberal because you support the freedom of two adults to engage in consensual sex acts”. Those are words that you cavalierly placed in my mouth. I think you’re a liberal because you think homosexuality has a place in the military, because you think homosexuals have been victimized by a policy that permitted them to engage in sexual acts but NOT BLAB ABOUT THEM TO EVERYONE ELSE. It’s called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for a reason. I think you’re a liberal because you support the end of the policy just like all liberals I know who think it amounts to “discrimination”. Rules always discriminate against the rulebreaker. And first and foremost, I think you’re a liberal because you’re constantly drawing an equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality, as liberals always do. “I don’t think you’re much of a conservative because you don’t.” And there you are, back to playing the devil citing scripture again. Listen, if two guys want to bang each other, they may. That doesn’t mean that they have a RIGHT to. There are no sexual rights in the constitution. Liberals have attempted to place some there by inference, but the text doesn’t bear them out. But when those two guys go off and enlist, they have to follow the rules. If you want to call that a restriction on liberty, fine. But the military restricts the liberties of all of its members all of the time, in the sexual and non-sexual spheres. The military will continue to do so even in… Read more »
@41 – “NOW WHO’s ASSIGNING MOTIVATIONS?” That’s my previously stated position. You decided to assign me a label of your choosing based on my position. Are you new at this back and forth thing? “I think you’re a liberal because you think homosexuality has a place in the military, because you think homosexuals have been victimized by a policy that permitted them to engage in sexual acts but NOT BLAB ABOUT THEM TO EVERYONE ELSE” I see, so I’m a liberal…..irrespective of my positions on economics, defense, education, foreign policy, etc….Wow, how can one argue against empirical evidence such as this? I didn’t see a policy that prohibited heterosexuals from profiling their sexuality or martial status. But I didn’t use the term victimization did I? You’re sounding like a liberal again. Gosh, that is easy! No wonder you opt for lazy discourse. “I think you’re a liberal because you’re constantly drawing an equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality, as liberals always do” Please define for me the genetic political makeup of heterosexuals v. homosexuals. I’m all ears. Unless of course your particular flavor of conservatism means personal liberty for selected classes of people…sort of like ‘special rights’. “And there you are, back to playing the devil citing scripture again.” That was an easy illustration of how meaningless your epithets and labels are. “That doesn’t mean that they have a RIGHT to.” But heterosexuals should have that right? Here we go with those special rights for politically correct interest groups again. “But when those two guys go off and enlist, they have to follow the rules. If you want to call that a restriction on liberty, fine.” I’ve already agreed with that point. Just because I don’t support restricting the consensual personal liberties of American citizens based on a moral code of debatable social value…doesn’t equate to not supporting the laws and regulations that I swore an oath to protect. If you’re in uniform, you are now required to treat gay Soldiers in a manner that you may not personally like. “Does that make me a “bad conservative”?” Not necessarily. Conservatism isn’t… Read more »
people will still be in the closet. They don’t want to tell mom and dad in Mississippi that they joined a male dominated military to smoke a cock or that they beat off thinking out their fellow Joes or that they can’t wait to play deployment fakehomo grabass with the guys in their squad….when they really are.
lol
>They don’t want to tell mom and dad in Mississippi that they joined a male dominated military
Apparently you haven’t seen the “brave” soldier who came out to his dad and posted it on you tube..or the couples suddenly getting married.. Just can’t wait for the DOMA lawsuits to start. Wait for the next distraction to start. WHHAAA why can’t we get housing… WHAAA why don’t you recognize my partner.. Because that was the REAL agenda. It was never about serving. They were already serving.
I don’t have much to add, that hasn’t been mentioned above. I think this is an awful idea for a variety of reasons, most of them practical. A protective class and its demands is already starting to evolve(who didn’t see this coming?). All of this for a miniscule minority within a minority? Who’s identity is based on behaviour that can be easily changed anytime?
There aren’t that many gays in the general population(it hovers somewhere just above 1%). Of those how many are willing to join? Then how many are eligible and are willing? Finally how many will actually make a career in the military? I bet not many.
The thing that many here are forgetting, or aren’t focused on is that this is going to create another protected class within the military i.e. “I didn’t get promoted because I’m gay”, “I didn’t get that much sought after billet because I’m gay”, etc. The military is going to be spending a lot of time and resources to investigate each and every complaint, which will obviously be moved ahead in priority of other complaints and Commanders, who want to advance, will be in defense mode more than leadership mode because of it. They will be second guessing every decision on who gets an assignment or promotion. That’s not what the military needs to deal with, but now it is a reality. It won’t matter if the troop is sub-standard as much as it will matter if they munch carpet or smoke poles.
@44….yeah I saw it…gives a whole new meaning to give an inch, take a mile.
–Here’s a horrific scenario….DOMA…the debate…it’s coming.
2 E-2 Joes getting married to get off post housing and BAH. “Sure, I’ll marry you Joe….that’s some good ass Obama money…maybe we can qualify for EBT cards”. We can be roomies and go to clubs and pick up chicks as long as the “DADT police” don’t spy on us for adultery.
Oh don’t worry, the “DADT police” are coming to a post near you to investigate false homo claims….at first. A fruitless exercise. All it will take is a keystone CID/DADT police somewhere to fuck up and spy on some real homos…oops…and the investigators get caught on some procedure or violate some policy/law and the ACLU slams the DoD and then the whole thing to fall apart into….DOMA = Do whatever you want, we won’t bother to followup on fraud claims…free govt. money….somadat Obama money.
That’s how far the rabbit hole can go. Not saying this will happen, but anything’s possible.