Irony overload

[(SWGO)Kren]

You’re working under the assumption that the person in question would be looking at his fellow men to get aroused in the first place. Ok put yourself in the shoes of the said 'gay' person. Example: Been on an exercise, taking a shower, ready to eat some food. Do you really think that this person is going to ruin his chances of being in the army by doing something inappropriate?

So are u saying that no straight guy in the army would ever get aroused? Based upon your comments does that mean only gay people are likely to get aroused in the army? Incidents could happen for straight and gays but most people would give a little more thought to letting themselves get that way in the first place through fear of rejection, being embarrassed etc.

Being unfair is one thing, assuming someone will do something sexual to ruin their career is another. Ok another example; you’re a straight pool attendant watching the females in a pool as part of your job; are you going to get aroused and stand there in your shorts saluting as the girls walk past, erm no. Self control, respect for others always plays apart plus it might not even cross someone’s mind to get frisky. If you did something inappropriate you would be kicked out of your job, both genders would not like you and you would most likely end up in court and branded a pervert. If a person (gay or straight) did something inappropriate then the necessary action should be taken against them otherwise if nothing happened let them get on and do the job.

So the fact that someone who is gay cannot save lives. Ok the post relates to a general in charge of men, did he let men die under his control; in the field or elsewhere due to his sexual orientation? Did it affect his judgement as a soldier and ability to undertake his job? What happened before the gay issue was brought up; did gays in the past fight alongside straight people or is this totally new?

The difficulty you are having is that you assume everything would rotate around sex, reality check it doesn't. Once people believed in witches and persecuted them but after that myth was kicked into touch there's be no ritual burnings taking place on a frequent basis now has there?

I understand your point but I don't agree with what you are saying overall.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Ok, this thread got to two pages before I decided to read it and see what it was....been a little busy lately. Anyway, I gotta jet out for few, but believe me, I'll be back in a couple of hours and some of you aren't going to like what I say. (i'm sure what I have to say won't be a surprise to anyone here though)

[Matt-Chicago]

I was really just posting about the irony of a group of gay Republicans getting it overturned and Obama's administration fighting for it in court.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Having served in the Marines during the implementation of "Don't ask, Don't tell" I truly believe it is the MOST effective policy to date. If you look at the spirit of the rule, no one could dispute the perfection in it. Essentially, "We won't ask you if you're gay and you don't tell us that you are gay." It truly is a win-win. A great many straight military members don't want to associate with gay members and the gay members don't want to be ostracized. " I won't ask if your gay, just don't tell me you are."

The problem comes from folks actively seeking out gays to persecute and active gays making it an issue. (more the former than the latter)

The first problem is easy to cure by presidential directive. It doesn't need to clear Congress. All that would be necessary is to extend the policy to investigative and UCMJ proceedings. If an investigating officer were not allowed to ask if someone is gay the investigation would go nowhere. If commanders used their discretion properly in findings where a soldier is accused of being gay nothing would com of it. Only the rare occasion when a military member "flames" would there be an issue. That could easily be covered by NJP (non Judicial punishment, at the discretion of the unit commander) or "Conduct Unbecoming" charges if the member requests an official proceeding.

I can see why ANY administration would defend the policy. What I CAN'T see is why they bungle the politics of the topic so badly.

Never mind, I forgot. It is a wedge issue for both sides. This isn't real. No one wants to fix it. They just want the issue to campaign on.

[mrjamwin]

Dread this is twice that we've agreed on something. Dang it!

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Well damn it Dread, you sucked the wind out of my sails. Well said. (i'm too slow in game too)

[Matt-Chicago]

Even I half agree with Dread.
Thousands have been discharged not because they told anyone in the military they were gay, but because someone from outside the military "outed" them as revenge, or the military went looking through private email, journals, facebook, etc.

I disagree that DADT is a perfect policy. Forcing people to live in secret, pretending they're something that they're not can't be perfect on the face of it.
Let's also not forget that there are many, many jobs in the military which do not involve combat.

[(SWGO)2EAZY]

Well here is my say in this whole ordeal:

Homosexuals are no different than the rest of the world except that they are attracted to someone of the same sex. There's nothing wrong with that. If they thought gays would get aroused around the same sex then there would be no military since straight people could get aroused by the opposite sex.