BF2S Forums Don't Ask Don't Tell Upheld By [Mostly] Republicans

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

From page one -

Ticia wrote:

Republicans along with two democrats made "don't ask don't tell" won't go away with a swift 56-43 vote. The democrats had higher salaries for troops and increased funding which republicans usually support but that was not enough to get their vote.


Link



Still waiting for a good argument defending this absurd policy.

OK,  here is my try,
             
          Why do you insist on telling me what it takes to get you off ?
                 Im sure it would make no difference if I didn't know ?

If the ( person ) at the video store announced " they like to ( add your own here )"  I would deem it inappropriate to have such intimate knowledge of what should have been a professional relationship only.

As a matter of interest, what makes it " absurd " in your opinion that a potential employer would say
" We don't care - we don't even need to know. "
I have Friends and relatives I am pretty sure are Gay but I don't move in that part of their life.

( Some people, as do I, will Occasionally capitalize a word in mid-sentence for emphasis. Sorry if it throws some. People take all kinds of license here )

Clearly, the issue isn't so much the act of telling people you're gay.  It's the prejudice displayed afterwards.

If you truly believe in equal rights for all, then you should be against institutionalized prejudice.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Don't ask don't tell has always seemed strange to me.

We have 1 quite openly gay guys in my div (of 42 people) and its never been a problem. There's the odd joke, but it's all taken with good humour. The ADF allows openly gay people to serve and does not require members to ever "record" their sexuality, and as far as I can tell it has absolutely no effect on morale, discipline, combat effectiveness or postings of specific people. In fact as far as I can tell, its a completely non-issue amongst defence members. I think the general consensus (obvioisly can't speak for everyone) is that it doesn't matter what sexuality (or race for that matter) you are, if you can do the job, and back your oppos up then thats all your oppos care about.

The only thing I think we need to address now is that gay couples get the same rights as regular de-factor partners.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

too much drama to have gays in tbh. unit cohesion is no1 in my books. or just make an all gay brigade lulz.

Used to be it'd be too much drama to mix in blacks.

Besides which...drama? The military kills people ffs.

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

From page one -

Ticia wrote:

Republicans along with two democrats made "don't ask don't tell" won't go away with a swift 56-43 vote. The democrats had higher salaries for troops and increased funding which republicans usually support but that was not enough to get their vote.


Link



Still waiting for a good argument defending this absurd policy.

OK,  here is my try,
             
          Why do you insist on telling me what it takes to get you off ?
                 Im sure it would make no difference if I didn't know ?

If the ( person ) at the video store announced " they like to ( add your own here )"  I would deem it inappropriate to have such intimate knowledge of what should have been a professional relationship only.

As a matter of interest, what makes it " absurd " in your opinion that a potential employer would say
" We don't care - we don't even need to know. "
I have Friends and relatives I am pretty sure are Gay but I don't move in that part of their life.

( Some people, as do I, will Occasionally capitalize a word in mid-sentence for emphasis. Sorry if it throws some. People take all kinds of license here )

Clearly, the issue isn't so much the act of telling people you're gay.  It's the prejudice displayed afterwards.

If you truly believe in equal rights for all, then you should be against institutionalized prejudice.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-22 13:59:36)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Used to be it'd be too much drama to mix in blacks.

Besides which...drama? The military kills people ffs.

You've got a pretty shitty view of servicemen...

JohnG@lt wrote:

You clearly never served if you don't think the majority that join are retards that would have no shot at anything but the welfare line in the real world.

I feel I am starting to understand you better.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 14:17:06)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You've got a pretty shitty view of servicemen...

JohnG@lt wrote:

You clearly never served if you don't think the majority that join are retards that would have no shot at anything but the welfare line in the real world.

I feel I am starting to understand you better.

Yes, experience breeds contempt. Most of the people I served with would've been petty thugs or drug dealers if they didn't have the military to 'straighten them out'. But to simply call them hired guns like unnamednewbie does is uncalled for denigration. They provide a service that we all benefit from. To think they forfeit their right to life simply because they signed up to defend others is asinine. It's also the kind of contempt that leads to politicians sending them overseas to fight unnecessary wars. They get paid to die, who cares if they do? Right?

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

From page one -
OK,  here is my try,
             
          Why do you insist on telling me what it takes to get you off ?
                 Im sure it would make no difference if I didn't know ?

If the ( person ) at the video store announced " they like to ( add your own here )"  I would deem it inappropriate to have such intimate knowledge of what should have been a professional relationship only.

As a matter of interest, what makes it " absurd " in your opinion that a potential employer would say
" We don't care - we don't even need to know. "
I have Friends and relatives I am pretty sure are Gay but I don't move in that part of their life.

( Some people, as do I, will Occasionally capitalize a word in mid-sentence for emphasis. Sorry if it throws some. People take all kinds of license here )

Clearly, the issue isn't so much the act of telling people you're gay.  It's the prejudice displayed afterwards.

If you truly believe in equal rights for all, then you should be against institutionalized prejudice.

If I start talking about  what it takes to get me off at work. You better believe people would treat me different ! I certainly wouldn't be on the fast track anymore. The same would hold true if I started pushing a religion ( save islam ) or a political bent,  So what is your point again ?

CC-Marley wrote:

It was all part of a crappy defense bill. It's not like it was THE DA/DT Bill that failed. This was on it too. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09 … n-defense/

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

why does the title say by republicans?  i am confused.  should say by clinton.

Democrats have The White House - The House and the Senate. They can do anything they want if they wanted to !  The Elections are coming up and they will answer to the people not just the C.L.A.M.s but  with all the hypocracy here who really cares.