Don't ask, don't tell

I voted no because I've got a lot of friends in the military and every single one of them did not want this to pass. They're the ones who have to be out there fighting and I'm not gonna impose my morals on people who are already in a fucked situation.

Letting women serve in combat is completely ridiculous too. War is a mans sport and always has been. Women and gay guys have no place and only further complicate issues that are already incredibly complicated. We're simply not equal, both genders have their strengths and weaknesses and when we work as a team and each use our strengths things work out for the best. In football you don't take an offensive line man and put him in as a wide receiver or vice versa.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHASE

Like BigJon said it is a big deal with the way the conservatives are in this country. You know it's like when you find out one of good friends is gay and your like what the hell but then after a while you don't even think about it and they are still your friend and most of the time you end up with a better understanding. So it will be left up to the people and only time will tell.

I've had 2 friends turn gay on me and I don't speak to either one of them anymore. Once people come out openly they change. I don't hate either one of them but we lost all things in common. When they were in the process of hiding it they acted like me, talked like me and we had things in common. Once they announced they were gay after time they also started leaning more towards displaying they were gay from the way they dressed, to the way they talked, to the things they talked about. We had less and less in common and eventually completely stopped calling each other or hanging out because people who have absolutely nothing in common just don't hang out.

My wife has some gay friends who come over occasionally but I would never call them my friends. They're like girls and I look at them like girls. They can live however they want but I have no respect for men who don't act like men and that goes for girly straight guys too.

I know this is already incredibly long winded but one more example. When one of my wife's best friends was being abused by her husband and wanted to leave him but was scared she called me and asked me to come over while she packed. She is also best friends with the gay guys mentioned previously but did she call them in a situation she felt there could be a battle? No, she called me and we're not even friends just acquaintances. She calls them when she wants someone to go tanning with.

No matter what anybody says publicly to be politically correct and save face when you feel you're in danger you want a MAN fighting for you and the manliest man of a man you can find because he's the most likely to be able to protect you.

I served for four years on a ship. We Sleep about a foot apart, stacked 3 high. I'll give a small example of an issue: Six guys get dressed in a space that is smaller then most closets. There's a lot of incidental bumping and contact in that situation. Right now there is an unspoken fragile trust that there is no attraction and no intent in any actions in that situation.

I know the counter argument, that just because someone is gay it doesn't mean they are interested in you. But look at it from this perspective: if it were 3 guys (straight) and 3 girls getting dressed in a small space like that and there was bumping what would happen? Who would would be offended and who would claim sexual misconduct? As we all know we look even if we aren't seriously attracted, we check it out. Especially if its being unwrapped in front of us. I can watch women take off their clothes all day and be mentally aroused even if they aren't especially attractive. Something to do with unwrapping the presents!

I think its a bad idea. When I served we all knew there were gays among us. They stayed hidden (somewhat) and helped the rest maintain that fragile trust. Most of the gay men that I knew were clear (in a subtle way) that they were not interested in the other guys around them.

There are a lot of things about life in the military that would surprise and shock most of the general public. Most having to do with the closeness of the group and the bonds of trust and openness that exist between the men that serve. Ive never experienced any other relationships between a group of men that even comes close. those that have served will understand this and those that have not can try to understand but should realize that they do not really know what it is that they are attempting to interject into and how much it will affect the dynamic.

Picture this. A gay man in an Army barracks, first thing in the morning. A whole room full of young men with morning wood!! I voted no.

What most of you No voters are missing, is that gays are already serving in the military. Guess what, when you were getting changed in that tiny room with 5 other guys, it's possible that over time you got dressed with a gay guy. And guess what also...he didn't come on to you or rape you did he? You trusted him with your life, and you with his.This isn't about allowing gays in the military, it's about allowing us to serve without fear of being discharged because someone saw us holding hands or kissing someone of the same gender while on leave or off duty...whatever you call it.

People who are worried about this issue have clearly never served in the military. When you served, like I did, you weren't thinking about whether somebody was gay, or Republican/Democrat, or came from a nice family, or rooted for the frigging Dallas Cowboys. What you worried about is whether the men and women you served with would be there when you needed them, and you hoped/prayed/vowed to do the same for them. That's it. I knew who I could count on, and who I couldn't. Dude is gay but is solid when the shit hits the fan, that means nothing to me. He is my brother. Everything else is just talk.

Echos of the pathetic arguments against blacks and women in the service.

Four in our family served in the military and none of them has any such prejudice against gays, so what am I to think about your observation ? ( Who speaks for the military ? ) As they explained it to me, the military has it's own culture where dedication to duty is first, and everything is measured against that.

Mereteck - I suspect that you are on the wrong side of history on this. And it sure isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. That you characterized it as such just shows that you regard it as just a political issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by mereteck

What you don't understand is that the military isn't the general public. They live together they sleep together they eat together and the kill together. There is a very tight trust that is formed and it is very fragile. Right or wrong it will not sit well with most of the military. Even after it is repealed they won't be able to serve openly. There will be many more blanket parties. Sorry liberals, it is just the way it is. I voted no. I used to be in the military.

I think the problem is that folks expect with the repeal that gay soldiers will act differently then they do now. That is very disrespectful of them. These are professional soldiers who have been trained. They understand the fragile trusts and etiquette that allow a military situation to work. I think they also realize that this repeal isn't a license to publicly suck cock. What do you "no" voters expect? Dance music blasting from the barracks or pink, ass-less uniforms?

The military has a strict code of conduct and any soldier being disruptive will be disciplined. Anyone who has been in the service understands that.

The point of this repeal is that it is a step towards not treating gay people like second class citizens. They vote. They pay taxes. They should be allowed to serve their country and God bless anyone willing to place their lives on the line in service. If you voted "no" because you are worried they'll "bedazzle" their M-!6s you are not giving them any credit as professionals.

I think they joined the military cause they want to serve their country, not so there would be fewer girls around to compete with for ass.

Quote:

Originally posted by mrdorkbutt

I think the problem is that folks expect with the repeal that gay soldiers will act differently then they do now. That is very disrespectful of them. These are professional soldiers who have been trained. They understand the fragile trusts and etiquette that allow a military situation to work. I think they also realize that this repeal isn't a license to publicly suck cock. What do you "no" voters expect? Dance music blasting from the barracks or pink, ass-less uniforms?

The military has a strict code of conduct and any soldier being disruptive will be disciplined. Anyone who has been in the service understands that.

The point of this repeal is that it is a step towards not treating gay people like second class citizens. They vote. They pay taxes. They should be allowed to serve their country and God bless anyone willing to place their lives on the line in service. If you voted "no" because you are worried they'll "bedazzle" their M-!6s you are not giving them any credit as professionals.

I think they joined the military cause they want to serve their country, not so there would be fewer girls around to compete with for ass.

If you werent a guy and I wasn't already engaged to the most beautiful girl on wbw, then I'd ask you to marry me. lol.

Very well said sir. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

If you werent a guy and I wasn't already engaged to [ Link ], then I'd ask you to marry me. lol.

Very well said sir. Thank you.

In case you change your mind, I'll go put on my pink, ass-less uniform.

I voted Yes... I'm hetro and served my country for many years... There have always been gays in the service... The individual determines if they are going to be a good soldier or a bad one, sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.... Glad we are finally out of the dark ages...

I voted yes hoping that this issue can help all of us rednecks that like to fuck sheep and kows and other barnyard buddies. For some reason there seems to be a lot of folks that look down on us.

We are not turning this into debate over beastility. If this thread starts going down that road I'll have it locked.

I am so happy to see how open minded you are up in Canada. I guess that is why you and the rest of NATO were so quick with your decision on the serving openly issue. As far as locking the thread goes I think that would be a fine showing of colors.

Quote:

Originally posted by kowman

I voted yes hoping that this issue can help all of us rednecks that like to fuck sheep and kows and other barnyard buddies. For some reason there seems to be a lot of folks that look down on us.

Just to be clear, you do know you're equating having consensual sex with another person with having sex with an animal. I hope you realize that this is the most retarded argument in this thread, which is saying something, because there's already plenty of bigotry and sexism (Good job on the two-fer, Swiss) going on in here.

I need to hang out on here more. I have so missed EL.

Hard to believe that this is not pure satire.

I mean...."you want the manliest man of a man..." ????

Then again, maybe it is not Swiss, and it is Swish ?

Quote:

Originally posted by J-Swiss

I voted no because I've got a lot of friends in the military and every single one of them did not want this to pass. They're the ones who have to be out there fighting and I'm not gonna impose my morals on people who are already in a fucked situation.

Letting women serve in combat is completely ridiculous too. War is a mans sport and always has been. Women and gay guys have no place and only further complicate issues that are already incredibly complicated. We're simply not equal, both genders have their strengths and weaknesses and when we work as a team and each use our strengths things work out for the best. In football you don't take an offensive line man and put him in as a wide receiver or vice versa.

...

I've had 2 friends turn gay on me and I don't speak to either one of them anymore. Once people come out openly they change. I don't hate either one of them but we lost all things in common. When they were in the process of hiding it they acted like me, talked like me and we had things in common. Once they announced they were gay after time they also started leaning more towards displaying they were gay from the way they dressed, to the way they talked, to the things they talked about. We had less and less in common and eventually completely stopped calling each other or hanging out because people who have absolutely nothing in common just don't hang out.

My wife has some gay friends who come over occasionally but I would never call them my friends. They're like girls and I look at them like girls. They can live however they want but I have no respect for men who don't act like men and that goes for girly straight guys too.

I know this is already incredibly long winded but one more example. When one of my wife's best friends was being abused by her husband and wanted to leave him but was scared she called me and asked me to come over while she packed. She is also best friends with the gay guys mentioned previously but did she call them in a situation she felt there could be a battle? No, she called me and we're not even friends just acquaintances. She calls them when she wants someone to go tanning with.

No matter what anybody says publicly to be politically correct and save face when you feel you're in danger you want a MAN fighting for you and the manliest man of a man you can find because he's the most likely to be able to protect you.

It was never about not letting them serve their country. It was that they could not be open about their sexuality while serving. I personally have never had a problem with gays or lesbians in the military. My only problem was with the ones that were fighting to be allowed to serve while being open about there sexuality. If you want to serve your country then serve your damn country. If you get held up by some of the freedoms you must forfeit to serve your country then perhaps you don' really want to serve you country. To serve is to forfeit some of your freedoms so that the freedoms of your countrymen are safeguarded.

I would say yes but with a condition after having served 6 yrs in the Navy. The condition is simply separate berthing space just like they do between sexes now. I've been on a several deployments and they really play with your mind. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't lived through one but trust me when I say people go a little bit crazy and it takes a month or so to become "normal" again after returning home. The tiniest thing that you don't even notice in home port suddenly get blown way out of proportion after a couple months at sea. At least by handing out separate living quarters you wont have fights over if someone was staring at your ass while changing or watching you in the shower when in reality all that happened was they glanced at you.

So.... Canada has a military?

Quote:

Originally posted by DoC_PiRaTe

So.... Canada has a military?

Yeah, they got snowmobiles with hockey sticks and stuff.

In all seriousness, I don't think that it's that big of a difference. There's been gay people in the military for ever, it's not like the homo-floodgates are gonna open up and the military is gonna turn into the Village People. As far as not wanting sissy-pants gay people fighting with other soldiers, that point is moot. Sissy-pants people, gay or straight, usually don't enlist in the military.

Not to mention that the great Spartan army of ancient Greece preferred their soldiers to swing both ways so they would not long for their women while on long excursions away from home.

But hey, I'm not gay or in the military so who care's what I think.