I Wear Pants;605713 wrote:Yes it is.

Just repeal it. If there is misconduct, be it between gays or two heterosexual people of different genders you should deal with it the same way.

It is easy.

Its only easy for an outsider looking in. The military has policies in place to prevent misconduct between males and females. They have no policies to prevent misconduct between gays. That is what they are going to be working on now.

It's only difficult for someone who doesn't think gays should be in the military or out while in service or if you somehow think that gays will somehow behave differently.

Gays didn't fight this long to get DADT repealed so they could sex it up in the barracks.

majorspark;605719 wrote:I have not paid much attention to this, but does not a repeal of a law by default send it back to it prior state? Did they include in the repeal any changes to the previous policy? Can the military leadership now ask? And if so what provisions are in place to guide them in any actions they may perceive necessary to a subordinates answer? Or refusal to answer?

I am on my phone, but if you do a quick search you can find out what happens next. Basically the repeal won't take effect until policies are in place to include gays etc.

I Wear Pants;605732 wrote:It's only difficult for someone who doesn't think gays should be in the military or out while in service or if you somehow think that gays will somehow behave differently.

Gays didn't fight this long to get DADT repealed so they could sex it up in the barracks.

Come on, stop giving the same old text book replies to DADT and read what I am saying. I never stated I didn't think gays should be in the military. And I never said they would behave differently either. And I never said they would go sex crazy with each other. What I am saying is that the policies in place now protect males and females from each other like in the scenarios I listed. Why should a third party need to be present when a male and a female are alone but a 3rd party isn't required when 2 gay males are alone?

If your glad to see the ban go away vote yes if not vote no.

Have fun boys..no pun intended

Glory Days;605739 wrote:Come on, stop giving the same old text book replies to DADT and read what I am saying. I never stated I didn't think gays should be in the military. And I never said they would behave differently either. And I never said they would go sex crazy with each other. What I am saying is that the policies in place now protect males and females from each other like in the scenarios I listed. Why should a third party need to be present when a male and a female are alone but a 3rd party isn't required when 2 gay males are alone?

Or two lesbian soldiers for that matter.

The fascinating thing in this whole debate in my opinion has been the fact that the lefties LOVE to chastise conservatives for their homophobia and their close-minded view on gays openly serving in the military while completely ignoring the uncomfortable nuances that the repeal of DADT is bound to create.

There's already been a lot of discussion on this topic on the Politics forum since December 11th: http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/threads/20607-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell

Be honest.

Is there really a need to have any modification done? There are gays in the military right now and my money is on the fact that their fellow servicemen/women already know it and life goes on as usual. Just because DADT is repealed, how is that really going to change what already happens or doesn't happen?
Is there a fear that people are going to start queening like Divine, or what?

I'm for it.

If there are people willing to fight and pay the ultimate sacrifice for this country, then allow them to do so. I for one am not willing to do this, so I respect ANYONE who is willing to straight, gay....

What a horrible dilemma if you're bisexual!

Thinthickbigred;605794 wrote:"Military gay ban overturned...."

The military ban on homosexuals serving in the military was overturned quite some time ago when the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was adopted.This recently debated legislation changes the ability to publicly make known one's sexuality.

Pls be honest.

bigkahuna;605831 wrote:If there are people willing to fight and pay the ultimate sacrifice for this country, then allow them to do so. I for one am not willing to do this, so I respect ANYONE who is willing to straight, gay....

LOL I like the honesty .... I know fighting for our corrupt office holders is a strain but i would fight along side my countrymen if I had too even though I may not agree with my corrupt government.....

I thought there would be more far right wing republican nazi's on here ......I am waitiong for the hate mongering to come forth ....

The only thing anyone hates is your abuse of the mother tongue.

I say empty death row empty all the pediphiles from jail all the major offenses triple crown winners and send them to Afghanistan.......empty all the prisons and give them weapons and just let em go ....

queencitybuckeye;605846 wrote:The only thing anyone hates is your abuse of the mother tongue.

you would silance critics thats the big diff between u and i

Thinthickbigred;605847 wrote:I say empty death row empty all the pediphiles from jail all the major offenses triple crown winners and send them to Afghanistan.......empty all the prisons and give them weapons and just let em go ....

Because you think they'll do well fighting for their country?

There are some very, very right-wing Republicans on this board, and there are some very, very left-wing Democrats on this board.

In my own opinion, they're both blind followers of a group, and are willing to sway their ideals based on what that group does. Moreover, they're so quick to see the problems with the other end of the spectrum, but then they display a sort of cognitive dissonance when it comes to their own.

What I've come to realize is that both are well-intentioned. They're just what Martin Seligman refers to as "empty selves."

Thinthickbigred;605849 wrote:you would silance critics thats the big diff between u and i

Yeesh! Are you texting your comments?

What makes you think QCB would "silance" critics? Have they said so?

cmon just be honest guys

CenterBHSFan;605815 wrote:Is there really a need to have any modification done? There are gays in the military right now and my money is on the fact that their fellow servicemen/women already know it and life goes on as usual. Just because DADT is repealed, how is that really going to change what already happens or doesn't happen?
Is there a fear that people are going to start queening like Divine, or what?

I doubt we'll see any camping (other than with tents). The macho atmosphere of the military will prevent it.

I suspect the major thing we won't see now (since it is repealed) is while many (most?) service members didn't give a crap about whether there was a gay person serving beside them...some probably were uncomfortable or took offense. Or an officer didn't like a particular enlisted man or woman. In both cases, if the gay member happened to say something that would reveal themselves, it allowed a path for them to be taken out of the military. That won't happen now.

And I have to believe repealing DADT will not mean the military goes back to simply not allowing gays to serve. What would have been the point of gays fighting this for so long. They want gay service members to be able to serve and feel comfortable in their own skins, and not have to walk on eggshells worrying about saying the wrong thing in front of the wrong person.

CenterBHSFan;605815 wrote:Is there a fear that people are going to start queening like Divine, or what?

AGAIN this is not about homophobia.

It's about the possible dilemma commanders may face to one degree or another the rights of soldiers who simply do not - for personal, religious, or whatever reason - want to be exposed to a soldier who is openly gay.

It will insert a new wrinkle in the mix. YES gays have been servicing "on the sly" forever. But now that gays can tell their commanders they are gay and the commanders know it, are they now also obligated to inform those within their command who those gay soldiers are so the non-gay soldiers have an opportunity to pick a new roommate for example?

If DADT is repealed and gays can now openly admit their homosexuality, then commanders should be free to announce it to everyone to give those who wish not to be roomed with a gay an opportunity to have their housing situation changed.

Fair is fair.

Again folks, I personally could give a rat's ass if gays can serve in the military. But the rights and beliefs of non-gay soldiers also need to be considered.

Writerbuckeye;605866 wrote:I doubt we'll see any camping (other than with tents). The macho atmosphere of the military will prevent it.

I suspect the major thing we won't see now (since it is repealed) is while many (most?) service members didn't give a crap about whether there was a gay person serving beside them...some probably were uncomfortable or took offense. Or an officer didn't like a particular enlisted man or woman. In both cases, if the gay member happened to say something that would reveal themselves, it allowed a path for them to be taken out of the military. That won't happen now.

And I have to believe repealing DADT will not mean the military goes back to simply not allowing gays to serve. What would have been the point of gays fighting this for so long. They want gay service members to be able to serve and feel comfortable in their own skins, and not have to walk on eggshells worrying about saying the wrong thing in front of the wrong person.

I agree. Yet another nuance to the repeal of DADT that needs to be considered.