bigkahuna;606453 wrote:Crew, I like what you said in each point.

My question to you is, how do you multiple post like that amongst several different posters?

Click on the multiple post button (which is the quotation and plus symbols) then on the last post you want to quote, click the reply with quote button. You should be able to multi-quote then.

ptown_trojans_1;605904 wrote:Gays can now serve openly, they can come out and say they are gay without being thrown out of the services.
It repeals the 1993 law, and eliminates all laws that would restrict gays servicing.

Not going to lie, I lol'd at the phrasing.

believer;605914 wrote:You know I see your point. I think the military should drop the bullshit of separating males and females into different living quarters. Why should someone's gender have anything to do with how soldiers are quartered, right?

Bullshit or not you have to love the politically correct world we've built where we gleefully trample on the rights and beliefs of some to accommodate the sensitivities of others.

What "right" is being infringed? I'm curious.

Also, how does this "infringe on" (or affect, in any way) one's beliefs? They are not changed by the existence of a gay person nearby, are they?

FairwoodKing;597994 wrote:Wrong. If it hadn't been for McCain and his fellow Republicans, this would have been overturned a few days ago. The Repubs are holding up the show, not the Dems.

Give me a break, the dems have had control of congress for most of the last 40+ years, get over your rhetoric for once and realize that both sides have screwed up things in many areas, including this one.

FairwoodKing;598009 wrote:I'll tell you another problem that has come up because of this policy. There have been many Middle Easterners who have joined the military to be translators in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages. For some reason a great many of them turned out to be gay and were ultimately thrown out. This has left our military sorely in need of quality translators and it has hurt our military operations in those countries.

Link/proof or more heresay?

Fairwood also ignores the fact that is was Bill Clinton who started this whole cluster fuck. You know, the same Clinton who is idolized and revered by liberals as the best damn President we've seen in 50 years. Yeah, right.

I Wear Pants;605646 wrote:You seem really caught up on this.

No, gay dudes won't be seperated from straight dudes.

While it may seem like the same thing, it isn't.

I'm "ok" with the repeal of DADT, but you can't be serious.

How is it NOT the same thing? A male and female can't be barracked together but two gay men or two gay women can?

The only difference is the pregnancy complication.

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.

You are naive to think that it wouldn't happen. Humans are humans, period.

If you think that sex in the barracks wouldn't happen if you put men and women together, then you are naive at best.

Ytowngirlinfla;605920 wrote:Uh I think they separate them because of things that "may" happen, rape, sex in places that shouldn't be happen like a ship. And you can't say they need to separate gays/straights for the same reason because if that was a problem it would have been happening by now.

Come on...really?

If you put two gay men in the same room the chance of them having sex are just the same as putting a man and a woman in the same room.

Let's not act like gays are different than straights, they like to get it on too.

coyotes22;605915 wrote:You do know that a DEMOCRATIC President, instituted DADT, right? So I guess, Clinton hated gays?

Yep I know and back then it was considered a step forward.......

GoChiefs;605911 wrote:Why so? So they can cross enemy lines and join the enemy in their fight against us? That makes sense.

I speak rhetoric sometimes ...We house these animals and then let them walk all over us in the prisons ...Heck if an inmate gets out of line and gases a CO then he should get taken out of that cell and beat until dawn the next morning then thrown into the hole with no light naked for a month .........The taliban would kill most of these people anyway ....

O-Trap;605854 wrote: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."

In truth I dont really think either far side is well intentioned ...I think they are both self serving hypocrits...

Hey, if they serve and protect our country I'm all for it. However, I am a firm believer in seperate shower stalls with netting under the soap trey in case a bar is dropped.

On the subject of gays being allowed to be open ..Whatever that means I dont know. I guess it means when your out at the club you can be kissing your male friend without fear of being kicked out ..Ofcours some drunken marines are going to take exception from time to time...Like they do when the gays cogrigate at the Iwo Gima statue in DC ..Yep the gays hang out there and once in awhile a larg group of marines go up to them and a riot breaks ...been going on for years........I personnally dont give a crap you want to serve then serve..Its not like this country is too good for you ..hell they already have gang problems in the military ...hell we even got several hundred if not thousand taliban in our military ....For real though the servie ought to inforce the law of no affection between people be shown while on military base ..I know hugs and kisses its all bull ....lets empty the prisons and sneak them all into north Korea

Where do I behind with this train wreck??? LOL

Thinthickbigred;607513 wrote:On the subject of gays being allowed to be open ..Whatever that means I dont know.

You don't know what the hell 'openly' gay means? That's what the whole repeal was about. So you know nothing about what was going on, yet, started a thread about it???

Thinthickbigred;607513 wrote:Like they do when the gays cogrigate at the Iwo Gima statue in DC ..

Cogrigate? Huh? I think I get what you're saying, and I'm calling bullshit on that one. I've never heard of such a thing.

Thinthickbigred;607513 wrote:hell we even got several hundred if not thousand taliban in our military

You think we have thousands of Taliban in our military???

Thinthickbigred;607513 wrote:lets empty the prisons and sneak them all into north Korea

What is up with you and putting prisoners on the front lines? What, if they kill an enemy, they get a pardon or something? I realize prisoners have been such model citizens and they would just make such excellent soldiers!

I think the difference is, if you put a man and a woman in the same room together, the ODDS are that they are heterosexual (since that is the vast majority orientation), and thus, they are attracted to each other's gender.

If you put two guys in the same room together, the ODDS are against them both being homosexual. It's possible, sure, and ultimately, it should probably be avoided if possible, but the odds are much less likely that any two random men sharing a room are both going to be attracted to each other's gender.

Moreover, from everyone in the military to whom I've spoken, everyone pretty much knows who is gay among each other (it's just not spoken of around superiors, from what I'm told). As such, this is already going on (gay men sharing rooms with other men, whether gay or straight). DADT doesn't really change anything in that respect.

So the question is, has this been a problem to date? If not, then I really don't see why it would be a bigger problem going forward.

I think Fairwood and ThinThick are the same person...

cbus4life;607728 wrote:I think Fairwood and ThinThick are the same person...

What makes you say that?

cbus4life;607728 wrote:I think Fairwood and ThinThick are the same person...

The only thing we have in common is that we are both from Steubenville. Other than that, we are two very different people.

O-Trap;607746 wrote:What makes you say that?

No real reason, mainly because they are both from Steubenville and posting a lot on this thread.

No offense to either intended, of course, lame joke.

O-Trap;607618 wrote:I think the difference is, if you put a man and a woman in the same room together, the ODDS are that they are heterosexual (since that is the vast majority orientation), and thus, they are attracted to each other's gender.

If you put two guys in the same room together, the ODDS are against them both being homosexual. It's possible, sure, and ultimately, it should probably be avoided if possible, but the odds are much less likely that any two random men sharing a room are both going to be attracted to each other's gender.

Moreover, from everyone in the military to whom I've spoken, everyone pretty much knows who is gay among each other (it's just not spoken of around superiors, from what I'm told). As such, this is already going on (gay men sharing rooms with other men, whether gay or straight). DADT doesn't really change anything in that respect.

So the question is, has this been a problem to date? If not, then I really don't see why it would be a bigger problem going forward.

You already answered why it hasn’t been a problem to date in your third paragraph. The military has been forced to ignore it and the soldiers don’t say anything. However now, with people being allowed to be open about their sexuality, commanders will know who is gay and could know when 2 gay males are living in the same room. Will military policy force them to be put in different rooms to be equal? If so, will the military force people to state their sexuality when joining to avoid any problems? How is it fair that 2 gay soldiers be able to live together but a male and female cant? What if as a straight soldier, I know 2 gay soldiers are living together, but they havent been completely open about their sexuality to their command staff, can I report them without getting in trouble?

Just out of curiosity, am I the only gay person on this blog or are there any others?

FairwoodKing;608577 wrote:Just out of curiosity, am I the only gay person on this blog or are there any others?

You might be the only one who is out.
.................

As an aside, I wonder what Gibby thinks about DADT being repealed?

As this moves forward, do you think the military's ability to attract recruits will be impacted by DADT? Will it be easier, harder, or no difference in the volunteer military's efforts to attract people willing to die for our country?

Glory Days;608358 wrote:You already answered why it hasn’t been a problem to date in your third paragraph. The military has been forced to ignore it and the soldiers don’t say anything. However now, with people being allowed to be open about their sexuality, commanders will know who is gay and could know when 2 gay males are living in the same room. Will military policy force them to be put in different rooms to be equal? If so, will the military force people to state their sexuality when joining to avoid any problems? How is it fair that 2 gay soldiers be able to live together but a male and female cant? What if as a straight soldier, I know 2 gay soldiers are living together, but they havent been completely open about their sexuality to their command staff, can I report them without getting in trouble?

Commanders may or may not know, just because soldiers are allowed to be open about their sexuality, doesn't mean they will be. They won't be rubbing it in anyone's face (no pun intended). I would think one would have to be quite nosy to know what is going on behind closed doors.

As someone has already pointed out, the odds of 2 gay soldiers being roomed together is probably very low.

cbus4life;607867 wrote:No real reason, mainly because they are both from Steubenville and posting a lot on this thread.

No offense to either intended, of course, lame joke.

Oh none taken. I was genuinely curious.