Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

[OscarB63]

Get over yourselves boys..you arent that hot.

:lol: maybe you need to take a closer look at my avatar...I am that hot :lol:

 

[rivrrat]

If it is OK for the commander in chief to get a blowjob at his desk in the oval office, then dammit, it is OK for me to get one at my desk in the battalion ops center

I don't know about y'all, but if I was about to go and risk getting myself splattered all over the desert by some illiterate camel herder, I'd sure as hell be wanting to have the chance to empty my nuts in a chick's mouth once or twice before I go.

But that's just me ... :shrug:

You guys aren't seeing the big picture. Getting a blow job - at ANY time - is detrimental to the safety of the soldiers everywhere. And unit cohesion. And stuffs. A tongue touching a dick will cause soldiers and puppies to die. Why do you hate the soldiers so much?

 

[opinion8tdwench]

Ap, I think that is almost apples and oranges. That is not just a case of 2 folks having a quick romp in the back seat of a car. You are dealing with a superior officer and a non-com. Had they both been SPC4, they might have been in a little bit of trouble just on a public indecency charge, but probably not much beyond administrative punishment would have happened.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

:lol: maybe you need to take a closer look at my avatar...I am that hot :lol:

I will take a closer look, Oscar. Got one in a speedo? ;-)

 

[OscarB63]

You guys aren't seeing the big picture. Getting a blow job - at ANY time - is detrimental to the safety of the soldiers everywhere. And unit cohesion. And stuffs. A tongue touching a dick will cause soldiers and puppies to die. Why do you hate the soldiers so much?

Oh god...not dead puppies, anything but dead puppies!!!!!!!

 

[apdst]

So your saying the majority of gay men can't control themselves, or don't understand that the majority of people he would be working with aren't gay?

No, I'm not saying that. You'r putting words into my mouth.

What I am saying, is that gays are no different than straights. If straights can do stupid ****, gays will do stupid **** at the same rate. Which will equate to higher rate of stupid ****.

Seriously, it's not like their going to be treating their service in the military like an outing at their local gay bar.

Some will. Just like their straight male soliders, who purposefully enlist in mostly female MOS's, so they can go scout *****.

If they can't follow the fraternization rule they should be punished. But why should gay people, or straight women for that matter, that follow the rules be punished for being who they are?

I don't think anyone is being punished for being who they are. Gays join the military, fully aware of DADT. It is a regulation and I'm not going to shed any tears for them, if they get busted violating the regulations.

 

[Boo Radley]

nope! Never said that. When I was with 1/8CAV, 2nd BGD, 1st CAV at Ft. Hood, the commander of our support battalion got busted in the parking lot of the PX, getting his dick sucked by a female SPC4. He was married, she was married, they both fried. They were both burned with two counts from Article 134 and one count from Article 125, which is exaclty what should have happened.

Sure, as would be expected. Would that or worse happen if it was two males? Why would there be any difference? So, why should the law be different?

 

[apdst]

You guys aren't seeing the big picture. Getting a blow job - at ANY time - is detrimental to the safety of the soldiers everywhere. And unit cohesion. And stuffs. A tongue touching a dick will cause soldiers and puppies to die. Why do you hate the soldiers so much?

What if two soldiers are on a LP/OP--listening post/observation post--and they are playing around, rather than listening and observing. Then, yes, soldiers's lives are in jeopardy. That's no different than falling asleep on gaurd duty.

In that case, not only would those soldiers being violating the UCMJ, they would be directly disobeying their 1st General Order, another court martial offense.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

So, if they get rid of DADT, then its all okay? As long as they adhere to the UCMJ they are okay? If they violate it, they are just like any straight soldier who voilates it? I think what most dont seem to get is that gays have ALWAYS been serving in the military. There were gay soldiers in the continental army..there were gays in WW I, WW ll, and every war since then and before. We have not disintegrated from it yet. Why, do you think it will be any different from now on?

 

[OscarB63]

I will take a closer look, Oscar. Got one in a speedo? ;-)

closest I've got, sorry about the groin protector obscuring the view. :lol:

 

[apdst]

Ap, I think that is almost apples and oranges. That is not just a case of 2 folks having a quick romp in the back seat of a car. You are dealing with a superior officer and a non-com. Had they both been SPC4, they might have been in a little bit of trouble just on a public indecency charge, but probably not much beyond administrative punishment would have happened.

My point is, that in an infantry unit, that problem doesn't exist, among the ranks. Why? Because there are no females in infantry units.

Personally, I don't think there sould be ANY co-ed units in the Army. They should be male, or female.

 

[Dav]

So... has anyone looked at the actual court decision, or have any desire to talk about it?

I skipped a couple of pages, but it doesn't seem like it.

 

[apdst]

So, if they get rid of DADT, then its all okay? As long as they adhere to the UCMJ they are okay? If they violate it, they are just like any straight soldier who voilates it? I think what most dont seem to get is that gays have ALWAYS been serving in the military. There were gay soldiers in the continental army..there were gays in WW I, WW ll, and every war since then and before. We have not disintegrated from it yet. Why, do you think it will be any different from now on?

If they get rid of DADT, then we get into the issue of seperate billets, because there are going to be straight soldiers who refuse to billet with gay soldiers and vice-versa.

 

[apdst]

So... has anyone looked at the actual court decision, or have any desire to talk about it?

I skipped a couple of pages, but it doesn't seem like it.

I talked about: the 9th Circus doesn't have jurisdiction over military regulations.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

LMAO. Very nice Oscar..But I think, with a little effort, I Could resist the urge.

 

[Boo Radley]

My point is, that in an infantry unit, that problem doesn't exist, among the ranks. Why? Because there are no females in infantry units.

Personally, I don't think there sould be ANY co-ed units in the Army. They should be male, or female.

It shouldn't exist at all. Are you suggesting people can't be adults, and that heterosexual males will have sex willingly with homosexual males?

 

[marduc]

What if two soldiers are on a LP/OP--listening post/observation post--and they are playing around, rather than listening and observing. Then, yes, soldiers's lives are in jeopardy. That's no different than falling asleep on gaurd duty.

In that case, not only would those soldiers being violating the UCMJ, they would be directly disobeying their 1st General Order, another court martial offense.

What if 2 different soldiers in the same situation were passing around a bottle of Jack Daniels. Soldiers lives would be in jeopardy. Should the military proactively make any and all drinking grounds for discharge just in case some alcoholic soldiers cannot control themselves in a combat situation?

 

[rivrrat]

What if two soldiers are on a LP/OP--listening post/observation post--and they are playing around, rather than listening and observing. Then, yes, soldiers's lives are in jeopardy. That's no different than falling asleep on gaurd duty.

In that case, not only would those soldiers being violating the UCMJ, they would be directly disobeying their 1st General Order, another court martial offense.

LMFAO

Yeah, so making it a court-martial offense to get a blow job from your wife is the way to fix that. :lol:

You really want to continue making the military look that retarded?

 

[opinion8tdwench]

If they get rid of DADT, then we get into the issue of seperate billets, because there are going to be straight soldiers who refuse to billet with gay soldiers and vice-versa.

If they do change the law, apdst..I would LOVE to be there the first time a soldier said "Oh no, I wont billet with him, and you can't make me" . If we are taking soldiers that immature, and that unwiling to do as they are told, then we are lost, whether they are gay or straight.

 

[Your Star]

No, I'm not saying that. You'r putting words into my mouth.
What I am saying, is that gays are no different than straights. If straights can do stupid ****, gays will do stupid **** at the same rate. Which will equate to higher rate of stupid ****.

There are other rules to stop people from doing stupid crap. There is no need for a rule that makes homosexuality a punishable offensive.

Some will. Just like their straight male soliders, who purposefully enlist in mostly female MOS's, so they can go scout *****.

And there are rules to keep them in line. If they step out of line, they will be punished.
Also, there are better places to find gay men then the military.

I don't think anyone is being punished for being who they are. Gays join the military, fully aware of DADT. It is a regulation and I'm not going to shed any tears for them, if they get busted violating the regulations.

But why should the regulation be in place? Isn't the regulation in itself punishing people? You keep saying that it's just the rules, and they were violating regulations, but lets cut to the chase here.
Do you think that homosexuals, should be allowed to serve openly in the military?

 

[rivrrat]

What if 2 different soldiers in the same situation were passing around a bottle of Jack Daniels. Soldiers lives would be in jeopardy. Should the military proactively make any and all drinking grounds for discharge just in case some alcoholic soldiers cannot control themselves in a combat situation?

You know, come to think of it... if the two guards get pissed off at each other and one of them shoots the other, that would be detrimental too. So we should probably ban all guns in the military.

 

[apdst]

It shouldn't exist at all. Are you suggesting people can't be adults, and that heterosexual males will have sex willingly with homosexual males?

No, I'm saying that if gay soldiers are allowed to serve in combat arms units, a problem will come into existance, that currently doesn't exist.

If you were in the Army, you should know that there are many cases, where soldiers are incapable of being adults.

 

[OscarB63]

If they get rid of DADT, then we get into the issue of seperate billets, because there are going to be straight soldiers who refuse to billet with gay soldiers and vice-versa.

not really, they will just have to get over it. like they did when they integrated the service. there were white soldiers that didn't want to billet with black soldiers and vice-versa and we got over that.

As I mentioned earlier the kind of gay person who would want to join the miitary will be the kind of person with the moral character to resist raping his bunkmate. Of course there will be exceptions, but there always are with any situation.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

What if 2 different soldiers in the same situation were passing around a bottle of Jack Daniels. Soldiers lives would be in jeopardy. Should the military proactively make any and all drinking grounds for discharge just in case some alcoholic soldiers cannot control themselves in a combat situation?

Very true, mard. We are dealing with adults. Adults who are capable of controlling themselves, and behaving AS adults. There are those who cant in any group, and they need to be weeded out, and removed from the group. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Maturity and a willingness to follow orders is what is important.

 

[apdst]

LMFAO

Yeah, so making it a court-martial offense to get a blow job from your wife is the way to fix that. :lol:

You really want to continue making the military look that retarded?

And, you understand better than I because of your extensive military service. Yes?