- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
...you know there is no ban on gays serving in the military, right?
Oh, I thought you said was for it. Got ya...
...you know there is no ban on gays serving in the military, right?
If there wasn't, then gays wouldn't get discharged for being gay. It's called Defense Directive 1332, which bans gays from serving in the armed forces.
It's a whole different story when it's not your ass on the line and not one of your comrades. The whole, "band of brothers", thing and all. Ya know?
No. Because the military should not be promoting any type of intolerance or discrimination. And, your earlier suggestion that troops simply be ordered to not be allowed to talk about their sexuality/significant others/relationships will not work.
You can try to get it through all you want, but it won't happen.
Really? It's my butt on the line, as you put it, if they send me IA in the reserves. It is my husband's butt on the line, seeing as how he is active duty. I am completely willing to take the chance that I nor he will be killed because DADT was repealed. In fact, if he or I get sent IA, I promise that I will still support the repeal, whether it has happened by then or not.
No, I'm not.
Have you ever served??
If there wasn't, then gays wouldn't get discharged for being gay. It's called Defense Directive 1332, which bans gays from serving in the armed forces.
Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Military Services under the terms set forth in subparagraph 8.a.(2) of this enclosure.
Everyone seems to be getting that wrong, for some reason.
Hence the neccissity for DADT to remain in place and do away with the ban on gays.
It'll happen unofficially. Like it or not, local commanders will institute their own watered down version of DADT, in the attempt to prevent discrimination. It'll be issued as a standing order, by the division commander and violation of that order will make a soldier subject to Article 192 of the UCMJ.
Not likely. Such orders would be deemed unlawful orders. There is no way that those military CO would be able to legally forbid their unit members from talking about their husbands/girlfriends/wives/boyfriends/whatever while those soldiers are off duty. It would be an unlawful order. They could order that no one talks about their private lives while on duty, but not off duty. They would essentially also have to ban their unit members from going out together and/or to houses of anyone who had a wife/girlfriend/significant other. It wouldn't fly, no matter how much you want it to.
Good for you. Which infantry unit are you in, BTW?
Good for you. Which infantry unit are you in, BTW?
Under DADT, they do not get discharged for being gay, they get discharged for violating DADT, ie telling.
(b) A basis for discharge exists if—
1. The Soldier has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.
Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?
OMG!!! You people really are unaware of what the regulations really say!
If there's no ban on gays, why do the regulations explicitly ban homosexual conduct?
AR 600-20 states,
Homosexual activity is forbidden under DOD Directive 1332.14
It doesn't matter. You have no proof that gays serving openly will negatively affect combat units any more than it would affect any other unit in the military. Gays have been serving in combat units for a long time and will always serve in combat units, just like support units.
Also, my husband has seen combat. He doesn't agree that it will cost any lives, although he is uncomfortable with the idea of gays serving openly. We have talked about this issue, more than he would ever like.
This is ridiculous. Answer the question.
And, you have no proof that it won't. The difference being, that if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, people die.
I just did.
Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?
Actually, I'm curious what apdst would think an appropriate punishment would be for violating DADT under his compromise plan.
And, you have no proof that it won't. The difference being, that if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, people die.
I think he meant this one:
You can just agree with me though, it's cool. Hey though, while you're answering questions, do mine too:
Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?
Except that patriotic people who want to serve in the military will be kicked out for being biologically different. And I didn't catch your answer. What post was it in?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?