'Don't ask, don't tell' policy ruled unconstitutional

jillio said:
Oh, my! The typo police are out.
Click to expand...
It's not a typo; it's a totally different word and meaning.

If I were truly a typo police I'd be harping on your constant misspelling of judgment. :lol:
 
Reba said:
It's not a typo; it's a totally different word and meaning.

If I were truly a typo police I'd be harping on your constant misspelling of judgment. :lol:
Click to expand...

A typo can result in a completely different word and meaning. That is why spell check does not recognize all errors.:lol:

I see that you are up to your old tactics. Deflection in an attempt to irritate a poster. I choose not to play. It is humorous, however.
 
jillio said:
A typo can result in a completely different word and meaning. That is why spell check does not recognize all errors.:lol:
Click to expand...
That's what personal proofreading is for. :giggle:

I see that you are up to your old tactics. Deflection in an attempt to irritate a poster. I choose not to play. It is humorous, however.
Click to expand...
Deflecting what? Am I wrong?
 
Reba said:
That's what personal proofreading is for. :giggle:


Deflecting what? Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Some of us are not OCD regarding spelling on a post in a chat forum.

Is it related to the topic? I think not. Hence...deflecting. As I stated, very humorous.
 
jillio said:
Some of us are not OCD regarding spelling on a post in a chat forum.
Click to expand...
Don't need to be; free spell checker is included. :)

Is it related to the topic? I think not. Hence...deflecting. As I stated, very humorous.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you brought it up then. :dunno:

OK.
 
Reba said:
Political promises are easy to make and hard to keep.
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree with you.

I'm disappointed with Obama Admin and make more harder for me to trust them, however I prefer to have true gay friendly president with excellent experience on major of issues, such as responsible to control the spending, maintain the economy, solve the health care crisis, know how to work in bipartisan way, etc to make more for me to trust them.

Sometime, political is always hard to trust.
 
jillio said:
The issue isn't relationship. It is disclosure of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

That is my whole point!! It should not matter at all what a soldiers orientation is because no soldier can have sexual relations in the military at all....at least not with another soldier. And to actually have sexual relationship would mean the soldier is off duty and with a citizen.
 
Reba said:
Before anyone gets too excited, please note that the DADT policy is back in effect:

'Don't ask, don't tell' back in effect, again - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me. As I noted previously, the ideal situation is for the Supreme CT to make a ruling on this.

As shoddy a rule as DADT is, I would rather have it in place. My reasoning is simple. I don't want to see a gay soldier drummed out of the military because he/she is gay.

Having said that, I am looking forward to the day where gays and lesbians can serve alongside their straight comrades and not be maligned for it.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
...Having said that, I am looking forward to the day where gays and lesbians can serve alongside their straight comrades and not be maligned for it.
Click to expand...
Many of them are; it just isn't publicized.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
That doesn't surprise me. As I noted previously, the ideal situation is for the Supreme CT to make a ruling on this.

As shoddy a rule as DADT is, I would rather have it in place. My reasoning is simple. I don't want to see a gay soldier drummed out of the military because he/she is gay.

Having said that, I am looking forward to the day where gays and lesbians can serve alongside their straight comrades and not be maligned for it.
Click to expand...

In bold, I have similar mixed feeling on this issue but I don't believe that gay soldiers should be discharge for being openly gay, however I give an advice to gay soldiers to think twice and get know so well before they can being openly gay.

That how I got bullied so badly and got threat message for being openly bisexual when I was in senior (12th grade) in 5 years ago, also they label bisexual as gay. :roll:
 
rolling7 said:
That is my whole point!! It should not matter at all what a soldiers orientation is because no soldier can have sexual relations in the military at all....at least not with another soldier. And to actually have sexual relationship would mean the soldier is off duty and with a citizen.
Click to expand...

Ummm...not really. Two soldiers that are married can have sex with each other. And if you believe there is no sex between members of the military, you really have your head in the sand.

Again, this is about disclosure of sexual orientation, not relationships. The topics are separate and have different implications. The first is a civil rights issue.
 
Reba said:
Many of them are; it just isn't publicized.
Click to expand...

Agreed that they are. However, it isn't a matter of not being publicized, but of forbidding disclosure. Why should anyone be prevented from disclosing sexual orientation and being true to themselves. Especially when it has already been shown that if does not affect the ability to do the job in the least, nor does it have a negative impact on others doing their job.
 
Foxrac said:
In bold, I have similar mixed feeling on this issue but I don't believe that gay soldiers should be discharge for being openly gay, however I give an advice to gay soldiers to think twice and get know so well before they can being openly gay.

That how I got bullied so badly and got threat message for being openly bisexual when I was in senior (12th grade) in 5 years ago, also they label bisexual as gay. :roll:
Click to expand...

It makes me queasy as well. However, I think DADT needs to stay in place until gays can serve OPENLY in the military w/o punity.
 
jillio said:
...And if you believe there is no sex between members of the military, you really have your head in the sand....
Click to expand...
There is but depending on circumstances they can get into trouble for it, up to and including court martial.
 
Since DADT has been deemed unconstitutional, does that mean the military will go back to the policies that were in place before DADT?
 
Back
Top