Don't Ask Don't Tell going away

[The Chief]

Wunderbar - this is going to happen. All the kicking and screaming in the world won't change that and makes the screamers look worse for their effort.

I believe what you say might be true. I believe that the current Administration has decided that the "Chiefs" no longer have a voice. I am not sure that I would call the Commandant of the Marine Corps a "screamer" but it is a new day, for better or worse. Maybe the Chief of Staff Army is a "screamer" but I would not know; your call on that one.

 

[Flash]

I believe what you say might be true. I believe that the current Administration has decided that the "Chiefs" no longer have a voice. I am not sure that I would call the Commandant of the Marine Corps a "screamer" but it is a new day, for better or worse. Maybe the Chief of Staff Army is a "screamer" but I would not know; your call on that one.

Why say that? Instead of just decreeing something they are bothering to actually study it before doing anything. Deciding something than what some of the JCS doesn't mean they have lost their 'voice', especially when the JCS themselves have internal disagreements on the issue. The hazard of civilian rule I guess.

 

[The Chief]

Why say that? ... .

Just trying to be agreeable and I agreed with the quoted post. I haven't an original though in 20 years.

 

[Brett327]

That would be a Fincher reference. It's "Joe" in the novel.

Much of the dialog in the film is verbatim from the book. Besides, Fincher didn't write the screenplay, so there you go. I stand by my original post.

Brett

 

[The Chief]

..... haven't an original thought in 20 years.

Actually did have a bright idea. Suggest merge this thread with "Women in Subs". We then could morph the discussion to changing thrust of DADT policy to cover only hetrosexual behavior.

 

[phrogdriver]

Actually did have a bright idea. Suggest merge this thread with "Women in Subs". We then could morph the discussion to changing thrust of DADT policy to cover only hetrosexual behavior.

You're going to have to explain that part to me. I'm not being a smart-ass. I really don't get what you're implying.

 

[voodooqueen]

An Army intel guy who recently returned from Iraq was telling me that the real concern is that an outted gay, regardless of his or her behavior, might end up with no one at his back in a life or death situation. This same young man told me that one of the guys he served with had been discovered as gay and had been discharged more for his own safety than for being gay--even though he had never behaved as anything but a professional, stand-up guy.

After considering this boots on the ground perspective, I could really see why Clinton had opted for the current policy. I hope that the incoming alternative does not result in some kid's death due to homophobia.

 

[mmx1]

So if you have a bunch of selfish fucksticks that won't watch their fellow Marine/soldier/sailor/airman's back, the answer is to legitimize their bigotry by discharging the odd man?

The rest of that unit needs to get disciplined. I don't expect everyone to accept homosexuality. Approve, disapprove, whatever. But if you're going to jeopardize your fellow servicemember's safety because of your disapproval of his lifestyle, you're a shitbag with no honor.

 

[A4sForever]

..... if you're going to jeopardize your fellow servicemember's safety because of your disapproval of his lifestyle, you're a shitbag ....

Strangely enough (as it's posted by mmx-whatever) ... I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't know what 'honor' has to do w/it ... but standing up for your shipmates -- all of them -- always has and always will enter into the question ... it's what you do when you're in the NAVY.

When the shit hits the fan -- YOU ALWAYS STICK UP FOR YOUR SHIPMATES.

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

It's about the law & morality -- but when sanctioning illegal behavior that collides w/ 'law' becomes the new standard, then the 'law' becomes hypocritical and meaningless -- unless, of course, that 'law' is changed or people chose to look the other way. You can change the 'law' ... but what about the other half?? What about 'morality'??? If you keep dumbing down everything enough, pretty soon you have no standards. You have no morality -- it's 'whatever goes' ... it's chaos.

Why, I'd even be willing to bet that if things continue to deteriorate from a moral standpoint, we'll live to see the day when a ball player at the Boat School will be smokin' dope and STILL not get kicked out !!! :icon_lol::skull_125

The 'pro' arguments are bullshit and rationalizations and most of you are NOT bullshit kinda' guys ... rationalizers, mebbe (takes one to know one) ... but not bullshitters. But here's the rub (no pun): I think all too many of you are willing to believe almost anything to go along, get along in today's society ... to 'be hip', to be 'enlightened', to be broad minded, to be 'compassionate' .... wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay too many of you, all the way up & down the chain of command.

But for me??? I don't, I'm not, never have, never will ... I march to the beat of my own drummer. I like it that way; it works. I KNOW the difference between right and wrong. I KNOW that if I get down an' wallow w/the pigs, I'm gonna' be 'dirty' when I get back up. I KNOW where the line is, and since I'm not perfect, when I cross that line, I am willing to bear all the responsibility for whatever I do ... my own history has born that out.

Here's my bottom line (no pun):
Homosexuality is perversion; it's aberrant behavior. That's why it's been in the shadows until the recent past when our society decided that 'everything's O.K.' in the realm of morals and mores. 'Personal choices', right?? Bullshit. As was pointed out, some heterosexuality will degenerate into perversion and violations of existing law and 'normalcy', but we're not trying to legitimize aberrant behavior #1 by putting a +/- relative value on aberrant behavior #2 -- as that's a fool's game. You 'even talk about that at work' and someone will tell you to STFU ... but you tell a formerly 'closeted' person to STFU, and standby for the lawsuits and 'hate crime' offenses and a whole world of pain comin' YOUR way -- should you chose to be the STFU-er. Or .. you can bite your lip, be quiet, and eat shit for YOUR beliefs, moral code, & standards.

In complete agreement, but have a (or two) question(s): What about what some may consider "aberrant" heterosexual behavior? (Adultery not withstanding, it's already barred under UCMJ) On one hand, there are some of those that consider the flaunting of multiple pre/extra-marital sexual partners as aberrant behavior, while on the other hand, there are many that don't consider you a real, warm-blooded (& warrior-like) man, unless you are a heterosexual stud with multiple partners. Should such moral standards apply to that as well?

 

[Brett327]

So if you have a bunch of selfish fucksticks that won't watch their fellow Marine/soldier/sailor/airman's back, the answer is to legitimize their bigotry by discharging the odd man?

The rest of that unit needs to get disciplined. I don't expect everyone to accept homosexuality. Approve, disapprove, whatever. But if you're going to jeopardize your fellow servicemember's safety because of your disapproval of his lifestyle, you're a shitbag with no honor.

There are a whole host of reasons that Sailors fail to integrate and be accepted by their peers. I've seen obviously gay/effeminate Sailors be part of the group, and I've seen others become ostracized. Sexual preference, or at least the outward appearance thereof is not sufficient to cause someone to be "dissed" by their peer group. It's more about personality than sexuality.

Brett

 

[HeloBubba]

When the shit hits the fan -- YOU ALWAYS STICK UP FOR YOUR SHIPMATES.

True. Not letting down one's buddies is usually what drives folks to multiple tours in combat zones.

BUT

that bond CAN be broken (usually when somebody shows to be only looking out for themselves) and when it is, the loner had best be careful.

There are a whole host of reasons that Sailors fail to integrate and be accepted by their peers. I've seen obviously gay/effeminate Sailors be part of the group, and I've seen others become ostracized. Sexual preference, or at least the outward appearance thereof is not sufficient to cause someone to be "dissed" by their peer group. It's more about personality than sexuality.

Brett

Yes. See above.

 

[CWJones411]

Much of the dialog in the film is verbatim from the book. Besides, Fincher didn't write the screenplay, so there you go. I stand by my original post.

Brett

You're right- almost all the the dialogue is verbatim from the book- except for the name, "Jack". I love a good Uhls reference, too.

 

[The Chief]

Secretary Gates was asked about this but he would not tell. Fair enough.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/08/group-wants-same-military-benefits-for-gay-spouses/

 

[helolumpy]

CG ARPAC wrote a letter to Stars and Stripes stating that most troops do NOT support changing DADT.

Wonder how long he'll remain as the ARPAC commanding general???

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/25/top-general-in-hot-water-over-gay-policy/