Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

Explain



Didn't imply that it did. Just pointing out that with the opposite notion that just because one side "won", then it must be right. Your argument is solely based on that it changed so therefore it must be right

.

I knew that, but for some reason I started thinking something else by the end of your sentence. I haven't met too many military personnel who disagree with that notion. This former military person at work went so far that he believes that you should serve in order to be considered a citizen and be allowed to vote. I told him that was dumb, but I do think it should be a requirement in order to be labeled "Commander in chief". You know, kind of like any other CEO, president, manager, etc should have, experience.




First, I'm not nor have I ever said that I was enlisted.

Second, you have not said any one thing that I have said to discredit me in being in the Army.

Third, "pretend to hold true across the entire military". The military WAS FORCED to remove of DADT. If the military truly felt against DADT, it would have done itself without any push. This is especially true since it has always been a hot topic for some years now.



I was referring to SINGLE people having sex with other SINGLE people, not adultery.

I can lead the idiot to water, but I can't make it drink.

PS: There are some serious gems in his response, if anyone is feeling masochistic enough to read it. I can't cull them easily on my phone, though.

What a ******* cretin.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 5:54pm by Eske

Huh? Communication need not be verbal. A "proposition" can (and often does) take a purely physical form.



The assault by definition is an admission of homosexuality by the person doing the assaulting. Are you really going to play word games here?



Do I really need to spell out every step of the process? Sorry, I assumed you had sufficient imagination to see how this would play out. Soldier1 engages in some sort of overt sexual action towards soldier2 in the shower. Details are irrelevant, but it's sufficient to be called a sexual assault. Soldier2 *could* charge soldier1 with that assault, but perhaps because of embarrassment, he'd rather the details of what happened that day not become a matter of public record.

Instead, he tells his immediate superior about it out of official channels. He says that soldier1 is gay and assaulted him. His superior then talks to soldier1 about the accusation. Soldier1 is given the option of either accepting a discharge for revealing his homosexuality to other soldiers *or* facing criminal charges for sexual assault, which may result in jail time and dishonorable discharge.

Take away DADT, and the only option is to file the assault charge. And if we can assume that this whole scenario rests on solder2 being hesitant to file such charges openly, we can also assume that some examples of soldier2 will just choose to stay silent instead of doing anything. DADT provides a method of resolving the problem without ruining anyone's life. That's the point you seem to keep missing here.




Sigh. I'm not detailing a single event. I'm giving a broad set of circumstances which may apply to the question at hand. Stop being so literal. It's unlikely that soldier1 progresses to overt sexual assault just on a whim, and it's likely that such behavior will continue over time until sufficient numbers of people have suffered or witnessed it that it can't be ignored anymore.

What I was getting at is that if one soldiers word isn't sufficient to cause this to happen, then eventually more guys will be walking up to their supervisor reporting the same sort of thing from the same soldier. That sort of behavior tends to progress, right? So if the first guy can't get his claim to stick, then after the second and the third and the fourth and the fifth guys all report the same behavior in the same soldier, *eventually* someone will step in and do anything.


And under DADT, an option is to allow the soldier in question to be discharged under DADT. Absent it, unless the behavior changes the only option is to file formal charges. We can debate which course is better, but it absolutely does remove options and would presumably require that more incidences occur before something can be done.

Might be a game for you, because you don't understand, but it's actually my job and these things come up. You seem to be under the misconception that UCMJ is the same as civil law, and that's laughable for me but I understand that you don't get it. All you have to work on is how it works in a civilian court, whereas I have military law experience and knowledge. I don't blame you, you're just an ill informed child as far as this topic is concerned.

By UCMJ definition, for DADT to take effect it requires the admission that the soldier claim he was homosexual. Grabbing your *** in the shower isn't an admittance of being gay. Grabbing a **** and saying "Hey, want me to suck it," is hilarious and in my opinion gay as fuck but, by UCMJ definition, is not admittance of being homosexual. Not only that, by your own hypothetical, the soldier who was assaulted would not mention the assault anyway because I guess it would make him feel icky. Your whole point is that instead of mentioning the assault he would say admitted to being gay. If you remove the assault from the equation, then you don't have the admittance you thought it proved. Really, these are simple questions any investigator would ask.Even in civilian jurisdictions that wouldn't fly and you're ignorant if you think it'd magically work in the military. Like I said before, it's your damn scenario, don't blame me for knowing the ins-and-outs better than you.Again, no. In cases of sexual assault, harassment, and previously DADT, details were very relevant. Do you not realize what you're describing is a crime? Solving those tends to require accurate details. We're talking about people's lives here. It takes a little more than "Private Scruffy says you're gay" to ruin one of those.Soldier2 is an idiot. I'd rather Soldier2 be a little embarrassed and a crime be properly punished than not. Too bad for you the military actually agrees with me on that as well.

Not only that, but are you so confused by civilian law that you don't even know that matters of sexual assault aren't automatically a matter of public record? You think under UCMJ the soldier that was assaulted is going to have their name and face plastered all over the place? Really?We're talking about issues that deal with peoples lives. I'm pretty sure even on the episode of Law & Order you saw made that apparent. The "broad situation" argument is convenient for you, though. Whenever you're proven wrong you can narrow it slightly to alter it as needed. Demonstrated, literally in this very conversation. You've yet to explain how "Not punishing a sexual predator to the fullest extent of the law" is a good thing. Him choosing to stay silent after an assault makes him an idiot, plain and simple. So now he is a repeat offender? I notice that the narrower you make your scenario, the less DADT is showing to be effective. Or are you saying the other soldiers are lying just because they have a feeling that the offender is saying it then they might as well jump on the bandwagon?Absent it the option is for Private Scruffy to man up and do the right thing, and the offending soldier be dishonorably discharged, jailed, and fined five ways from Sunday. Yeah, I can see why you'd want DADT to remain in place. A sexual predator gets a slap on the wrist while Private Scruffy isn't embarrassed!

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 8:38pm by lolgaxe

Could you please stop trying to tell the Military Police Investigator what constitutes, and what doesn't, as an admittance to a crime? Do you tell a regular cop he's wrong because his radar gun says you were speeding but your speedometer said you weren't? Again, even if your definition were correct, it would still not help Private Scruffy because your entire argument is that he's too embarrassed to talk about the assault. If he doesn't talk about the silent assault, then what is his claim? All he's left with at this point is to say Private Dink verbalized it. In your scenario the assault doesn't exist because Private Scruffy refuses to talk about it, therefore the theoretical "physical admittance" is missing as well. I'm not sure what you mean by this, so excuse me if I got it wrong here. No, if the sexual predator is charged with the assault he doesn't get to play the DADT card and take the lesser sentence. Dishonorable, jail time, and fines are the minimum. The maximum under DADT would be Dishonorable, and even that is under special circumstances (Like, you know, stupidly coming out while DADT was still in effect on national television)I thought I was very very clear about pointing out that filing formal charges is the better option for everyone. Why would I speculate on something I witness first hand?

And I'm not saying you're wrong about the soldier being more hesitant. Male and female soldiers alike tend to go through a period where they actually feel it's their fault for being assaulted. They do go quiet about it. These are people who are trained to face other people with guns and explosives. It's a nightmare to deal with. Being attacked by someone who's supposed to be there to protect you is a horrific experience. I hate to play the "trust me" card on an internet forum since at the end of the day it's all text, but there you have it. Your own scenario is a negative for DADT; it gives a window for the predator to not be punished as severely as he or she should be. It isn't protecting the victim, it's protecting the predator.

Not to mention the hilarious (and as it turned out completely ineffective) tactic of soldiers who, for whatever reason, thought they wouldn't be deployed so they try to use DADT as a means to get out. I don't know about you, but I feel taxes that go to Defense spending is already ridiculous, giving nervous children a free out and wasting all the tax money used to train and pay those individuals sounds wrong to me. Like I said though. It doesn't work, it just makes everything between everyone involved awkward.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 9:29pm by lolgaxe

I'm being deliberately calm because you simply don't feel like understanding. You have this incorrect notion in your head and you'll be damned to admit your theory is in error even when someone who knows better says otherwise. The biggest flaw is your insistence that the "admittance" wouldn't be brought up because Private Scruffy is too embarrassed to bring it up. If he refuses to talk about the sexual assault (which is your "admittance,") then there is no admittance. If someone punches you, and you refuse to talk about it and instead allude to a vague "He said he was going to hit me" then there is no battery. You might not think details are important so you believe saying whatever you want and not being able to connect them is a viable argument, but in real life those details are vital. But you have no qualms about an actual sexual assault taking place with the only consequence being a possible slap on the wrist. Makes another situation you were involved with here kind of more interesting. And I've corrected you multiple times how things actually happen.You actually tried this? You're saying I have less experience with people in the military than you? Are you fucking serious? I can't stop laughing! Here's a detail that I guess you know since you're far more experienced with the going-ons of military life than me! Those officers that are quietly told of a DADT offense was going on? They have to go through Military Police and JAG before they can just have the offensive soldier kicked out. You know what else reflects poorly on an officer? When a sexual predator who only got a slap on the wrist gets caught being a sexual predator outside the unit. Then we get to question the officer, ask him if there was any indicators of the behavior. Think he'll admit there was possible indicators and risk his own career or not? The cases I've dealt with say they won't risk themselves, but seeing as how you're the source expert here ...You say this a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.There isn't a "might." This isn't politics, you can't spin it. Both ways "gets this guy out of the military so he doesn't do this to more soldiers." Your way lets Private Scruffy not be embarrassed. My way also "gets this guy out of society so he doesn't do it to civilians as well." It also "takes back a significant amount of tax payer dollars." There should never have been a middle ground. You agreed: a crime was committed and said crime should be punished. The problem is you think that under DADT a commander could just dismiss someone because people said that he said he was gay (again, remember, your argument was that the actual assault wouldn't be mentioned because it was too embarrassing) During the commander's investigation questions will be asked. A lot of questions. "Well, he kind of acts gay" doesn't work. "Well, he said he was gay" doesn't work. Holy crap just Youtube "Army Steel Ding Dong" and you'll get several very gay appearing scenes (0:46ish has one guy placing his hand over another's crotch guard, and 2:29 is beyond questionable). Those soldiers didn't get kicked out. There's another out for our predator, by the way. "I was under the impression we were just goofing during all that talk and dance, sir."

I should point out that in the seventeen years of DADT, about 13,000 people were silently discharged, and cost you and me as tax payers roughly $200,000,000 in a ten year period within that. Sorry I don't have exact stats. I just got the first google link. Now, hopefully both of us realize that a fraction of both numbers is about sexual assaults similar to your ill fated scenario. I don't like those numbers. Hell, just the existence of DADT has cost us TWO HUNDRED FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS. And you're for this policy because you don't want Private Scruffy to be embarrassed?

You know what's the most frightening? The fact that you're right that some soldiers used DADT instead of doing the right thing. You know what happens now that DADT has been repealed? Those sexual deviants can legally return to duty. So Private Scruffy is in for a bad time now, especially if he continues to be too embarrassed over being molested. I don't want that. I want my soldiers to be safe. Not having this information hurts me, it hurts my soldiers, and it hurts the military. I can't say "Oh, you were discharged for DADT? Nope, can't sign up!" I could say "Oh, you have a felony for sexual misconduct? Go fuck yourself." And I'm telling you this as a Recruiter what I can, and cannot do. That frightens the ever loving fuck out of me.

Can you come up with a better reason to keep DADT other than "It won't embarrass Private Scruffy," please?

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 10:48pm by lolgaxe

This all sounds so...familiar...

While you're working. I understand that sometimes the military can be a 24/7 job. Like my job, you'd get in trouble for fucking someone while "working".



Agreed, but this doesn't answer the question as to why in the specific case of "if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?" There has to be a specific reason for this discrimination, the answer to the question is not "because the military discriminates". I don't know the answer, nor do you apparently. I'm ok with that, as it doesn';t apply to the topic of DADT.



Do you know what a false equivalency even is? I kinda thought you did, but the more you post the more false
equivalencies you make. While it is TRUE that the military discriminates against men who want to have long hair by allowing woman to have their hair longer than men, the reasoning behind why they allow woman to have longer hair isn't simply to disenfranchise men. Like in the professional world, the military has specific grooming standards for men & specific grooming standards for woman. Like in the professional world, a closeted homosexual would need to conform to the grooming standards of the job they apply for & would have to do the same to join the military.

Now, just because I'm ok with separate grooming standards for men & woman (which are based off of traditional gender roles) DOES NOT MEAN & WILL NEVER MEAN I'M OK WITH DISCRIMINATION DUE TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION. These are two very different things & insisting that if I support one thing I HAVE to support another is ludicrous. You, sir, are ludicrous for implying it.



Clergy, some political positions, the military, camp...



Who is the "they" you are referring too? What are "they choosing to" [do]? What choice are "they" making? Please do try & use complete sentences, when you don't it's really hard to decipher your drivel.



Not anymore! Homosexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals are now free to serve openly. Hurray progress!!!



If you look fat I'm sure you'll get sh*t from a drill instructor even if you're under the fat % limit, but you can't get kicked out if you meet the requirements, correct?



There are essentially, 4 sexual orientations possible: Gay, Straight, Bi, or Asexual. I am arguing against discrimination based upon one's sexual orientation, not against "all" discrimination. Whether or not other forms of discrimination by the military is right or wrong DOES NOT equate to just discriminating by sexual orientation. You bring up good examples as to why woman should be able to serve in full combat roles, but have yet to supply any examples as to why it's ok to discriminate against a particular sexual orientation.



One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to serve in the military, therefore it is wrong to discriminate solely on one's sexual orientation in the military.



From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Outside of the full legalization of SSM, homosexuals are not treated as equals & are denied their liberty & pursuit of happiness solely because of the sexual orientation they were born with. This is wrong & goes against everything the United States is supposed to stand for.



Plumbing & modesty are both reasons. You said "comfort" was the sole reason. Therefore, you are wrong.


Another false equivalent & another opportunity you squandered answering the question as to how heterosexual couples are discriminated by DADT repeal.

Any chance I can get you to answer that? How about how DADT has effected you & why it is you seem to oppose gay rights? Varrus, at least, uses the religious excuse. Sure, he's a hypocrite because he thinks being gay is morally wrong because of his bible yet his bible also tells him to not fornicate outside of marriage & he chooses to do that one anyway.

However, to quote one of my favorite shows on TV atm, Boardwalk Empire, "We all have to decide how much sin we can live with."

Listen, I'm done beating around the bush. Here's the deal; when it comes to woman in combat, the military DOES have some justification to discriminate based upon gender (A woman in combat, for example, may not be as strong or as fast as a man). What you have to prove, somehow, is that there IS justification to exclude homosexuals for a the same reason. That's how they can equate, dumbshit.

Because the military discriminates for other reasons IS NOT justification to discriminate based upon one's sexual orientation. Get it now?

SO please, give me some reason that you feel it is ok for the military to discriminate based upon sexual orientation BESIDES "because they discriminate for other things". It can even be your old fallback, "because I'd be uncomfortable around gay men." Granted, that is NOT justification to disenfranchise homosexuals, but it'll at least give me some insight as to why you feel the way you do about ******.







Edited, Oct 13th 2011 6:45am by Omegavegeta

Yes, NCO's correct officers on how to do their job, not on the meaning of life. You noted an error and I fixed that error. I'm not sure what else you want me to say.





I realized your confusion on that last post, I just wanted you to realize the irony in the fact that you don't even know the difference between enlisting in the military vs commissioning. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that I don't know anything about the military!! lol Silly Belly.



So, are you going to provide anything? That's like me saying that I don't believe you're from TN because I have 3 close friends from TN. WTF does that mean?



What did you mean?





Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality? I never said none others existed, just pointing out the fact of it being a rare minority.

Depends on the faith/sect. There's various Protestant faiths that allow homosexual clergy members. There's other faiths which do not.

Those that even marry two homosexuals, to each other.

Yay! She can be taught!