Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Military Discharges Hundreds

ClickonDetroit ^ | January 25, 2006 | AP

[Lucky Dog]

Or you could simply ask if they have or intend to bone a bunkmate.

Violates the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy... Thank Mr. Clinton.

BTW, do you always seek to come off as laughably pedantic?

Probably no more than you intend to come off as ignorantly insulting.

[MadIvan]

The daughter of some American friends of my parents got kicked out of the US Navy for fraternising on board ship with someone of the opposite sex. There are strict regulations on both heterosexual and homosexual relationships in order to maintain discipline. If the gay lobby doesn't like it, well that's just too bloody bad.

Regards, Ivan

[Galveston Grl]

Your husband is probably serving with a gay man who has control over himself. My teen son was shopping at Macy's and asked a flamer where the dressing room is. The idiot leered and said "take off your clothes right here." My son reacted like a normal man but I saw what was happening and interviened before my son commited a "hate" crime.

Have you ever been sexually harassed? If not you won't know what kind of anger comes up with that kind of aggression. I had a man grab my breasts at work one time and I just about took him out, I was in such a fury. I did not have a gun - lucky for him and me. It is the same for men and women, imho. The military does not need to give perverts a green light unless they want a lot of dead perverts and a lot of heterosexual men in the brig.

One other thing - the perverts in the Catholic seminaries have chased out normal men. Normal men will not submit themselves to a homo leadership with the power to harm them for not sexually performing or approving or looking the other way. Homosexuality is a sexual idenity - it is what one chooses to do sexually. It should not be forced on men and women to accept it or entertain it or tolerate it in the name of made up behavior rights. Homos in the closet means homosexual sex in the closet. That is important.

[exnavy]

Thank you for the crystal clear explanition/quote of the UCMJ.

[Lucky Dog]

You are, most certainly, welcome.

[exnavy]

From the tone of your comments, you probably never served on active duty. Active duty personal are not protected by the constitution. Those people defend the constitution, and do not have the benifit of the protection thereof. You should take the time to read the UCMJ in full, very dry, but enlightening, in regards to what rules of the road our military men and women must live by.

[MajorityOfOne]

"Active duty personal are not protected by the constitution. Those people defend the constitution, and do not have the benifit of the protection thereof."

Neither do folks in our penal system. Your point?

[exnavy]

I am speaking to your comments to Lucky Dog, your comments show an ignorance of the legal reality of serving on active duty.