Just to add…DADT is not a law, but an executive policy. Shouldn’t the Prez, as commander in chief, have the power to prohibit or allow gays at his whim?
I mean, he can order nukes to be launched all over the world, killing millions, but he can’t tell a poor 18 year old homosexual that he can’t enlist? Seems pretty silly…
it’s really not an executive policy or executive order if that’s what you meant. executive orders are only good for as long as the president is on office. this DOD policy was enacted in 1993 i think
and you need congressional approval to declare war and bomb people.
sorry to be so picky about what you’re saying…i get your point though.
the president does have full control over the Marine Corps though, and doesn’t need any kind of permission to use them, because officially the Marine Corps is not a branch of the Armed Forces…it’s a subsidiary of the Navy…kinda scary that a president can send out blood thirsty Marines whenever he wants
Wait, are you seriously saying that everyone you’ve met in the military has been straight? Do you realize how absurd that is? You may not have met anybody who was openly gay, but I guarantee you that there were at least a few people in the closet.
usmc8408, I’ve been looking forward to you responding to all the points and questions made in post #65. I guess there won’t be one?
sure, i’ll respond to it…give me a little bit…i don’t know if i even remember what i was trying to say anymore. 
you know i was done with this topic until i read this, and i have to say thank you. you’re the first person to ask what i personally think without being judgmental, assuming, or twisting my words with little snippets that lose the context of what i was saying.
i have to say too, this site is way too damn addicting…i swear, i had a dream last night about posting on here.
so as far as getting upset to people responding to my actual words…i’m not. i’m only getting upset when people are taking my words and assuming i personally think one way or another. i said a million times i was not speaking of my personal opinions…but then yes, later on i clarified.
the military UCMJ has a catch all article/law called article 134. it’s a vague article which basically lets the military charge you with something that may not have been specifically addressed in the former articles. so when the military says “…seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission,” you’re darn right i can say as a fact that they feel emotions…and all that jazz i previously said. i don’t know about civilian law, but the context of that quote covers many facets like article 134. so i’m not interpreting the policy based on how i see it, i’m speaking from what we were specifically told by top brass…even though we’re Marines, we do ask questions and want clarification with what’s called SOP.
so now, my personal opinion…it’s tough. on a personal level, and only from my OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, i’ve had gay friends in the past, but no matter how cool everything was, they never respected the boundaries…however, i have never met a gay military person so i can’t really say whether they would respect that line.
i do think it’s absolute bullshit that the military would just lay out a general judgment towards someone. gay or straight, there are sexual harassment laws, and those who cross the line should be dealt with on an individual basis.
i think homosexuality is the new black, and as ignorant as it is to discriminate, it exists, and i can only hope one day people will take their heads out of their asses and see people as people, and judge based on sexual preference.
the whole thing i was saying about the policy, which is why i kept saying that i wanted to keep my personal opinions out of it, is that at the root level, barring the ignorance of discrimination, there are parts that make sense, and serve a purpose. but then, the ends don’t justify the means.
gay people aren’t the only ones bound by crap ass policies either. if you look up the UCMJ, you’ll see there are alot of mind baffling idiocrasies in there. so on a larger scale, i think the whole system needs to be reconfigured to ways of the 21st century. i mean sodomy is a crime, and yes, people do get charged with it…mostly in adultery cases where they are looking to pile on charges…and yeah adultery is illegal too.
so i hope i cleared some things up and the call for my head will be called off.
This is not true. Executive Orders are good until a subsequent president repeals them. They don’t automatically disappear when a new president takes office.
You had to learn the Code of Conduct in the Marines, right? I’m pretty sure Eisenhower signed that Executive Order in 1955.
ok, i stand corrected
Thank you for the complement usmc8404
I don’t actually use myspace but thanks for the offer anyway. I wouldn’t take anything said on this board too personally, but I would recommend you be clear when you’re opining and when you’re playing devil’s advocate/representing someone else’s viewpoint on a subject (especially a touchy one like this).
For the record I’m slightly stunned about the behaviour you mention of the gay friends you’ve had, it strikes me as incredibly rude (I’d be just as annoyed if some woman tried to convince me to sleep with her “just to be sure I was gay” or some crap like that). I’m sure you realise that we’re not all like that, however. Maybe, as you say, you’re just so hot men can’t resist. 
I think DADT was passed by Congress (the Uniform Code of Military Justice is an act of Congress), but the President could simply issue an executive order halting all DADT proceedings and/or prohibiting COs from even investigating DADT violations. I believe Obama will do just that with days of taking office. Sodomy and adultery are both crimes under the UCMJ; only Congress can change the text of the code, but POTUS decided how it’s enforced.
They crossed your physical boundaries, and that’s rude. Sorry about that. I checked out your myspace, and you appear to look like a gay military fantasy. The tattoo armband especially. Still, no excuse for crossing boundaries.
I was in one unit where three of us guys were known as the three musketeers. Same age, rank. We hung out all the time. One Marine, one Air Force, one Army (me). Two of us were gay, the Marine wasn’t, but he eventually figured it out. Then two more guys in our age/rank group joined our unit (detachment, actually). One navy, one more army. Both gay. Poor Marine guy, one of him, four gay guys. He was cool with it though. Even went out to a gay bar with us one time, and he seemed to enjoy himself, and didn’t really mind the attention. But he had us to protect him. 
None of us ever overstepped any uncomfortable boundaries, and he even flirted a little here and there, in a clearly joking way.
It’s too bad your experience was negative.
you know, i think that’s the perfect word for what i was doing…playing devil’s advocate. but i’m new here, and believe me, i just learned to VERY clear in the future
So you didn’t mean it when you said this?
What limits should the posters above your first post have been aware of?
It is a law, passed by Congress: Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Wouldn’t an action like that by the president be a bad idea? It seems like there’s been enough of the President disregarding the law and ignoring Congress.
[quote=“DrCube, post:51, topic:471791”]
I didn’t get the impression that rednecks were any more prevalent in the Army than in civilian life. You’ll have to provide a cite otherwise or stop insinuating that the military is chock full of bigoted hillbillies.
QUOTE]
F*** you I’ll insinuate anything I want. You’re not the boss of me. 
It’s better than kicking gays out of the military. It’s not as good as letting gays serve openly. At the time, given the amount of resistance Clinton faced to open serving, it was a decent compromise. Today, given that so many other militaries have had open serving without the world ending, it seems somewhat antiquated.
Oh, I don’t know… wasn’t it the Spartans who had a unit comprised exclusively of, ah, paired partners? The notion was that you’d fight twice as hard and twice as well if you were protecting and being protected by your lover as by just any ol’ Johnny.
Mind you, your posts are the first time I’ve heard of “the negative influence of emotions” as the reasoning behind not having women in “combat units.” Usually it’s something about protecting us weaker sex. The argument we’re giving against that is that an artillery gun doesn’t care who’s pushing the red button.
DADT seems to have led to a lot of gays being kicked out of the military, judging by articles linked from these same boards. So long as nobody who’s a bigot and in a position of power knows officially, you don’t get kicked out. But if the “not in my batallion” colonel (to pick a grade out of thin air) happens to find proof that Mike likes to dress up as Molly and do perfect 69s, Mike does get kicked out for “conduct unbecoming”. Since the military does need gays, wouldn’t it be better to just drop the charade?
[semihijack]Please, could you learn to count your dots? I have problems taking seriously people who can’t. Ellipses have three dots, not twelve![/hijack]
You have a poster with only a sporadic interest in the Shift Key and you’re worried about ellipses?
Thebes had the Sacred Band, as MrDibble linked to upthread. They fought the Spartans at one point, according to the article.