| Author | Message | ||
     Midnightrider |
Fatty - that is a position I can respect. Very well put. Like I said earlier, if the ban is lifted it's going to be a very rocky road. It's a very serious issue but like all serious issues I do like it when someone can inject a bit of humor - which leads me to another story. It's probably more urban legend than truth but I'm told a crusty old GI made this statement in his retirement speech. It's paraphrased, but it goes something like this. When I joined the military, we wouldn't take homosexuals. Then, later, we went into the "Don't ask, don't tell" phase. Now they're talking about getting rid of that. I'm getting out before they make it [homosexuality] mandatory...... Time for me to get off this soapbox and go do something constructive - I've got a brand new car I've had less than a week and I've got farkling on my mind. Take care y'all | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Look this is all you need to know. Straight guy get promoted and buys beers and hard booze. Everyone gets chit faced and life goes on for another scheduled drunk later in the week. Gay guy gets promoted and does not offer beers or hard liquor. Instead cheesecake and champange is offered. People stare at each other and go WTF? However, Everyone loves cheesecake. Not the usual ops in a flying unit. People scratch heads and asses wondering whats up. Seen it 3 times. Everyone loves cheesecake. | ||
| Geforce |
Midnight, you may have restrictions to this rule because of your component and branch. We still have guys that get medically retired and chaptered but the medical review board will run their PUHLES rating through other MOSs to see if they can remain on active duty with a reclass. Obviously most senior NCOs won't have that option. A good friend of mine contracted a nasty lifetime gift from carrying a wounded Afghani troop to safety. He was soaked from the waist down in blood. He's still in, just has an office job now. The sad part is that this little gift will likely shorten his life span by a couple of decades. I dont know all the rules, just a few cases that happened to peers while on active duty. | ||
| Blake |
Simple point lost on the obtuse: forcing men to endure intimate close quarters living among deviants whose behavior they abhor is not just counterproductive, it is self-destructive. Cease the personal attack or cease posting. Discus the issue or be quiet. Show some character. Think. Ignorance is fostered and marketed by those pushing an agenda that would fail if exposed to truth. The issue is not that abhorrent deviant filthy behavior is to be accepted or opposed. It absolutely is opposed The issue is were the line is drawn. Two homosexuals in the same platoon/company getting their thrills on base, on maneuvers, in the barracks, openly homo... not a problem? Congratulations, you just chased off a SIGNIFICANT portion of potential new war-fighting recruits. An openly homosexual drill sergeant??? DADT is the correct policy. | ||
| Kc10_fe |
By MICHELE CHABIN Religion News Service Published Nov 12, 2010 10:50AM Updated Nov 19, 2010 05:40PM Jerusalem • Israel, like the United States, is a largely secular society with deep religious roots. And Israel, like the United States, is home to vocal religious conservatives who frown on homosexuality. But Israel, unlike the United States, has allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for 17 years. In fact, they are required to serve. So, if Israel has found a way to allow gays in the military, can it provide lessons to the United States as it struggles with whether — and how — to dismantle “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Perhaps. But like everything in Israel, it’s a bit more complicated. And the comparison between the United States and Israel is inexact. By most accounts, Israel’s integration of gays in the military has succeeded, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reportedly has begun to share its experiences with the U.S. military. If the courts or Congress overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the United States will become the 26th nation to fully integrate gay and straight members of the military, according to the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Aaron Belkin, the center’s director, said full integration has been successful even in countries engaged in frequent combat, citing Israel, America’s closet ally in the Middle East, as an example. “The lesson the U.S. military can learn from the Israeli military is there are no negative consequences” to inclusion, Belkin said, “even when the military is a battle-tested force like the IDF.” Drafting openly gay soldiers into the IDF and other military forces “has been highly successful and has no negative impact on morale, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness,” according to a Palm Center report, Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010. Israel reportedly has offered advice to a commission on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith declined to go into detail, but hinted that at least some talks had occurred. “I don’t have any information on that,” Smith said. “It’s part of a comprehensive working group [report] that will be presented to the secretary of defense Dec. 1.” An IDF spokesman would say only that “the IDF routinely cooperates with the armies of other countries on a number of different levels.” Israel’s transition to full integration took time and planning. As a nation with mandatory military service for both men and women, and a strong religious ethos that dictates almost every facet of everyday life, the Israeli government acted carefully. The IDF began placing openly gay soldiers in units as early as 1983. It took another 10 years for full acceptance, after a 1992 parliamentary law on equality. Internal monitoring of gays continued until 1998. Only then did homosexuality in the IDF “became totally a nonissue,” said Frances Raday, a professor of international law at the College of Management Academic Studies in the city of Rishon LeZion. Even with the heavy influence Israel’s ultraconservative religious political parties wield in parliament, Raday said, the country has “an extremely liberal stand on homosexuality.” Rabbi David Rosen, the Jerusalem-based international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, noted that the same ultra-Orthodox leaders who regularly decry gay pride parades never tried to stop openly gay soldiers from IDF service. One reason, Rosen theorized, is that they did not want to open a national debate about who can serve in the IDF, because ultra-Orthodox seminary students are exempt from military service — a policy that a majority of Israelis want to cancel. Religious Zionists — Modern Orthodox Jews who serve in the IDF — have been more preoccupied with preventing interaction between male and female soldiers, Rosen said, than the status of gays and lesbians. “This was a centrally dominant issue in the whole national discourse of religion, state, security and sexuality the early decades of statehood,” Rosen said, “and even today it hasn’t been totally resolved.” One outcome of the debate was the establishment of National Service, a voluntary alternative to military duty open to religious young women and some men, including Arab citizens. Before Israel changed its law, many gays and lesbians performed National Service. Yonatan Gher, director of the Jerusalem Open House, a prominent Israeli gay-rights group, said the IDF “seeks out” training from gay groups in order to better serve and integrate the soldiers. “We speak with them regularly, especially with commanders and educators,” Gher said, adding that the IDF has been “sharing its information” with the Pentagon. Amit Lev, who disclosed his homosexuality during a stint in the IDF, believes that within the proper environment, being gay in the military “can be a nonissue.” “Unlike Israel, in the U.S. no one has to serve in the Army,” Lev said. “Those who volunteer, whether they’re gay or straight, are already motivated and will be good soldiers.” Here is your writing on the wall. | ||
| Blake |
"nation with mandatory military service for both men and women" Seems incredibly relevant. That and Amerca is not Israel; Americans are not Israeli or European. Recruitment absolutely would suffer. Over 60% of combat troops say open homosexuality in the ranks would harm unit cohesion, combat effectiveness. But if you want to mandate service, then how could you exclude people. Fine, do that then. | ||
| Argentcorvid |
Simple point lost on the obtuse: forcing men to endure intimate close quarters living among deviants whose behavior they abhor is not just counterproductive, it is self-destructive. I'm sure this same argument (and most of the others you are trying to make) were popular when racial integration was ordered. Seems to have worked out just fine. Cease the personal attack or cease posting. Discus the issue or be quiet. Show some character. Think. Ignorance is fostered and marketed by those pushing an agenda that would fail if exposed to truth. ooh the scary "Agenda"... The issue is not that abhorrent deviant filthy behavior is to be accepted or opposed. It absolutely is opposed The issue is were the line is drawn. no, it isn't "absolutely opposed". There are many people who don't care. The issue seems to be that few people seem to think it is as "abhorrent" as you do. Two homosexuals in the same platoon/company getting their thrills on base, on maneuvers, in the barracks, openly homo... not a problem? a male and a female in the same platoon/company getting their thrills on base, on maneuvers, in the barracks, openly hetero... not a problem? Congratulations, you just chased off a SIGNIFICANT portion of potential new war-fighting recruits. as opposed to the significant number of already trained war-fighting service members that are being kicked out right now because they happen to be homosexual? An openly homosexual drill sergeant??? I fail to see what you are trying to say here. how is it different than a closeted homosexual drill sergeant? DADT is the correct policy. No, "Don't ask, Don't care if you tell" is the correct policy. | ||
| Kc10_fe |
In all honesty everyone who is pissed has a right to be. This is America after all, and everyone has this right that was afforded to them by people who were willing to fight and die for the freedoms we have today. However, most in uniform will shut up and color as we often do. Mission accomplishment comes first and the small details get tied up after. Blake your idea of people not serving because of gays does not hold water. There are 17 million Americans not working. If someone has total heart burn about it and chooses not to join there will be a replacement in 5 seconds. The DOD can shop at will for recruits at the moment. They can choose some dopey snot nosed high school grad or a 20 something guy or chick with grad school completed for the same job starting at E-2 or 3. If there is a huge migration out the gate it will simply go to help the force shaping process that is happening right now. The DOD is broke too and looking to trim the fat. This is not just limited to fox holes. Cockpits are the same realm. At least with boots on the ground you can choose to walk away from someone. In the jet we are strapped about 2 feet from each other for 7-16 hours. After you land the crew shares a tent or trailer with bunks. The only time you usually don’t see someone is when you crap or shower. I’ve flown with some exceptionally bright and totally gay crewmembers. These are good damn Americans and they have chosen to sacrifice for the US and live in a life full of secrets to do so. USAFA, Wharton and MIT grads which speak 5 languages, are attending law or med school in addition to flying 590,000 lbs of Air Force iron all over this sphere. Some are cops, firefighters, welders and yes I know a dude that’s a FLAMING flight attendant. They do it because they WANT to. Honestly I would rather serve next to a flaming homo that I know will without hesitation fight and die for me as I would for him/her. I find it funny that civilians who never bothered to serve anything but themselves are all over the TV, internet and even here throwing a bitch fit over this. Every American gay or straight should serve a 2 year tour to make them better Americans and to appreciate how good we have here. Simply being born here and paying taxes is a pretty easy way to get by here for those of you who have never traveled abroad to see what a wonderful crap heap of nations we have here on earth. Could there be some uncomfortable situations? Just like farting in a crowded elevator…. It won’t be the first or last time. (Message edited by kc10_fe on December 02, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
"The issue is not that abhorrent deviant filthy behavior is to be accepted or opposed. It absolutely is opposed The issue is were the line is drawn." >>> no, it isn't "absolutely opposed". There are many people who don't care. The issue seems to be that few people seem to think it is as "abhorrent" as you do. I was speaking in general. There is a sizable catalogue of abhorrent deviant human behavior, which if acted out by service members and subsequently discovered, would result in disciplinary action, dismissal, and in some cases imprisonment; pedophilia, incest, polygamy, beastiality, indecent exposure, public urination/defecation, ... So as I said, "The issue is not that abhorrent deviant filthy behavior is to be accepted or opposed. It absolutely is opposed. The issue is were the line is drawn." | ||
| Blake |
>>> Blake your idea of people not serving because of gays does not hold water. 1. It's not my idea. 2. It is not an idea, it is hard fact. The service will lose far more exceptional heterosexual recruits and active members upon repeal of DADT, than it could ever gain from the homosexual community. >>> There are 17 million Americans not working. If someone has total heart burn about it and chooses not to join there will be a replacement in 5 seconds. ... If there is a huge migration out the gate it will simply go to help the force shaping process that is happening right now. 1. You don't make sweeping policy change in response to rapid economic fluctuations. The time will again come when recruits are desperately needed but in short supply. 2. On one hand you decry the dissuasion from and loss of qualified homosexuals from service, in reality a tiny minority, but now oddly you dismiss offhandedly the potentially massive loss of existing and future service members upon repeal of DADT. You also arrogantly dismiss the very real risk of jeopardizing combat unit effectiveness, something that the majority of combat forces foresee as the likely result of a DADT repeal as do ALL of their services' top leadership. You know better? Please explain. >>> The DOD is broke too and looking to trim the fat. So you want to repeal DADT in order to trim the ranks? Emotional arguments often resort to grasping at straws. Note: The DOD is not "broke." It has a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. We should all be that "broke." >>> This is not just limited to fox holes. Stating the obvious; I agree. Submarines come to mind. >>> Cockpits are the same realm. At least with boots on the ground you can choose to walk away from someone. In the jet we are strapped about 2 feet from each other for 7-16 hours. After you land the crew shares a tent or trailer with bunks. The only time you usually don’t see someone is when you crap or shower. Boot-camp, basic training, survival school...? Would it compromise your combat mission effectiveness when your cockpit associate put his hand on your thigh and teary-eyed confessed his deep undying love and attraction for you? That situation among others is what DADT is designed to avoid. That may not trouble you personally; not everyone shares your laudable strength of character in that regard, many do not; see aforementioned comments concerning aversions to homosexual behavior. >>> I’ve flown with some exceptionally bright and totally gay crewmembers. These are good damn Americans and they have chosen to sacrifice for the US and live in a life full of secrets to do so. USAFA, Wharton and MIT grads which speak 5 languages, are attending law or med school in addition to flying 590,000 lbs of Air Force iron all over this sphere. Some are cops, firefighters, welders and yes I know a dude that’s a FLAMING flight attendant. They do it because they WANT to. Great! I applaud them, thank them, and wholeheartedly support their service. So why repeal what is working? ... queue emotion-based argument. >>> Honestly I would rather serve next to a flaming homo that I know will without hesitation fight and die for me as I would for him/her. That's... uh... Dr. Freud needs to ask you a question or three. >>> I find it funny that civilians who never bothered to serve anything but themselves are all over the TV, internet and even here throwing a bitch fit over this. I assume you apply that to both sides of the debate, no? Likewise, it is bewildering to me that people put emotions ahead of the judgement of our military leadership and the majority of combat service members. >>> Every American gay or straight should serve a 2 year tour to make them better Americans and to appreciate how good we have here. Simply being born here and paying taxes is a pretty easy way to get by here for those of you who have never traveled abroad to see what a wonderful crap heap of nations we have here on earth. Problem; they'd all have to travel extensively overseas. Not likely. How about if instead our gov't-run school system properly educate our students on the hard facts of American exceptionalism? >>> Could there be some uncomfortable situations? Just like farting in a crowded elevator…. It won’t be the first or last time. "Could"??? Open the floodgates and rest assured that homosexual rape will happen; harassment will happen, currying of favors will happen, dishonorable behavior will happen. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
The following is my take on the situation. Yours MAY vary. The military is tasked with the defense of this great nation. It is not a place for an individual to express their sexual orientation. I didn't really see any issue with "Don't ask, don't tell" and would further add "Don't care". As long as the mission at hand is accomplished, your sexual orientation is none of my business. On the other hand, I would consider it sexual harrassment if homosexual activity were thrust upon me (no pun intended) without my express consent, just the same as a women might if a heterosexual man did the same in her presense. I will reitiate, what a person does behind closed doors (within the law) is their business... regardless of what my thoughts, beliefs and/or opinions are. | ||
| Argentcorvid |
Emotional arguments ? You're the one that seems to be arguing from a position of "I don't want to serve with no gross f*ggots, because they're gross and they'll fairy up the military" Stating the obvious; I agree. Submarines come to mind. Funny, the ship I mentioned above was the USS Michigan SSBN/SSGN 727. We were underwater for 70+ days at a time. No chance of walking away there. We had more issues with straight guys who used their families as excuses for why they couldn't come in to work that day (when we were in port of course), which DID affect our "unit cohesion" and "combat readiness". Boot-camp, basic training, survival school...? Yes? You also arrogantly dismiss the very real risk of jeopardizing combat unit effectiveness, something that the majority of combat forces foresee as the likely result of a DADT repeal as do ALL of their services' top leadership. You know better? Please explain. Strange, From what I've been reading lately, The Leadership seems to be all about repeal. Would it compromise your combat mission effectiveness when your cockpit associate put his hand on your thigh and teary-eyed confessed his deep undying love and attraction for you? It might. But you just say "Uh thanks, but I don't swing that way." If they continue, you report them for harassment. The same way it works now with heterosexuals. Besides, I think most would know better than to dip their pen in the company ink. From the report (page 5): "In today’s civilian society, where there is no law that requires gay men and lesbians to conceal their sexual orientation in order to keep their job, most gay men and lesbians still tend to be discrete about their personal lives, and guarded about the people with whom they share information about their sexual orientation. We believe that, in the military environment, this would be true even more so." (Skip a bit) "I think a lot of people think there is going to be this big ‘outing’ and people flaunting their gayness, but they forget that we’re in the military. That stuff isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you’re gay or straight." Open the floodgates Which floodgates? and rest assured that homosexual rape will happen; harassment will happen, currying of favors will happen, dishonorable behavior will happen. And those will be severely punished, just like they are now. | ||
| Blake |
I agree with the Paintshaker. Well said! >>> Strange, From what I've been reading lately, The Leadership seems to be all about repeal. You are misinformed. Each of the joint chiefs opposes repeal. A civilian, SecDef Gates, favors repeal. >>> In today’s civilian society, where there is no law that requires gay men and lesbians to conceal their sexual orientation in order to keep their job Straw man. The issue is rules of employment, not civil law. Employers are perfectly free to demand that employees avoid advertising their sexual proclivities. >>> And those will be severely punished, just like they are now. If you were raped and sodomized by fellow serviceman, you'd report it? You understand the issues involved and the differences psychologically for a man versus a woman? Do you understand that the male homosexual culture is wildly permissions? Why risk forcing our military to embrace that? Why? Please explain. As Paintshaker said so well, the military's JOB#1 is warfighting. No one is forcing homosexuals into the military. They are welcome to serve, just not advertise their sexual proclivities. | ||
| Blake |
>>> You're the one that seems to be arguing from a position of "I don't want to serve with no gross f*ggots, because they're gross and they'll fairy up the military" Stop lying. Get some integrity. My point of view is identical to those of the joint chiefs and the majority of front line combat servicemen, that OPEN homosexuality in the military jeopardizes combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, and damages re-enlistment and recruiting. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Why do the services have boot camp? why do we give service members UNIFORMS? Military training has been designed over centuries to build a Soldier Etc Mind set and behaviors to be uniform and predictable. Add in the perversion of LGTG what ever the tag line is today and your fighting force is no longer uniform in mindset and Honorable men will not stand for dishonorable behavior, even if its still PC and forced on them. Wrong is wrong no matter how well the supporters of it are politically connected | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Correct me if I'm wrong but this certainly looks like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs supporting the end of DADT. I'm not sure where you're getting the information . http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101202/ ts_yblog_thelookout/mullen-fires-back-at-mccains-d ont-ask-criticism | ||
| Blake |
Why are military young men and women provided separate barracks and facilities? Why are they not all bunking and bathing together? Answer: To avoid a shitstorm of trouble. How do you avoid that trouble with young hormone-saturated sodomites cohabitating? Please explain. Oh, meant to ask you since you brought up the point; what percentage of homosexual males engage in sodomy? Few? Half? Most? Remind me how HIV/AIDS spread so horrifically quickly among male homosexuals. You've not heard of the bathhouses. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
| ||
| Rocketsprink |
Man, what a bunch of bigots here. You're afforded equal rights under the law.....as long as you're all the same. Better kick them Negros out too. But they can't help it they're black! But them fags can choose to not be gay! Right? So if homosexuals join the military it will turn into a gay gangbang according to Blake? What a bunch of narrow minded homophobes. Grow up already. | ||
| Argentcorvid |
If you were raped and sodomized by fellow serviceman, you'd report it? God damn right I would. Hell, I'd even report it if a fellow servicewoman raped and sodomized me. You understand the issues involved and the differences psychologically for a man versus a woman? do you? Do you understand that the male homosexual culture is wildly permissions? I assume you mean promiscuous. I do not. what about female homosexuals? My point of view is identical to those of the joint chiefs and the majority of front line combat servicemen In the 40's and 50's over 80% of both the officers and enlisted men opposed racial integration. NOTHING HAPPENED In the 70's similar concerns were raised about the expansion of gender integration. NOTHING HAPPENED Most other NATO countries have moved towards open service by homosexuals. NOTHING HAPPENED. Again, from the report pg 121: On "Open Service" "In listening to Service members we found a perceptions gap—between the perception of the gay Service member that people know and work with, and the perception of the stereotypical gay individual that people do not know and have never worked with. When Service members talk about a unit member they believe to be gay or lesbian, their assessment of that individual was based on a complete picture and actual experience, including the Service member’s technical and tactical capabilities and other characteristics that contribute to his or her overall effectiveness as a member of the military and as a colleague. By contrast, when asked about serving with the imagined gay Service member who is “open” about his or her sexual orientation, that feature becomes the predominant if not sole characteristic of the individual, and stereotypes fill in the rest of the picture. Stereotypes motivated many of the comments we heard. The most prevalent concern expressed is that gay men will behave in a stereotypically effeminate manner, while lesbian women are stereotypically painted in “masculine” terms. We heard widespread perceptions that, if permitted to be open and honest about their sexual orientation, gay Service members would behave as sexual predators and make unwelcome sexual advances on heterosexuals, gay men would adopt feminine behavior and dress, there would be open and notorious displays of affection in the military environment between same-sex couples, and that repeal would lead to an overall erosion of unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns are exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members. The perceptions gap we note here is also reflected in the survey data. The data reveals that Service members who are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian are less likely to perceive a negative impact of repeal on the key elements of unit task and social cohesion, and unit effectiveness. Conversely, those who have believe they have never served with someone who is gay or lesbian are more likely to perceive a negative impact. Likewise, of Service members who believe they have in their career served in a unit with a co-worker who is gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.” Thus, our view is that the negative perceptions and predictions of serving alongside a gay Service member are refuted by the considerable track record of actual experiences where Service members did exactly that." Stop lying. Get some integrity. Lying? just saying that's the way your reasoning reads to me. Why are they not all bunking and bathing together? Answer: To avoid a shitstorm of trouble. No, i think it has more to do with a (outdated) desire to not offend a lady's delicate sensibilities. How do you avoid that trouble with young hormone-saturated sodomites cohabitating? Please explain. You order them to keep it in their pants, and then punish those that don't follow orders. This is already the policy, by the way. what percentage of homosexual males engage in sodomy? Few? Half? Most? A: WHO CARES B: why do you care? | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Jesus Christ, are any of you in the service right now? Have any of you served in the past 10-15 years? If you were kicking back in the days of OD Green from Carter to Reagan any idea you have of the way things are done are obsolete with the exception of going kinetic. If you were you would be very aware that the quickest way to sink a carrier is sexual harassment and DADT. A DADT separation can be done in about 2 weeks. It’s almost if not worse than a DUI. You get accused and you are pretty much screwed until proven innocent. It’s not like a come by and see me deal. LOR or Art 15/UIF control roster will pretty much wreck a career these days. Clearances can be suspended which equals not being able to function for most. We are beaten to death with power point /CBT almost monthly on SARC rape prevention, sexual harassment, suicide, hookers, blow, double rainbows...... None of this goes out the hatch if DADT goes away. There is double zero tolerance. It started with Tail Hook many years ago and has only gained momentum. Please enlighten me as how things really work in today’s military. I’m a lowly 16 year Diamond wearing E-7 with 5000 flying hours. 13 years of that time is Active Duty with deployments in every operation since Somalia. I must be in the dark on current operations and misinformed on current topics of discussion in my chain. Enlisted people are my business. VR 1st Shirt | ||
| Ourdee |
It might. But you just say "Uh thanks, but I don't swing that way." If they continue, you report them for harassment. The same way it works now with heterosexuals. Besides, I think most would know better than to dip their pen in the company ink. Give me the military I served in. I would have knocked his penis in the dirt. If you were kicking back in the days of OD Green from Carter to Reagan any idea you have of the way things are done are obsolete with the exception of going kinetic. Hey that was me. If you were raped and sodomized by fellow serviceman, you'd report it? Nope. Wouldn't be anyone left to charge. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Nope. Wouldn't be anyone left to charge. He would just go AWOL....permanently. I'm sure things have changed but i bet not as much as you allude to. If you're CO says it aint a big deal, you damn well better not make a big deal outta it. And that goes doublely so for combat arms units where they take things a little more serious than most other units do. The same goes for homosexual behavior. Your CO says that stuff aint gonna fly in public, you better keep it private | ||
| Blake |
You go RD! Midnghtrdr, >>> A: WHO CARES >>> B: why do you care? You chastised me, thinking that I assumed all homo males engage in sodomy asking "do you think all gay men engage in sodomy" or such. You stated that apparently to defend the honor of homo males who don't and thus gave the impression that you have such knowledge. Or were you just bullshitting? I ask to learn which. Did you have a valid point, or are you disingenuous (Message edited by Blake on December 03, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
Rocco, You are behaving like a very small bitter man. If you don't care to enjoin thoughtful discussion, then spare us the caustic venom. One more outburst like that will earn a suspension, and rightly so. | ||
| Blake |
>>> In the 70's similar concerns were raised about the expansion of gender integration. NOTHING HAPPENED Are you blind? Read KC's post above. Sounds like a virtual cluster-&$@! to me. "Nothing happened"! Really? "Tailhook" ring a bell? The intellectual dishonesty of equating race to personal behavior is tiresome. No matter how many times you invoke it, it will remain a false analogy. And again, human culture is not homogenous. America is very different from Europe. I've visited. It's obvious. That report you quote reads as if written from a pre-determined conclusion. It likely was. Lame. It fails utterly to address the very real concerns of combat unit cohesion/effectiveness, diminished force retention, loss of vast expertise, and diminished pool of future recruits. The military will go on. Will it be stronger or weaker is the ONLY pertinent question. As much as anything, a lot of Americans, me included, are sick and tired of having the homosexual lifestyle shoved in our face and crammed down our throats day after day after day. It's darn near EVERYWHERE you look. In my entire life, meeting thousands of folks, I've met no more than a dozen openly homosexual people. Two live next door, four are female. | ||
| Aesquire |
Tailhook. Drew Carey's book "Dirty Jokes and Beer" sums up tailhook. They are Naval Aviators. They land multiton aircraft at 100+mph on a tiny, moving deck. Fighter Jocks. you WANT aggressive assh07es. Some jerk grabbed a female's breasts. I'm not in any way defending the jerk who grabbed her. That's not acceptable behavior in a frat house. The girl who complained that a jerk grabbed her breasts should have flattened him, kicked the crap out of him, on the spot, gotten cheered and moved on, proud. Instead she whined and ruined a great party, forever. Plus scarred the entire military. Don't ask don't tell? What an utter crock of crud. Bill Clinton in a nutshell. "wouldn't it be great if my wife wasn't allowed to ask me if I cheat on her?" Don't change the rules....pretend not to enforce them, unless you feel like it. Corrupt, immoral, insane, doomed. Forcing the closet on gays, or even people who collect barbi dolls, is a sure path to blackmail, espionage, exploitation, and treason. Ask the flaming a$$hat PFC who stole secrets and gave them to an anarchist anti American Aussie ego. Gee, DADT really helped the planet there. Don't want gays to serve openly? What's that mean? No lipstick? Hardly seems fair, then, to allow open heterosexuals. Silly. No fooling around on duty. period. That one is older than Bronze. No exploiting the people under your command. That none is fairly new, ( only centuries old ) and really cuts down on slit throats. No posters of Kiss in the Barracks. ( ok, that ones not that old......  ) It's the military, we'll adapt, improvise, and overcome. Besides. An all volunteer "pink brigade" would bug the crap out of Iran. I'd love the all female Styker unit, the "Xena Company" to mess with the uptight Taliban. The mind boggles. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
It's the military, we'll adapt, improvise, and overcome. My sentiments also. Arguments otherwise seem to be little more than homophobia and based on fear. The military is a professional fighting force, and as a professional, servicemen(women) do not have to like everything they have to deal with but they will carry on and complete the mission. Unless things have changed for the worse since I was in (which I very much doubt). | ||
| Seanp |
 Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly. It's rumored that such notable military geniuses as Frederick the Great, T.E. Lawrence, Alexander the Great, and even our very own Baron von Steuben were all gay. So imagine if the Macedonians in the 4th Century BC, or the Prussians in the 18th Century, or the British in World War I, or the fledgling American colonies in 1778 had an anti-gay policy. We might never know what these great (gay) men could accomplish. How many people here have served in combat with someone they know was gay? And how many of you were scared for your life because you thought that gay man or woman was going to sneak up behind you and rape you? That's ridiculous. It's up to officers and NCOs to ensure that their units are cohesive and can overcome any issues between Soldiers (used as a general term - no disrespect to Airmen, Marines, or Sailors). And if that officer or NCO doesn't keep the unit straight, then they won't be able to accomplish their mission. And if you can't accomplish your mission, you don't deserve to be in a leadership position. So the good officers and NCOs will make any policy, (be it DADT or open acceptance) work in their unit. And if they can't then they'll be out of the service pretty quick, which is good for the whole military. That whole AIDS argument is a throwback to the 80's when AIDS first came out and was supposedly a "gay" disease. Welcome to the 21st century, where anyone can get AIDS. I had a Soldier with AIDS and she got it through heterosexual contact, not "gay butt sex". For those of you that are opposed to gays in the military because they would "fruit up the place" or however you want to call it, what about those bull-dyke lesbians in the military? Or perhaps the manly gay men? There are a bunch of them. They're pretty rough and tough, and I'm sure you don't mind if their manly selves stay in. So should we only kick out the effeminate gay men? Also, even if there is a mass exodus of Soldiers, then I say good riddance to bad rubbish. I would suspect that many of the same Soldiers who would leave (or not join) just because there are "them damn fags" in the military would be the same types who are intolerant of other groups, be they religious, ethnic, etc. In the types of wars we've been fighting recently, there is a distinct need for tolerance in the military. Not a blind tolerance, but a thoughtful, critical tolerance. But we certainly do not need a blind intolerance. There was a similar backlash to the introduction of African Americans in the military, because people didn't want to serve next to any of those "I won't use the pejorative". You know what? We got over it. Heck, we even had a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Package that information up and send it in a time capsule to 1860! You know what, the definition of sodomy in Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.So "unnatural carnal copulation" could include oral sex. So there are far more than just homosexual Soldiers at risk here. Speaking of the UCMJ, if the introduction of openly homosexual service does cause problems, that's also covered in Article 134, the general article: Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.So go ahead and if a Soldier causes problems, either with openly belligerent homosexuality or with violent homophobia, and if it affect's the unit's ability to perform their mission, prosecute to the full extent of the UCMJ. Finally, to echo Paintshaker, what a person does in the privacy of their home is their own business. As long as what they do has no impact on the unit's ability to complete the mission, whether absolutely or potentially, I'm not concerned. But once they start doing something illegal that could get them thrown in jail, (thus affecting the unit's mission ability) then it has an impact. But as far as I'm concerned homosexuality (except in the military) is a legal thing, and if they get rid of DADT and it doesn't impact the Soldier's and the unit's ability to accomplish the mission, I don't care. (Message edited by seanp on December 03, 2010) | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
Blake... you will just love this.. During my time in the Marine Corps we had a incident... We had a one young Marine awake to find a vacuum being pulled on his unit by his roommate. The vacuum puller was discharged in short order and we were instructed that he was not to take a trip from the 3rd deck of our barracks prior to his discharge No problem... he was gone and all was well. Or was it?? I can't help but think the Marine that awoke to find a fuzzy chin on his fuzzy balls may still be dealing with this... I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.. Hell, I don't care if they wanna hold hand and skip down the road (I may laugh, but I don't care) But I would have killed that son of a bitch... or at least beat him so bad that his soup cooler would have been wired shut for some time... SGT.Mark Gainer USMC 1985-1991 YAT YAS |
