Reidlr
Constitutionalist
- Apr 26, 2010
- 101
- 26
- 6
Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.
Exactly!! DADT has given them that!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.
Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.
Exactly!! DADT has given them that!
Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.
Exactly!! DADT has given them that!
Bullshit. DADT has only given them extra time for getting processed out of the service.
I joined the Navy in 1982. When I first came in, there was a major loss of people who claimed to be gay but in reality, they weren't. Quite a few would enlist for the Advanced Electronics Fields, get several years worth of quality training, report onboard their first command and tell them they were gay.
Processing time was around 48 hours to get them out.
That policy stayed in place until DADT was passed. It was originally a stopgap measure to keep people in, because now there were boards to be assembled, reviews to be done, and oh yeah.....interviews with shrinks and your chain of command.
DADT needs to be repealed. We are losing too many QUALIFIED people who actually want to serve.
As far as gays messing up the billeting? Nope. It's the assholes who are scared of gays that cause all the problems. Since 1983, I've known gay people at almost every command I've been at. Most times, they are better military people than the straights. Why? Gays pay closer attention to detail than straights do. It's in their lifestyle and culture, and one of the things that the military respects quite a bit, is attention to detail.
Lt. Daniel Choi was an Army man whose entire squad knew he was gay. They didn't have a problem with it. Lt Choi was also a fluent Arabic speaker serving in Iraq. Interestingly enough, out of the entire military, we only have around 500 Arabic speakers. We're in a war with Arabic speaking people. How can that be considered beneficial to discharge such a valuable asset, just because he's gay?
I retired in 2002. During the 20 years I was in the Navy, I could never see a valid reason for discharging gays.
We'd be better off getting rid of all the homophobes.
Hey there you jarhead fuckwit.........you DO realize that the Marines are OWNED by the Navy, right?
Every last one of your LES's state "Department of the Navy". Yes jarhead, I do know that there is a difference.
BTW..........I've also known Marines who were as queer as a 3 dollar bill. They were also outstanding Marines, much better than the crusty old fucks such as yourself.
DADT needs to be repealed. By the way Marine, how long did you serve? Did you complete a full enlistment?
And by the way.......the UCMJ article against sodomy would also stop you from getting a blowjob from whoever is stupid enough to hook up with you.
Blowjobs are unnatural sexual acts, and sodomy is defined as such. Try again 'tard.
I think we can survive the "horrors" that may flow from recognizing the homosexual service man or woman's family. That man or woman's family is a MILITARY family and IMO, we don't do nearly enough for ANY of them.
You have yet to make ONE reasoned objection to elimination of DADT, Reidlr. Anti-fraternization rules seem sufficient to deal with most of your BS concerns.
If DADT is repealed, I certainly do expect the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) to be rewritten as needed to follow the law of the land and the Constitution. What sort of objection is it, that a bit of code drafting needs to be done? The JAG Corps has plenty of fine lawyers in it....I cannot see where this presents any burden at all.
Haven't they already amended the UCMJ once in this regard, to allow for DADT?
Just embrace your homophobia, Reindlr. No need to dress it up and pretend that it is normal or rational. You have a HUGE phobia about GLBT folks....and? I'm afraid of big dogs. Should I pressure the Armed Services to do away with all service dogs because of that?
Doing so would make as much damned sense as your POV does.
Generally, fraternization is an unduly familiar personal relationship between an officer member and an enlisted member that does not respect the difference in rank or grade. Relationships between officer members and between enlisted members that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit on the Naval service are unduly familiar and also constitute fraternization.
You really are something else! Your fellow liberals would be so proud of you!
I have never served in the military. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the military 'culture' and protocol. I spent sixteen years working at a Consulting Engineering firm with contracts with both the Army and Navy. My career was working side by side with military professionals such as engineers, technicians, security forces, line active officers and enlisted personnel. I appreciate your service.
I know that the active service is basically, a young persons game. And we know that attitudes and prejudices change with every generation. Don't believe me? Check the want ads section in any big city newspaper between 1800 and 1959. You'll find ads openly excluding nationalities, creeds, races and genders. All immutable circumstances. And homosexuality is illegal in the service only here in America. Young people appreciate this. Americans appreciate this.
The military culture has always adapted to the American mores (however you choose to define it). There are willing, patriotic men and women who are ready to serve and act as responsibly as their heterosexual comrades in arms. Talented men and women who are, incidentally, serving their country as we speak. I honor their service as well.
There certainly is a pool of talent wasting due to an outdated culture and a fear-filled command structure.
My personal physician is gay. The man saved my life. Am I to shun and fear him because of his sexuality? He was born to be who he is. So, it breaks down to the individual, not a group. Just as you discipline rogue heterosexuals (It's TAIL HOOK on the phone for you! Will you take the call?), discipline run away gay service personnel.
You really are something else! Your fellow liberals would be so proud of you!
Her "fellow liberals" are arguing with her furiously on at least two other threads. I'm afraid you'll have a hard time fitting Maddie into that box.
We have homosexuals serving in the military today. Are there problems with individuals? Certainly. But as a group, I submit that the service of a homosexual soldier, sailor or Marine is just as valuable as the service of their heterosexual comrades in arms.I have never served in the military. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the military 'culture' and protocol. I spent sixteen years working at a Consulting Engineering firm with contracts with both the Army and Navy. My career was working side by side with military professionals such as engineers, technicians, security forces, line active officers and enlisted personnel. I appreciate your service.
I know that the active service is basically, a young persons game. And we know that attitudes and prejudices change with every generation. Don't believe me? Check the want ads section in any big city newspaper between 1800 and 1959. You'll find ads openly excluding nationalities, creeds, races and genders. All immutable circumstances. And homosexuality is illegal in the service only here in America. Young people appreciate this. Americans appreciate this.
The military culture has always adapted to the American mores (however you choose to define it). There are willing, patriotic men and women who are ready to serve and act as responsibly as their heterosexual comrades in arms. Talented men and women who are, incidentally, serving their country as we speak. I honor their service as well.
There certainly is a pool of talent wasting due to an outdated culture and a fear-filled command structure.
My personal physician is gay. The man saved my life. Am I to shun and fear him because of his sexuality? He was born to be who he is. So, it breaks down to the individual, not a group. Just as you discipline rogue heterosexuals (It's TAIL HOOK on the phone for you! Will you take the call?), discipline run away gay service personnel.
Very nicely written. Couple of comments I'd like to make here:
I completly agree that over the decades prejudices in our country have changed like the wind. Most of those prejudices were for no go reason other than simply being a prejudice.
Being a homosexual is not illegal in the military. You can be a homosexual and serve, you just can not engage in homosexual acts while serving in the military. Just as heterosexual service members are not allowed to engage in certain sexual practices. Now, lets be honest here, these things occur and probably daily. Let me ask you this. Why are female and male service members placed in different barracks or tents? It is for obvious reasons. You can not have good order and discipline if your female and male service members are sharing a room and a head and utlimatly engaging in sexual acts or playing house in the barracks. This is the same reason that homosexual acts are prohibited in the military. Not all female and male roommates would have sex, but a majority of them would end up haveing some sort of a sexual relationship that would effect the day-to-day operations of the military. The same would occur once homosexuals are placed in the barracks. So what is the military to do once homosexuality is common practice in the military. Ensure that every room in the barracks has 1 homosexual and 1 heterosexual in order to prevent the same result that would occur from placing 1 female and 1 male in the same room. Everything in the military has a purpose. From a required clean shave everyday to an organized wall locker. A clean shave is required so that in the event you have to wear a gas mask you get a proper seal on your face and you don't die. An organized wall locker is required so that when you are given the order to deploy in 24hours your gear is readily available and organized. DADT serves its purpose in the military to provide the good order and discipline that is required every hour of every day.
Your comment regarding your personal physician shows that you are taking my arguments out of context. I have not attacked homosexuals nor have I stated that we should fear or hate homosexuals. I have nothing against people who choose to live that lifestyle. There will not be an negative effects in the doctor's office by having an open homosexual doctor. The only negative effects, would be those generated by people who do not like homosexuals. That will be everywhere and there is nothing you can do about that. I have a gay family member and I love him just as I do my non-gay (for a lack of a better term) family members.
You can not view DADT from a civilian gay/straight perspective. There are bigger issues when we discuss DADT and homosexuals in the military.
I'm sorry, but no! If you have not served in the military and had to share a room with three other men or share a community shower room with 40 other men, you should have no say in DADT! An open homosexual will be ostracized and will only get seperated more than he/she is now. Not to mention in the barracks, most heterosexual men will not want to be assigned to the same room with a homosexual man; which only leads to billeting issues.
Maybe I can play devil's advocate, lets say, fine let the homosexuals serve openly. If a heterosexual male Marine has to share a room with a homosexual male Marine and be a piece of eye candy for a the gay Marine. Then why can't we start puting female Marines and male Marines in the same room. It's only fair! Or maybe we can have female and male Marines share the same community shower!
It won't work! Repeal of DADT will lead to billeting issues and will ultimatly lead to segregation of homosexual service members; which is counter-productive. Several military leaders have already stated that heterosexuals will not be required to room with homosexuals. This will require more money (your taxes) to pay for additional billeting to be built on military installations.
Speaking as a 20 year veteran who has worked at several levels of the chain of command (was even a Department Head for 2 years), I can state that based on my experience, as well as based on the opinions of many people I've served with, it doesn't matter what you do off duty, as long as you're professional while in uniform.
Shit.......married heteros can't even hold hands in public.
It doesn't matter what your sexuality is, I'm more concerned with how you do your job, and because of the culture that the gays live in, they pay VERY close attention to detail.
Attention to detail is one of those traits highly valued in the military. It helps you notice stuff before it kills you.
Gays have done that for YEARS.
Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.
Having them not have to lie about who they are is just being honest on all sides.
Flaylo, I'm sorry to tell you, but your arguments fall on deaf ears in this thread! Debating DADT with these people is like arguing with a wall. It is pointless!