Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly

[Anguille]

I think that's very interesting that these are retired officers calling for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
I was aware that the younger generation of soldiers has far fewer hangups about being around gays, but now the older generation is recognizing their fears where unfounded. This is progress!

 

[tresha]

Good questions. Some that I've wondered about myself. Such as would a gay soldier who told his/her doctor or chaplain they were gay be risking dishorable discharge?

It is my understanding that yes, they could be subject to it. I could be wrong, it's been a while since I researched it.
(I researched and performed a persuasive speech on Gays in the Military a few years back)
I know I came across several cases as of the mid-90's,after DODT was implemented where this was the case.

 

[dilloduck]

You owe your safety here in the US in part to the bravery and sacrifice of gays currently serving in the military. Who are you to denigrate them for their sexual orientation?

I think this is the point where a liberal would say " he's exercising the rights that the gays in the military fight for".
Do you see how this dialect is worthless ?

 

[Anguille]

No, I don't owe anything to any perverted homos!!

You are a very sad and foolish man.

 

[Anguille]

I think this is the point where a liberal would say " he's exercising the rights that the gays in the military fight for".
Do you see how this dialect is worthless ?

True. He is. But it just amazes me that someone could be so ungrateful.

 

[Sunni Man]

I think that's very interesting that these are retired officers calling for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
I was aware that the younger generation of soldiers has far fewer hangups about being around gays, but now the older generation is recognizing their fears where unfounded. This is progress!

It's just a publicity stunt.

They are just a hundred senior officers out of thousands of officers.

 

[dilloduck]

True. He is. But it just amazes me that someone could be so ungrateful.

well--you could probably just go back and look at some liberal posts for the last 3 years or so and see the SAME ungrateful attitude.
I'm telling ya--it's a non-funtioning dialect. It can only result in hypocrisy.

 

[Anguille]

It is my understanding that yes, they could be subject to it. I could be wrong, it's been a while since I researched it.
(I researched and performed a persuasive speech on Gays in the Military a few years back)
I know I came across several cases as of the mid-90's,after DODT was implemented where this was the case.

Maybe some of the military people on the board will be able to update us.

 

[Article 15]

Sadly, now I can't get the image of Article 15 and Glock holding hands and skipping down the street out of my mind.

lol ...

Glock is a self-loather ... he'd never do something like that.

Me?

I like pretty girls ...

 

[Sunni Man]

True. He is. But it just amazes me that someone could be so ungrateful.

Greatful for what?

I am sure there are rapists and child molesters in the military.

Should I also be grateful to them for their sacrifice and my safety??

 

[Anguille]

It's just a publicity stunt.

They are just a hundred senior officers out of thousands of officers.

A publicity stunt?

And just what are they supposed to be gaining from this publicity stunt?

These guys are risking disapproval from their less open-minded contemporaries to express something they feel strongly about. It may even have less to do with their concern for civil rights as it could have to do with an understanding that repression, dishonesty and making soldiers pretend to be straight when they aren't is counterproductive running a well functioning military.

 

[Sunni Man]

America has sunk to a new low. When we need to be protected by degenerate homos.

And then we are expected to honor these sick sodomites for their service!!

 

[Anguille]

Greatful for what?

I am sure there are rapists and child molesters in the military.

Should I also be grateful to them for their sacrifice and my safety??

Nice try trying to lump gays in with rapists and child molesters. It's your usual ploy.

But it's an interesting thought. Does a rapist or child molester who performs a heroic act protecting his/her country deserve recognition and thanks for their service? I would have to say yes. It would not erase their culpability for the crimes, but IMO they would still deserve gratitude.

 

[Anguille]

America has sunk to a new low. When we need to be protected by degenerate homos.

And then we are expected to honor these sick sodomites for their service!!

Well imagine how those gay soldiers feel, knowing it's their job to protect hateful bigots like yourself.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I'm with Gunny on this one. The gays that currently serve are there to serve. If they are there to serve anythingother than themselves(ie. self servin interest of flaunting their homosexuality for social change) then the US Military is not the place for them. The Army or any branch for that matter has been used in the past as a vehicle of social change. I think this what these Flag Officers were getting at. That the military should be used as a vehicle for social change here as it was when Truman integrated the US Armed Forces. I truly believe that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is mixed bagged. It protects gays in certain ways, but leaves the door open to out them if someone has a personal beef with a gay. del brought a great Goldwater quote on the subject.

"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

 

[editec]

That's a good idea. Then everyone would know who in the unit were homos.

So when a firefight with the enemy breaks out. Guess who would be the first casualties.

I served along side plenty of gays and most of them were damnd fine soldiers.

You don't know jackshit about the service, Sunni.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I served along side plenty of gays and most of them were damnd fine soldiers.

You don't know jackshit about the service, Sunni.

Army full of gays now?

Anyone that MUST insist on announcing they are gay in order to serve is in fact not joining to serve at all, they are trying to get noticed, to protest.

The military forces people to live together, 2 to 4 to a room in the lower ranks. Women live with women and men with men. Exactly how does one put gays into that situation? You can not bunk 4 gays together, that would be like bunking men and women together. You can not bunk gays with the sex they prefer, as that again would be like bunking men and women together.

Most men that are not gay are still going to have problems living with a woman even if she is gay. It would cause sexual tension and problems. Not being a woman I do not know if women would mind being forced to live with gay men or not.

On Submarines people hot rack and sleep in VERY close proximity to one another. There is a reason women do not serve on Submarines. And why they do not serve on most ships either.

As long as a gay is not being open, no problem. If a gay insists on being open they cause problems for everyone. They are not serving to be in the military, they are serving to be a problem.

 

[CSM]

IMO, I don't give a crap what a soldier's sexual orientation is as long as they keep it to themselves.

I know that personally, I find beastiality abhorent. If a soldier was into that and didn't tell anyone there are no repercussions. If however, I live in a barracks and have to be in the same room with some guy who has a date with a goat every night (particularly if he brings his "date" to the same room we both live in) there is going to be one dead goat as a minimum.

Truth is, I think Gunny has the gist of it. There are gays serving currently and gays have served in the past. The ones we hear about are the ones who want ot protest and "flaunt" thier sexuality. I dont like it when soldiers talk about heterosexual exploits (the "epic stud" stories) and I dont like it when gays talk about homosexual exploits.

Further, RGS also has a point. Living quarters for soldiers are set up the way they are for a reason (having a whole lot to do with good order and discipline of the unit....an essential for an effective fighting force). we are not talking about a college campus with a bunch of students here.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I served along side plenty of gays and most of them were damnd fine soldiers.

You don't know jackshit about the service, Sunni.

He was just being funny, lol, you don't think he was really being serious do you?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

IMO, I don't give a crap what a soldier's sexual orientation is as long as they keep it to themselves.

I know that personally, I find beastiality abhorent. If a soldier was into that and didn't tell anyone there are no repercussions. If however, I live in a barracks and have to be in the same room with some guy who has a date with a goat every night (particularly if he brings his "date" to the same room we both live in) there is going to be one dead goat as a minimum.

Truth is, I think Gunny has the gist of it. There are gays serving currently and gays have served in the past. The ones we hear about are the ones who want ot protest and "flaunt" thier sexuality. I dont like it when soldiers talk about heterosexual exploits (the "epic stud" stories) and I dont like it when gays talk about homosexual exploits.

Further, RGS also has a point. Living quarters for soldiers are set up the way they are for a reason (having a whole lot to do with good order and discipline of the unit....an essential for an effective fighting force). we are not talking about a college campus with a bunch of students here.

Well you and the rest of the senior NCOs are right on the mark in your posts, those who want to serve openly wish to flaunt their sexuality, not to serve their country. They don't need to be in the military.