Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale

[ACG22]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism. This is going to happen, sooner or later.

 

[Flaylo]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism. This is going to happen, sooner or later.

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nobody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is all academic anyway.

Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.

Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?

I imagine in a negative manner.

However the same thing could happen if two soldiers of the opposite sex were to do that at work. There are Army Regs that frown on that kind of activity. The fraternization regs are pretty specific.

 

[maineman]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.

Back in the 70's, the navy outlawed beards... against the wishes of a vast majority of sailors. Odddly enough, the navy survived. Oddly enough, losing our beards, although upsetting us in the short term, did not hurt our readiness in any way.

And what about someone who admits to being a homosexual, but does not let his sexuality detract from his professionalism, makes them inherently "untrustworthy"?

Loss of beards and allowing gays to openly serve are two different things, this is an even worse comparison than blacks and gays.

machts nichts. they are both policies that the troops disapprove(d) of. So what? Since when is the military a ******* democracy. The brass tell you what to do and you do it. If you don't like it, leave. There are plenty of folks who will step up and serve if you can't bring yourself to do so. If you are so obsessively narcissistic that you simply KNOW that every gay soldier is sprouting wood just looking at you, then you probably would be better off somewhere else anyway.

 

[ACG22]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism. This is going to happen, sooner or later.

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nopbody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

Why should they be denied? I guess some people just have to discriminate and hate. I don't see any other explanation. The fight against such ignorance never ends.

 

[mudwhistle]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism. This is going to happen, sooner or later.

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nopbody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

They have the same right to join as anybody else.

Last time I checked being gay does not cause physical defects or mental incapacitation.

As long as they do their jobs they should be allowed to serve.

 

[mudwhistle]

Back in the 70's, the navy outlawed beards... against the wishes of a vast majority of sailors. Odddly enough, the navy survived. Oddly enough, losing our beards, although upsetting us in the short term, did not hurt our readiness in any way.

And what about someone who admits to being a homosexual, but does not let his sexuality detract from his professionalism, makes them inherently "untrustworthy"?

Loss of beards and allowing gays to openly serve are two different things, this is an even worse comparison than blacks and gays.

machts nichts. they are both policies that the troops disapprove(d) of. So what? Since when is the military a ******* democracy. The brass tell you what to do and you do it. If you don't like it, leave. There are plenty of folks who will step up and serve if you can't bring yourself to do so. If you are so obsessively narcissistic that you simply KNOW that every gay soldier is sprouting wood just looking at you, then you probably would be better off somewhere else anyway.

That's a confusing statement. You think that being offended at someone getting a chubby over your bare ass is grounds for removal...

I'm trying to figure out who you are attacking here.

 

[Flaylo]

machts nichts. they are both policies that the troops disapprove(d) of. So what? Since when is the military a ******* democracy. The brass tell you what to do and you do it. If you don't like it, leave. There are plenty of folks who will step up and serve if you can't bring yourself to do so.

Why can't gays follow thios logic when it comes to DADT? The military is supposed to be undemocratic to heterosexuals if DADT were lifted but democratic to gays who oppose DADT?

If you are so obsessively narcissistic that you simply KNOW that every gay soldier is sprouting wood just looking at you, then you probably would be better off somewhere else anyway.

If gays feel that DADT is so unfair they need to look for employment elsewhere that suits them.

 

[Flaylo]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism. This is going to happen, sooner or later.

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nopbody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

They have the same right to join as anybody else.

Last time I checked being gay does not cause physical defects or mental incapacitation.

As long as they do their jobs they should be allowed to serve.

Joining the military is not a right, you need to get with the program and do it real fast.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If they aren't going to allow pets in the barracks, they might as well let the gays in. It will give you something besides yourself to rub on!

 

[mudwhistle]

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nopbody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

They have the same right to join as anybody else.

Last time I checked being gay does not cause physical defects or mental incapacitation.

As long as they do their jobs they should be allowed to serve.

Joining the military is not a right, you need to get with the program and do it real fast.

Your program is in your ass bud.


The DADT policy confirmed that gays have the right. As long as they can meet the qualifications they have the right and the privilege to serve.

 

[Flaylo]

They have the same right to join as anybody else.

Last time I checked being gay does not cause physical defects or mental incapacitation.

As long as they do their jobs they should be allowed to serve.

Joining the military is not a right, you need to get with the program and do it real fast.

Your program is in your ass bud.


The DADT policy confirmed that gays have the right. As long as they can meet the qualifications they have the right to serve.

DADT gave gays the option and privilege of serving as long as they keep their sexual life to themselves. If it gave them the right to serve why are they going against it?

 

[mudwhistle]

Joining the military is not a right, you need to get with the program and do it real fast.

Your program is in your ass bud.


The DADT policy confirmed that gays have the right. As long as they can meet the qualifications they have the right to serve.

DADT gave gays the option and privilege of serving as long as they keep their sexual life to themselves. If it gave them the right to serve why are they going against it?

The DADT policy only provided them a way out of the service. Many of them came out and admitted their life-style merely to get out of deployments. Now Obama is putting the kabosh on that practice. It's a good thing and a bad thing. I'm not sure what he has up his sleeve but the end result isn't exactly what people think.

 

[Flaylo]

Your program is in your ass bud.


The DADT policy confirmed that gays have the right. As long as they can meet the qualifications they have the right to serve.

DADT gave gays the option and privilege of serving as long as they keep their sexual life to themselves. If it gave them the right to serve why are they going against it?

The DADT policy only provided them a way out of the service. Many of them came out and admitted their life-style merely to get out of deployments. Now Obama is putting the kabosh on that practice. It's a good thing and a bad thing. I'm not sure what he has up his sleeve but the end result isn't exactly what people think.

Fraudulent enlistment and lying to get discharged is already a violation of the UCMJ, DADT wasn't implemented for the reason you're claiming.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.

Or maybe I'm just severely misinformed, you'll have to show me where being a 33 year old SFC is a crusty old sarge.

"Fanatical activism" .... lol

Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers.



I'm not making that same argument, sexual orientation based on sexual acts and race and ethnicity are not the same.




I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.






I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda just because I disagree with homosexuals openly serving in the military, you gay activists can't have all your wy or its the anti/homosexual way, you need to get with the program and accept that not everyone that disagree with your one sided homosexual biased agenda is not bigoted or a homophobic person.

These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process.

Serving in the military is not a right and plenty of soldiers have to give up a lot and sacrifice when they join the military, some more than others. Gays can do whatever they like as long as they don't openly make it known, openly stating that they are gay is of no benefit to the military and unit cohesion. I'm pro-unit cohesion and anything that will improve unit cohesion and morale and the health and welfare of soldiers and anti-anything that goes against and doesn't benefit those things. You one sided homosexual biased actvists only have the interests of homosexuals in mind.

And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't. Not even close..

Not everyone in the military is "equal" or treated "equally," officers get more pay and better housing than enlisted and even their own reserved parking spaces, but soldiers suck it up and drive on without complaining. Gay soldiers are treated no different than straight soldiers, you show me where the inequality lies. All people joining the military have to adapt to military life and the rules and regulations, if they can't they need to find another occupation, and I will do everything in my power to assist them.


When they get discharged under DADT, they have it better than others who get discharged for they get discharged honorably, despite the fact that they either admitted or were caught in the act of breaking the regulation. Homosexual acts are forbidden under the UCMJ anyways so what good is rescinding DADT going to do?

I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.


You're RIGHT there will be harrasment of PERCEIVED gays.

 

[Flaylo]

al-Gayda is taking over the forum with their jihad against those of us who uphold DADT.

 

[goldcatt]

al-Gayda is taking over the forum with their jihad against those of us who uphold DADT.

No. People with sense are piling on another bigot.

 

[editec]

This is all academic anyway.

Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.

Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?

If they were REALLY ALPHA MALES, they wouldn't give a damn.

It's you boys who aren't quite sure of your own hetero instincts who are homophoboic morons.

 

[Flaylo]

This is all academic anyway.

Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.

Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?

If they were REALLY ALPHA MALES, they wouldn't give a damn.

It's you boys who aren't quite sure of your own hetero instincts who are homophoboic morons.

You don't have the right to question my sexuality and I'm more than secure enough in my own heterosexual instincts. If homosexuals were really dedicated about serving their country they wouldn't put so much of an emphasis on DADT.

 

[Father Time]

If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.

I'm almost 33 years old, far from being a crusty old SFC. I joined the military after the implementation of DADT.

Wake up. Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted. It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.

My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.

What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT? Whatever the hell that means.

The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran.

Oh shut up. You like the policy so you're going to pretend no one has a right to try to change it which is just plain wrong.

The military serves the people and is funded with tax dollars so we should get to decide how it is run.