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

[Article 15]

While the rest of the servicemembers don't have to hide it and lead a double life ...

They're not living double lives, nobody is asking then to live as straights, they're being told to serve and keep their sexual lives a personal and private matter.

While heteros aren't. That's discrimination.

What military are you in? There's all sorts of personal life discussion going on in the military. The whole DADT thing extends to when you aren't in uniform too.

I'm in the real Army, unlike you. The Army for disciplines professionals. If it isn't work related it isn't necessary.

That works in theory. Reality doesn't jive with that and you know it.

Two people of same sex having sexual intercourse is not the same as being black or white.

No, it isn't but the arguments you are using against the gays are the exact same ones used against the blacks. Try some history for a change.

Its the gays that need to adpat, not me, I have no problem with DADT and the things I disagree with I have adpated to, why can't gays do the same? Don't demand for me to do adapt and not demand gays adapt.

Wrong. You are demanding they hide who they are while you don't have to. You are the one making the demand, not vice versa. Weak.

The rest of the country is not open arms with homosexuals. If the behavior and presence of gays in a workplace disrupts an operation employers do have the right to dismiss, especially if the goals and aims of that workplace and homosexuality are incompatible.

False. Go talk to the kid who worked at a shop at Logan Airport and tried to get his lesbian coworker fired for talking about her girlfriend.

But lol at the "aims of the workplace and homosexuality are incompatible" ... that's some funny stuff right there.

Yes you are, anybody that disgarees with you and stands fast to their opinion you label a homophobe. The military is not a support group for anyone's activist agendas.

Your own words make you a homophobe ... making sweeping generalizations about what "everybody" thinks about them.

Then you don't have a clue about the Army, I'm in the Army and I've also had the opportunity to be on the trail as a drill sergeant and I can tell you with 100% certainy that you are wrong. No soldiers that I'm aware of are interested in hearing about the love life and personal lives of what gays do with other gays. If they do exist they are very few in number. Don't tell me you know my fellow soldiers better than me.

I know plenty about the Army. I was stationed at Pope for 3 years and worked hand in hand with the Army on numerous occasions both CONUS and in the AOR. What you are saying here is unsubstantiated nonsense.

The question was straightforward, I'm a professional with high standards, I don't dumb things down for anyone.

Then you get no answer.

Show me some evidence that people's attitudes can be forcefully changed by military policies, just because someone follows policy don't mean they agree with it and accept it with open arms. It hasn't worked for stopping racism and it will not work homosexuality, attitudes simply shift from overt to covert and cause people uneeded stress.

It hasn't worked to stop racism?



The United States military is the most color blind organization in the country.

No one wants to hear about homosexuals private lives whether it be sexual or about having dinner with a boyfriend. I guarantee that if DADT is rescinded and gays start discussing those things in the workplace and the environment becomes hostile and disruptive one sided homosexual actvists like you are going to blame these flare ups of homophobia because you only see things from one side and don't look at the bigger picture on the military is affected.

Speak for yourself.

If there is a flare up I will absolutly blame it on homophobia because that's exactly what it is.

 

[Flaylo]

While heteros aren't. That's discrimination.

Heterosexuals are imbued with the ability to procreate, homosexuals cannot, would you call discrimination by nature?

Actually all servicemembers are told to keep the details of their personal lives a private matter, so there is no discrimination, if it isn't about work it isn't needed. DADT shouldn't rescinded just so gays can talk about their boyfriends, it benefits the Army is no way. If it bothers gays that much about not being able to talk about it they should leave the military or don't enlist at all. The military is a voluntary organization so gays can voluntarily leave and voluntarily don't enlist. No one wants to involuntarily hear about their relationships and sex acts.

That works in theory. Reality doesn't jive with that and you know it.

It works just fine in the Army when people enforce it.

No, it isn't but the arguments you are using against the gays are the exact same ones used against the blacks. Try some history for a change.

I'm not using the same arguments used against blacks, you are using those same arguments. You're trying to make a case for gays by using blacks. They're not the same.

Wrong. You are demanding they hide who they are while you don't have to. You are the one making the demand, not vice versa. Weak.

Wrong I'm demanding they keep personal and private matters of that nature to themselves, if gays can't manage that they need to leave the military or not enlist at all.

False. Go talk to the kid who worked at a shop at Logan Airport and tried to get his lesbian coworker fired for talking about her girlfriend.

He handled it wrong, he should have said that such things are offensive to him in the workplace and disrupts him from doing his job, his boss would have handled the matter much better.

Your own words make you a homophobe ... making sweeping generalizations about what "everybody" thinks about them.

Only in your words am I a homophobe, but thats only your subjective view which I can care less about about, unless I support

I know plenty about the Army. I was stationed at Pope for 3 years and worked hand in hand with the Army on numerous occasions both CONUS and in the AOR. What you are saying here is unsubstantiated nonsense.

You were a civilian working with the Army, not in the Army, two different standards, I know more of what I'm talking about because I've trained incoming IET soldiers and I deal with soldiers in permanent party units. Most soldiers to the upmost are not interested in and do not want to hear about the relationship lives of homosexuals.




Then you get no answer.

If there is a flare up I will absolutly blame it on homophobia because that's exactly what it is.

Of course because this will always be the case beforehand right?

 

[Father Time]

While heteros aren't. That's discrimination.

Heterosexuals are imbued with the ability to procreate, homosexuals cannot, would you call discrimination by nature?

We have egg and sperm donors and straight people can be infertile. Any other excuses?

Actually all servicemembers are told to keep the details of their personal lives a private matter, so there is no discrimination

Are straights discharged for talking about their sex lives? No? Then it's discrimination.

if it isn't about work it isn't needed. DADT shouldn't rescinded just so gays can talk about their boyfriends, it benefits the Army is no way.

We've been over this, less troops discharged for stupid reasons.

If it bothers gays that much about not being able to talk about it they should leave the military or don't enlist at all.

Why the hell is trying to change it not a viable option in your mind? The military works for us.

The military is a voluntary organization so gays can voluntarily leave and voluntarily don't enlist. No one wants to involuntarily hear about their relationships and sex acts.

And I don't want my tax dollars (which I pay involuntarily), to support a discriminatory policy.

Wrong I'm demanding they keep personal and private matters of that nature to themselves, if gays can't manage that they need to leave the military or not enlist at all.

They can't be on duty 24/7 so when they aren't what difference does it make?

 

[ABikerSailor]

A squad gets in their vehicle to go on patrol. One of the servicemembers is gay, but is serving honorably under DADT. They've got a significant other that they've been living with for over 10 years.

The patrol is hit by an IED, resulting in death or serious injury of the gay servicemember.

Now.......since their partner lived with them for over 10 years, they've accrued quite a bit of property together. They also have a house together.

Are you telling me that the gay partner of the servicemember who was hit by an IED shouldn't be allowed to visit them in the hospital? Remember........only immediate family members are allowed to be transported at government expense to the member's location.

Then........there is also the death benefits, as well as all the other benefits and payments that would go to the person's family.

Now.......what if that member who was just injured or killed can't get their partner covered for travel or benefits? Are you people who support DADT such heartless pricks that you would deny the benefits that hetero couples get just because the member is gay?

And..........this is directed toward Flaylo and Ollie.......exactly how many months OUTCONUS deployment do each of you have? I'd bet not more than maybe a month or two between the both of you.

Yeah......tell us again about the "real Army" if you've never been outside the US.

 

[rdean]

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.

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.

Straights don't have to be worried about the gays. It's they gays who need to be careful around "morons" like you. What if you only "suspected" someone of being gay? Someone like you would make their life hell. Gawd you're dumb.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

 

[SFC Ollie]

the framers insttituted civilian control over the military... are you saying they were wrong to do so?

Yes Civilians do have control. And when they assign a mission and allow the military to do it's job then they have performed their function.

when someone is "in control", they get to define their "function". Do you think that the military WROTE the UCMJ or do you think civilians did?

Oh... and by the way.... have YOU ever violated article 125, OLLIE?

If so, did you report yourself, Mr. "I do everything by the book"??

Actually that would be none of your business. I will admit that I did receive one Article 15 as a young dumb troop. And deserved it. Never claimed to be perfect.

 

[Father Time]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.

The regulations are what they are for a reason. If they get changed then and only then will we see if it is for the good of the military and the country. Still if it ain't broke.....And it's not.

 

[Gadawg73]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.

"nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life"
Stating you are gay is not mentioning your sex life. That is telling the truth.
No civilian job mandates anything like that. You are uninformed.

 

[maineman]

Yes Civilians do have control. And when they assign a mission and allow the military to do it's job then they have performed their function.

when someone is "in control", they get to define their "function". Do you think that the military WROTE the UCMJ or do you think civilians did?

Oh... and by the way.... have YOU ever violated article 125, OLLIE?

If so, did you report yourself, Mr. "I do everything by the book"??

Actually that would be none of your business. I will admit that I did receive one Article 15 as a young dumb troop. And deserved it. Never claimed to be perfect.

yet you can accuse ME of violating MY oath? Yet you will not just come out and say that you follow the UCMJ to the letter? why not?

 

[Gadawg73]

Who cares if some gay stated he had dinner with a boyfriend?
You are an officer and that bothers you? A little thin skinned there for an officer.
If your environment becomes hostile in any situation then your leadership skills as an officer need to be in place.
Blaming that on the gays is not your solution as an officer. You know that. The soldiers being hostile are your problem, not the gay.
Knowing what your problems are and disciplining those that are the problems are your first priority. You know that also.
How are you going to explain to your superiors that the gays stating they had dinner are the problem when it was the others that show the hostilities?
We both know that will not fly so quit the BS. We both know your superiors will also call that BS.
Deal with it. You are a trained professional. How can you expect your superiors to have faith in you when you state you can not do your job and handle your own troops because of a gay stating he had dinner with another gay?

 

[Father Time]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.

"nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life"
Stating you are gay is not mentioning your sex life. That is telling the truth.
No civilian job mandates anything like that. You are uninformed.

That was sarcasm/satire as was most of my comment.

 

[Flaylo]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.

"nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life"
Stating you are gay is not mentioning your sex life. That is telling the truth.
No civilian job mandates anything like that. You are uninformed.

Saying you're gay is mentioning your sex life because the only proof of homosexuality are homosexual sex acts, there is no proof people are born gay or that being gay is just what somebody is, being gay is what somebody does. Its not necessary that people in the workplace have to know someone's sexual orientation, if it has nothing to do with the job it needs to be kept to one's self.

 

[Flaylo]

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down? Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay. They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3.

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays. And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why? Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.

Whoever read his email violated his privacy and sahould have been appropiately disciplined, but face reality, most gays discharged under DADT are not outed in this manner.

 

[maineman]

Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.

"nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life"
Stating you are gay is not mentioning your sex life. That is telling the truth.
No civilian job mandates anything like that. You are uninformed.

Saying you're gay is mentioning your sex life because the only proof of homosexuality are homosexual sex acts, there is no proof people are born gay or that being gay is just what somebody is, being gay is what somebody does. Its not necessat that people in the workplace have to know someone's sexual orientation, if it has nothing to do with the job it needs to be kept to one's self.

so....you are saying that it is impossible for someone who is a virgin with regards to sexual contact with others, to be anything but heterosexual? Are you saying that you cannot imagine that there could be men who, while having no attraction for women, also have no burning need to have anal sex with men either, but just prefer the company of men? You don't think that men can be effeminate, asexual, prefer the company of men, and can still be productive members of the military?

 

[L.K.Eder]

without DADT homosexual soldiers no longer need beards.

 

[Flaylo]

"nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life"
Stating you are gay is not mentioning your sex life. That is telling the truth.
No civilian job mandates anything like that. You are uninformed.

Saying you're gay is mentioning your sex life because the only proof of homosexuality are homosexual sex acts, there is no proof people are born gay or that being gay is just what somebody is, being gay is what somebody does. Its not necessat that people in the workplace have to know someone's sexual orientation, if it has nothing to do with the job it needs to be kept to one's self.

so....you are saying that it is impossible for someone who is a virgin with regards to sexual contact with others, to be anything but heterosexual? Are you saying that you cannot imagine that there could be men who, while having no attraction for women, also have no burning need to have anal sex with men either, but just prefer the company of men? You don't think that men can be effeminate, asexual, prefer the company of men, and can still be productive members of the military?

They can be in the military under DADT and keep it to themselves so that it doesn't cause a disruption.

 

[maineman]

Saying you're gay is mentioning your sex life because the only proof of homosexuality are homosexual sex acts, there is no proof people are born gay or that being gay is just what somebody is, being gay is what somebody does. Its not necessat that people in the workplace have to know someone's sexual orientation, if it has nothing to do with the job it needs to be kept to one's self.

so....you are saying that it is impossible for someone who is a virgin with regards to sexual contact with others, to be anything but heterosexual? Are you saying that you cannot imagine that there could be men who, while having no attraction for women, also have no burning need to have anal sex with men either, but just prefer the company of men? You don't think that men can be effeminate, asexual, prefer the company of men, and can still be productive members of the military?

They can be in the military under DADT and keep it to themselves so that it doesn't cause a disruption.

yet their totally heterosexual, sexually active squad members are free to discuss THEIR dates and living conditions without a care.

and they STILL have noncoms like you who are willing to persecute them for what you PERCEIVE as their "homosexuality" even if the only orgasm they've ever had was a wet dream. How patriotic of you.... how brave.

 

[Flaylo]

yet their totally heterosexual, sexually active squad members are free to discuss THEIR dates and living conditions without a care.

Tough luck, a homosexual and heterosexual are not the same based on sex acts. No one is free to discuss their dates in the workplace, its inappropiate and not allowed in the workplace, I've said this many of times. No one in the workplace wants to hear about the dates and living arrangements of homosexuals anyways..

and they STILL have noncoms like you who are willing to persecute them for what you PERCEIVE as their "homosexuality" even if the only orgasm they've ever had was a wet dream. How patriotic of you.... how brave.

I don't prosecute anyone for anything, I only report and make and recommendations based on credible evidence, not hearsay and perception. When I was a drill sergeant on the trail it was my job to weed out those who were unfit to be in the Army and to motivate and train those who were fits and wanted to be in, so I have quite a bit of experience when dealing with information that is or isn't credible. If a soldiers says he's homosexual, gets caught engaging in homosexual acts or is witnessed by credible sources engaging in homosexual acts and it becomes a distraction to the unit I will initiate action. Thats my job.