Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[Flaylo]

It is when it only applies to homosexuals.

Are you knowledgable about the Army and how we operate? Are you knowledgable about military regulations and policy other than your homosexual one-sided agenda crusade against DADT? A soldier's sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, not a matter that everyone in the unit must know and not something that a soldier needs to divulge. Its not discrimination to tell a soldier to keep the details of his sex life and activities to themselves and thats all the Army expects out of all. Point out to me where it states in the regulation that only homosexuals are supposed to keep their sex lives to themselves.

Do you honestly think they have it written down that 'oh by the way it only applies to gays'? How am I supposed to show the lack of a similar rule for straights? You show me the law that says that a straight soldier talking about their sexuality is grounds for dismissal.

So the regulation doesn't only apply to gays, that was my point, perhaps you should familiarize yourself more with military regulations.

 

[Flaylo]

See the problem. Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not. That is totally unfair.

Don't worry about it, I'm fairly certain most homosexuals would find it horrifying to be surrounded by a bunch of homophobes in a shower - naked or not.

At gays don't have to worry about straights looking at them in showers, which means straights can always be trusted in that regard, gays cannot.

 

[Flaylo]

Yeah I am SURE you want to run out all those that you PERCEIVE to be homosexual. You are a REAL piece of work.

As an Senior NCO and a member of the U.S. military it is my job to obey the regulations and set an example and enforce them whenever they're broken. The regulation says I cannot witchunt gays, so I do not nor do I want to. The regulation is clear in stating that homosexuals must be administratively separated from the military for stating they're gay and or for engaging in homosexual acts. I will enforce the regulation and show no mercy for special treatment for anyone because its my job.

 

[Flaylo]

BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.

Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.

 

[Gunny]

You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.

They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.

People like Ollie are the last of the old guard. They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.

You're stereotyping and I disagree.

True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?

This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.

So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.



So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay. Yup makes perfect sense.

Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit. They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.

Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.

Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.

I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.

Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?

Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.

"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.

 

[Gunny]

You're stereotyping and I disagree.

True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?

This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.

So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.



So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay. Yup makes perfect sense.



Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.

Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.

I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.

Once again, the color of a persons skin and their sexual orientation are two different things.

And Once again, Working with and living with are two very different situations.

And politics, I do not ever remember having a political discussion with my troops or with one of my sergeants. Just wasn't something we talked about. Other than something about the "assholes in congress screwed us again" type comments. And you heard that all the time regardless who was in power.

Comparing heredity with behavior appears to be the recurring theme here with those using it refusing to look at the fact there is no comparison between one and the other.

 

[maineman]

Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.

"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.

the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...

sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed. Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.

 

[Flaylo]

Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.

"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.

the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...

sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed. Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.

Which begs the question of why are so opposed to DADT?

 

[Flaylo]

Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.

 

[maineman]

Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.

If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her. If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.

That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it. ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.

 

[ACG22]

>>As small as our military is today there is no way we ever should have had problems recruiting. I don't know who to blame it on but dropping DADT will not assist in it. I have some Ideas who to blame but I'll be nice.<<


There is no singular reason for the problems in recruiting, but a few reasons could be: Clinton's cutting of funding, Bush's cutting back on benefits, a refocusing of how we deploy, a re-assessment of the "2 front" model, a shift to pre-emptive acts of war, an over-reliance on new technologies. These are just a few, and each may have varying degrees of impact. As for DADT, I think most Americans would rather see gays allowed to serve openly than to continue to lower our standards, and thus our entire military overall.

 

[ACG22]

Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.

If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her. If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.

That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it. ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.

I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered. I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated. But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date. I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.

 

[Flaylo]

Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.

If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her. If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.

That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it. ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.

I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered. I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated. But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date. I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.

I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.

As a professional NCO I would of course enforce the policy as any other regulations or policies.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her. If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.

That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it. ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.

I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered. I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated. But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date. I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.

I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by.

Oh I can imagine the scene in front of the Ft Bragg main PX if two guys were holding hands or hugging. The MP's wouldn't be able to get there fast enough or in enough numbers to help them.

 

[csbarry]

As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or for that matter openly display your preference; please don't apply. None of the afore mentioned behavior is accepted in the civilian business world, and one shouldn't have to be subjected to it in the armed forces. Take your pick; in the civilian business world, any of that behavior would be considered sexual harassment, an established crime.

 

[Flaylo]

Why does it seem as though the most professional servicemembers in this forum are soldiers and marines? We have much more strict standards than the other two branches, but airmen and sailors are no less professional, the ones outside of this forum that is.

 

[Flaylo]

Oh I can imagine the scene in front of the Ft Bragg main PX if two guys were holding hands or hugging. The MP's wouldn't be able to get there fast enough or in enough numbers to help them.

Thats why I keep telling FatherTime that he doesn't understand the Army since he's not in uniform and has never worn the uniform. 82nd Airborne soldiers have an Army of their own that soldiers from other divisions couldn't hack, thats the real Army, along with 3rd ID. 82nd soldiers, especially the Airborne Infrantry, would never tolerate openly gay soldiers in their ranks, they're far lower than the ordinary leg.

 

[Flaylo]

This commander here is crying the blues but he knew what he was getting into before he joined

Letter from a Mountain Soldier - Rachel Maddow show- msnbc.com

I have no compassion for people who willfully put themselves in bad situations they have no control over. Personal choices, not DADT, is the reason for his dilemma. Everyone who has joined the Army knows full well that the possibility of the Army changing its regulations to suit them are almost nil. If he can't hack the Army and its regulations he should get out, that way him and his 'partner' will have no more problems.

 

[Gunny]

Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.

"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.

the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...

sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed. Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.

The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit. If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual. What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.

So? You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference. Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?

Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander. There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason. This is one. Suck it up .... sir.