Homosexuals should not be accepted into U.S. military forces.

[SFC Ollie]

I just read your article, and now understand where you're getting your ridiculous ideas. I'll knock down each of their 10 points individually. First let me start by saying I don't care about the speculation or unsupported opinion of other people, so any point focusing on "but some percent believed something" is worthless. The best evidence we have as to whether armed forces can act successfully with openly gay individuals is examining other countries that already do it. As someone else pointed out, every other NATO country allows sexual identification, without negative consequences arising from it. With that being said, questions that focus on speculation or mere opinion include 1, 3, 4, 8, 9

2: worries that extending equal rights to gays will cost money. Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people? Yes, offering equality means you need to provide the same things for a previously disenfranchised group. Or do you think this minority group should be treated as deserving of less than their straight counterparts? You tell me whether this point in the article is valid.

It then goes on to speculate about HIV, stating "the military already has more than 1,000 HIV infected personnel and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex". Do you think the writer purposely or accidentally left out "and many contracted the virus via heterosexual sex?" Yes, rates are higher in gay men, but that doesn't preclude the fact that about a third of all hiv cases in this country are transmitted from heterosexual acts. REGARDLESS, such medical issues would be present no matter if DADT were preserved or repealed, which makes this yet another useless point.

5 and 6: WHO CARES that no one "accounted for" the fact that the coast guard responded to the survey more than the army. Are you serious? Does that author believe the response rate is somehow proof that DADT repeal is bad? The remainder of this point tries to claim that the survey has flaws. Let's assume for a moment that's true. Does that mean the opposite of the conclusions drawn from the survey are suddenly correct? Or does it simply mean that the conclusions drawn from the survey are not representative?

7: appears to claim that the armed forces are bad at dealing with sexual assault, so therefore we shouldn't have any rules that deal with sex or sexuality so they don't need to deal with it because they're bad at dealing with it. Interesting. Here's a better solution: GET BETTER AT DEALING WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT. I find it appalling that someone would believe we might as turn a blind eye to horrible criminal acts because its too awkward and uncomfortable to deal with.

10: was the point of the survey in the first place: so we can make policy recommendations.

So it looks like there were really 3 points they wanted to make, but didn't want to entitled the article "3 problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report" so they came up with 5 comments on speculation, 1 on why the survey was used in the first place, and 2 of which that just said the same thing.

Let me know which part of my critique you disagree with.

As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal


WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.

"The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units … so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."


Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal

 

[Gadawg73]

Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal


WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.

"The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units … so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."


Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal

I also want a phased in program over many years.
That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
DADT is bad policy over all.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal


WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.

"The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units … so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."


Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal

I also want a phased in program over many years.
That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
DADT is bad policy over all.

Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it. As it turned out it was a good policy. It allowed gays to serve, now they want to serve openly. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I would follow the law, openly gay today would mean a discharge and any officer who does not act on that is breaking regulations themselves. We all know it's coming, But timing can be everything. Right now is not the time to take the chance that our military can be damaged by such a massive change.

 

[Gadawg73]

Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal


WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.

"The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units … so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."


Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal

I also want a phased in program over many years.
That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
DADT is bad policy over all.

Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it. As it turned out it was a good policy. It allowed gays to serve, now they want to serve openly. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I would follow the law, openly gay today would mean a discharge and any officer who does not act on that is breaking regulations themselves. We all know it's coming, But timing can be everything. Right now is not the time to take the chance that our military can be damaged by such a massive change.

You sound like a reasonable man Ollie. My father told a story for years Ollie. As a young
2nd Lt. in WWII he had to check off on the ammo that was being loaded off of supply ships on one of the islands the 2nd Marines had landed on. His men in the field were complaining that it was not getting to them quick enough. Dad then signed "Lt. Pocheck, USMC" to every paper that ammo came off of until they took the island. Dad laughed for many years with his buddies, "I bet they are still looking for that guy". At a reunion many years ago in Atlanta Ollie of the 2nd Marines they gave him a shirt with "Lt. Charles Pocheck" sewn on it. I have it now!
Sometimes in the military the rules have to be broken.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I also want a phased in program over many years.
That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
DADT is bad policy over all.

Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it. As it turned out it was a good policy. It allowed gays to serve, now they want to serve openly. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I would follow the law, openly gay today would mean a discharge and any officer who does not act on that is breaking regulations themselves. We all know it's coming, But timing can be everything. Right now is not the time to take the chance that our military can be damaged by such a massive change.

You sound like a reasonable man Ollie. My father told a story for years Ollie. As a young
2nd Lt. in WWII he had to check off on the ammo that was being loaded off of supply ships on one of the islands the 2nd Marines had landed on. His men in the field were complaining that it was not getting to them quick enough. Dad then signed "Lt. Pocheck, USMC" to every paper that ammo came off of until they took the island. Dad laughed for many years with his buddies, "I bet they are still looking for that guy". At a reunion many years ago in Atlanta Ollie of the 2nd Marines they gave him a shirt with "Lt. Charles Pocheck" sewn on it. I have it now!
Sometimes in the military the rules have to be broken.

I have never, ever broken any military rules............. (Wouldn't be interested in some land about 45 miles east of Miami Beach would you?)

 

[hortysir]

To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?

 

[SFC Ollie]

To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?

I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.

 

[hortysir]

To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?

I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.

I mean in the sense that their orientation could potentially used against them by undesirables to garner information.
If they were out of the closet there wouldn't be any blackmail material.

 

[Sunni Man]

If they were out of the closet there wouldn't be any blackmail material.

Just another reason why homos have No business being in the military in the first place.

 

[bodecea]

If they were out of the closet there wouldn't be any blackmail material.

Just another reason why homos have No business being in the military in the first place.

If one doesn't have anything to hide, how can you black mail him....idiot?

 

[ABikerSailor]

To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?

I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.

The only reason that they would pull their clearance is because being gay could be used as leverage against the member.

Same with bad credit, marital infidelity, money, gambling, etc. However, if DADT was repealed, that particular lever would vanish, thereby making our military STRONGER and BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL.

By the way, I don't know how you Army types went into and out of the showers, but in the Navy we required (by peer pressure) to make sure everyone wore their towels to and from the shower. Why? Nobody wants to see your junk, and besides that, there's a hygiene factor.

As far as being unworkable to be repealed immediately? Bullshit. The UCMJ covers sexual harassment between men and women, why the **** can't the same be applied to gays that may harass dudes, and lesbians who harass chicks? And.......as far as teasing the servicemember who's gay? Sexual harassment applies to that as well, because you can't give someone a bunch of shit about who they're banging and single them out.

Gay service men and women have REPEATEDLY shown that they are capable of serving honorably and with distinction. If you want to see what kind of negative effect it's gonna have on the armed forces, well...........run a personal awards count to see who has the most, gays or straights? I'd be willing to bet from the several gay people that I've known while serving this nation, the gays would outscore the straights. But then again.......I've had inside info ever since I've been enlisted, because awards are counted for advancement exams and placed on the worksheet, as well as knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.

Stupid ****** Called Ollie, your arguments are utter bullshit.

But then again, I'd expect that from a delivery boy.

PS Genius, wanna know why I retired as an E-6? Simple........my rate was CREO group D or C the entire time I was in, which means that it was anywhere from 110 percent to 140 percent manned.

When I did make E-6 in Newport RI, I was the ONLY PERSONNELMAN in the entire District 8 PSD system to make it.

Go ahead Stupid ****** Called Ollie, bring your best points so I can shoot 'em down.

This is fun.

 

[52ndStreet]

Homosexuality is not love,! it is an abnormal sexually perverted act. That goes against normal human sexual reproductive process. These individuals may be able to perform in the military as soldiers, but the fact still remains that they could at some point be a danger to themselves, or to others in the military because of their homosexual abnormality.These homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the general population, and are prone to display many other mental disorders.

 

[Gadawg73]

Homosexuality is not love,! it is an abnormal sexually perverted act. That goes against normal human sexual reproductive process. These individuals may be able to perform in the military as soldiers, but the fact still remains that they could at some point be a danger to themselves, or to others in the military because of their homosexual abnormality.These homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the general population, and are prone to display many other mental disorders.

How would you know it is not love.
When did you choose to be gay?

 

[SFC Ollie]

To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?

I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.

The only reason that they would pull their clearance is because being gay could be used as leverage against the member.

Same with bad credit, marital infidelity, money, gambling, etc. However, if DADT was repealed, that particular lever would vanish, thereby making our military STRONGER and BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL.

By the way, I don't know how you Army types went into and out of the showers, but in the Navy we required (by peer pressure) to make sure everyone wore their towels to and from the shower. Why? Nobody wants to see your junk, and besides that, there's a hygiene factor.

As far as being unworkable to be repealed immediately? Bullshit. The UCMJ covers sexual harassment between men and women, why the **** can't the same be applied to gays that may harass dudes, and lesbians who harass chicks? And.......as far as teasing the servicemember who's gay? Sexual harassment applies to that as well, because you can't give someone a bunch of shit about who they're banging and single them out.

Gay service men and women have REPEATEDLY shown that they are capable of serving honorably and with distinction. If you want to see what kind of negative effect it's gonna have on the armed forces, well...........run a personal awards count to see who has the most, gays or straights? I'd be willing to bet from the several gay people that I've known while serving this nation, the gays would outscore the straights. But then again.......I've had inside info ever since I've been enlisted, because awards are counted for advancement exams and placed on the worksheet, as well as knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.

Stupid ****** Called Ollie, your arguments are utter bullshit.

But then again, I'd expect that from a delivery boy.

PS Genius, wanna know why I retired as an E-6? Simple........my rate was CREO group D or C the entire time I was in, which means that it was anywhere from 110 percent to 140 percent manned.

When I did make E-6 in Newport RI, I was the ONLY PERSONNELMAN in the entire District 8 PSD system to make it.

Go ahead Stupid ****** Called Ollie, bring your best points so I can shoot 'em down.

This is fun.

I am not about to compare my military record to yours, I hate seeing children cry.

 

[Nosmo King]

Homosexuality is not love,! it is an abnormal sexually perverted act. That goes against normal human sexual reproductive process. These individuals may be able to perform in the military as soldiers, but the fact still remains that they could at some point be a danger to themselves, or to others in the military because of their homosexual abnormality.These homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the general population, and are prone to display many other mental disorders.

You sir, are an ignorant homophobic bigot.

Homosexuals commit suicide at higher rates than the general population? Let's suppose that's true. Could it be because knuckle dragging morons like yourself bully and berate homosexuals at a higher rate than other segments of the population?

And I had no idea that love had a vital function in the human reproductive process.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.

And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct. So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change? I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?

Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else? Legal benefits? Rights and privileges? You have yet to actually address these questions.

Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it.

So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.

The only reason that they would pull their clearance is because being gay could be used as leverage against the member.

Same with bad credit, marital infidelity, money, gambling, etc. However, if DADT was repealed, that particular lever would vanish, thereby making our military STRONGER and BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL.

By the way, I don't know how you Army types went into and out of the showers, but in the Navy we required (by peer pressure) to make sure everyone wore their towels to and from the shower. Why? Nobody wants to see your junk, and besides that, there's a hygiene factor.

As far as being unworkable to be repealed immediately? Bullshit. The UCMJ covers sexual harassment between men and women, why the **** can't the same be applied to gays that may harass dudes, and lesbians who harass chicks? And.......as far as teasing the servicemember who's gay? Sexual harassment applies to that as well, because you can't give someone a bunch of shit about who they're banging and single them out.

Gay service men and women have REPEATEDLY shown that they are capable of serving honorably and with distinction. If you want to see what kind of negative effect it's gonna have on the armed forces, well...........run a personal awards count to see who has the most, gays or straights? I'd be willing to bet from the several gay people that I've known while serving this nation, the gays would outscore the straights. But then again.......I've had inside info ever since I've been enlisted, because awards are counted for advancement exams and placed on the worksheet, as well as knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.

Stupid ****** Called Ollie, your arguments are utter bullshit.

But then again, I'd expect that from a delivery boy.

PS Genius, wanna know why I retired as an E-6? Simple........my rate was CREO group D or C the entire time I was in, which means that it was anywhere from 110 percent to 140 percent manned.

When I did make E-6 in Newport RI, I was the ONLY PERSONNELMAN in the entire District 8 PSD system to make it.

Go ahead Stupid ****** Called Ollie, bring your best points so I can shoot 'em down.

This is fun.

I am not about to compare my military record to yours, I hate seeing children cry.

Hey, Stupid Fucker Called Ollie.............not trying to compare my service record to yours (you'd lose anyway), but rather telling your stupid ass why I was an E-6 when I retired because apparently, you think that telling me I retired as an E-6 like it's a bad thing.

Like I said, my job put me on independent duty in high visibility billets TWICE, which is why I have no regrets. You on the other hand apparently know you'd fail, which is why you refuse.

But all bullshit about dick measuring aside, wanna refute the points that I made about DADT?

That's right........you can't.

Thanks for playing Stupid Fucker Called Ollie.

 

[SFC Ollie]

As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.

And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct. So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change? I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?

Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else? Legal benefits? Rights and privileges? You have yet to actually address these questions.

Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it.

So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?

Yep I admitted that we were wrong about DADT when it was being put in place. And I have also said that I could be wrong now. I've even said I hope I'm wrong.

Same rights and privileges, Not when it comes to the military. Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment. And I'm not so sure that is fair. It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?
I know that eventually it will happen, but there will be problems and it will require special treatment and changes that I do not have the answers to.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.

And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct. So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change? I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?

Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else? Legal benefits? Rights and privileges? You have yet to actually address these questions.

Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it.

So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?

Yep I admitted that we were wrong about DADT when it was being put in place. And I have also said that I could be wrong now. I've even said I hope I'm wrong.

Same rights and privileges, Not when it comes to the military. Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment. And I'm not so sure that is fair. It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?
I know that eventually it will happen, but there will be problems and it will require special treatment and changes that I do not have the answers to.

Hey Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, ever heard of the UCMJ? It has sexual harassment covered.

Like I stated before, most guys that I knew in the Navy wore a towel into the shower and put it on before they got out. Nobody wanted to see your junk, and there was peer pressure to help enforce it.

Separate barracks? What the **** are you, born stupid and retarded?

**** dude.....that's no way to go through life.