The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[rightwinger]

Dang! I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke. None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion. You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier. You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.

So let me tell you what you've accomplished. Nothing. No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same. You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Sorry gang that is just the way things are.

What about my 21 years in the Navy doesn't count as having served?

Only service by manly men counts......if you don't beat up gays in your spare time...you didn't serve

 

[kaz]

As I said, it's a political statement. Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military.

You continue to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that under the DADT law, a soldier telling his or her mother that s/he is gay was illegal. Homosexual conduct with one's lover was illegal. You'd like to make this a simple matter of appropriate discussions in the work place. But that's not what DADT was all about.

Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays. I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past. On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell. I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement. And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military. I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.

 

[kaz]

Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you might finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a ******* shower.

Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that. They sleep and live together.

 

[Seawytch]

As I said, it's a political statement. Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military.

You continue to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that under the DADT law, a soldier telling his or her mother that s/he is gay was illegal. Homosexual conduct with one's lover was illegal. You'd like to make this a simple matter of appropriate discussions in the work place. But that's not what DADT was all about.

Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays. I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past. On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell. I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement. And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military. I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.

Sorry, but DADT is only a viable solution if it applies to ALL servicemembers, not just the gay and lesbian ones. That would, of course, mean that nobody gets dependent pay, base housing or extra moving allowances. Nobody gets to talk about their spouses, g/fs, b/fs or children.

When DADT has to apply to heterosexuals as well as to gays and lesbians it is a viable policy...until then, it's unconstitutional.

 

[kaz]

Using "***" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC".

Yeah, it is Nancy

 

[Seawytch]

Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you might finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a ******* shower.

Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that. They sleep and live together.

So? Sleep in your underwear. Shouldn't be sleeping naked in the barracks anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

Using "***" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC".

Yeah, it is Nancy

Really? So not using racial slurs like the "n" word is just PC? That's lame.

 

[kaz]

Sorry, but DADT is only a viable solution if it applies to ALL servicemembers, not just the gay and lesbian ones. That would, of course, mean that nobody gets dependent pay, base housing or extra moving allowances. Nobody gets to talk about their spouses, g/fs, b/fs or children.

It's acceptable to me and unacceptable to you because I care about the military defending the United States and you care about the military practicing political correctness. It's just a complete offshoot of your complete lack of knowledge from the reality of the world. The military has been too effective and made you feel too safe in a very dangerous world. You are of course trying to "fix" that.

When DADT has to apply to heterosexuals as well as to gays and lesbians it is a viable policy...until then, it's unconstitutional.

You are so full of it. But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up. To bad for you it's an enumerated document.

 

[kaz]

Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you might finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a ******* shower.

Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that. They sleep and live together.

So? Sleep in your underwear. Shouldn't be sleeping naked in the barracks anyway.

You liberals have so many places to practice your politics, why do you go after the people who allow you to do that? Keep your politics in the streets and out of the military.

 

[kaz]

Using "***" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC".

Yeah, it is Nancy

Really? So not using racial slurs like the "n" word is just PC? That's lame.

Can you show me my post where I advocated using the "n" word? I don't remember taking a position on that. Refresh my memory.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.

Actually DADT is a policy, many misapply it to thinking it is the law. The law, 10 USC § 654 bars homosexuals from serving.

I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past.

I disagree with the logic. If homosexuals are barred from serving, and somone were to find out - then they would be likely to be blackmailed.

On the other hand, if homosexuals are allowed to serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals - then there is no leverage to apply blackmail as being "outed" would not jeopardize a career.

On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell. I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement.

Do you believe that a heterosexual wearing a wedding ring is making a political statement? It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Do you believe that a heterosexual having a picture of their wife/girlfriend in their locker is making a political statement? It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Do you believe that a heterosexual talking about a weekend conquest of a hot piece of ass is making a political statement? It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military. I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

 

[slukasiewski]

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are so full of it. But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up. To bad for you it's an enumerated document.

You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.

Actually DADT is a policy, many misapply it to thinking it is the law. The law, 10 USC § 654 bars homosexuals from serving.

OK, so there is an unenforced law on the books, I'm cool with removing it.

I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past.

I disagree with the logic. If homosexuals are barred from serving, and somone were to find out - then they would be likely to be blackmailed.

On the other hand, if homosexuals are allowed to serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals - then there is no leverage to apply blackmail as being "outed" would not jeopardize a career.

Hmmm...re-read this. You didn't make any point relevant to our discussion.

On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell. I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement.

Do you believe that a heterosexual wearing a wedding ring is making a political statement? It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Do you believe that a heterosexual having a picture of their wife/girlfriend in their locker is making a political statement? It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Do you believe that a heterosexual talking about a weekend conquest of a hot piece of ass is making a political statement? It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Outside the military, no. They have a choice. Live a free, ass ******* life and tell everyone you want, or live a free ass ******* life join the military and keep it to yourself. There are a lot of jobs that are inappropriate to do things that are OK in others. If you're a pot head on TV, it's inconsistent with being a kindergarten teacher. If we had a draft, like Israel, I could at least see the argument. But that they have to join the military and they then have to tell people where their prick goes in the evening? Sorry, choose.

And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military. I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

OK, that's your opinion. And it's based on your political need to allow them to tell. You don't care about the practical implications of it as long as your political objective is met. And you have the right to think that. It's a free country. Thanks to our military.

 

[bodecea]

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

Not very discrete, were you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders. As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt ******* a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.

And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.


>>>>

 

[slukasiewski]

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders. As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt ******* a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.

And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.


>>>>

Last you checked? Hell - dipshit - it's a standing order.

What the ****'s a "standing order," BTW. I lived under the UCMJ.

Different set of rules for faggots?

What the **** were you - a dumb assed SH or SK?

Stick to your day job Elvis.

 

[kaz]

You are so full of it. But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up. To bad for you it's an enumerated document.

You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>

You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:

1) The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government. Gay soldiers are government. They have the choice to join government or not. If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else. Joining the government was their choice.

2) And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is. The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed. In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it. So most rights protected under it aren't listed. There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.

 

[bodecea]

Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders. As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt ******* a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.

And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.


>>>>

Last you checked? Hell - dipshit - it's a standing order.

What the ****'s a "standing order," BTW. I lived under the UCMJ.

Different set of rules for faggots?

What the **** were you - a dumb assed SH or SK?

Stick to your day job Elvis.

So, Gh0ster...don't like the new page set up over there? That's why you're back here? Or tired of having to follow rules of respect over there?

 

[Mr Natural]

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

A chief is an E-7, dipshit.