The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

Yeah no doubt, that sounds more like life at a swingers ranch, not Military service.:cool:

You were in the Navy, right? My best friend was in the Navy, she made it sound even worse over there than the Army. :lol:

Okay, back to being serious, I'm really not trying to say that everyone in the military behaves in this way or that way. I'm just trying to contrast the prevalence of behaviors in the military lifestyle vs civilian lifestyles.
 
Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases. That is actually "evidence." What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?

And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military. The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world. In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged,Bullshit, Marriage is marriage and the military does not condone infidelity, The UCMJ strickly forbids adultery. along with far greater sexual promiscuity,Kids away from home for the first time, yeah they go out and get in trouble. to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission). Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.Condoms were dispensed at the medical dispensary. Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed. If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.

Your BS is nothing more than that. The Military never encouraged infidelity and certainly didn't encourage visiting Hookers. I was the operations sergeant in a training unit, After in processing every Monday morning I would turn the females over to their Drill Sergeants, I would then tell the young men all about the bars down on Broad Street. How they could go down there and when they came back to base they would have an empty wallet and a hard dick. No we did not encourage the behavior you are claiming. Again, what military were you in?
 
Yeah no doubt, that sounds more like life at a swingers ranch, not Military service.:cool:

You were in the Navy, right? My best friend was in the Navy, she made it sound even worse over there than the Army. :lol:

Okay, back to being serious, I'm really not trying to say that everyone in the military behaves in this way or that way. I'm just trying to contrast the prevalence of behaviors in the military lifestyle vs civilian lifestyles.

I was in the Air Force but things have changed bro, I almost got served up with a court martial for having an affair when I was still in and some guy at our base was busted in rank for bringing a prostitute to his house on base, the Military has gotten alot more conservative.
 
Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases. That is actually "evidence." What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?

And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military. The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world. In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged,Bullshit, Marriage is marriage and the military does not condone infidelity, The UCMJ strickly forbids adultery. along with far greater sexual promiscuity,Kids away from home for the first time, yeah they go out and get in trouble. to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission). Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.Condoms were dispensed at the medical dispensary. Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed. If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.

Your BS is nothing more than that. The Military never encouraged infidelity and certainly didn't encourage visiting Hookers. I was the operations sergeant in a training unit, After in processing every Monday morning I would turn the females over to their Drill Sergeants, I would then tell the young men all about the bars down on Broad Street. How they could go down there and when they came back to base they would have an empty wallet and a hard dick. No we did not encourage the behavior you are claiming. Again, what military were you in?

Ollie is 100% right, service men are getting hemmed up left and right for adultery right now in the service.
 
i had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the cinc. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of hiv infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier i could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of aids. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world
 
DADT is only to my knowledge being used to say don't ask don't tell, not for the other things you say could happen.

And therein lies part of the problem. Like I said, "don't ask, don't tell" is a misnomer. Under the DADT policy homosexual conduct remained "incompatible" with military service and was grounds for discharge. Conduct includes not only explicit homosexual activity, but any behavior that suggests a propensity to POSSIBLY engage in homosexual conduct at a later time, to include any statements about being gay. The UCMJ does not only apply to military personnel when they are "on the clock" if you will, but at all times. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom was grounds for discharge. If your parents were visiting, and you sat in your living room and told them you were gay, and your CO happened to be walking by the window and overheard, you were suddenly at risk of discharge.

If you want to change those other things, I'm OK with that, but you are not arguing for that, you are arguing for them to actually tell.

No, I'm not arguing for that. Never once have I said that I want gay service members to go on record and publicly state their orientation. What I want is for our laws to honor the free speech rights of our service members, and for the gay men and women who serve in the military to be free to live their personal lives as they see fit, and to enjoy the same opportunities to pursue their sex lives and loving relationships as they see fit, without government intrusion and without the intrusion of bigotry or prejudice. I was in the service with people who were gay, and those people were and are honorable servants to their country. They deserve to be treated equally.

And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.

Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October). The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech. The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.
 
And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.

Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October). The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech. The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.

I've asked you like four times. And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated. There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired. The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass. And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government. Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself. That's what the people said in creating the government. Only a liberal could pull that twist off.
 
i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world

That's about all they're good for.

Turning down racks at night is another job they can do.
 
i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world

That's about all they're good for.

Turning down racks at night is another job they can do.

Sure....keep that fantasy going. :lol::lol::lol:

YA THERE NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL..WHAT WAS I THINKING

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_EvWJ6R6c&feature=related]YouTube - NYC Gay Pride Parade 2007[/ame]
 
You're going to have to show me that post. Something was misunderstood there. I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "***" in itself is either offensive or not offensive. Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say. You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html

My God, you have zero ability to detect sarcasm, do you?

And how was sarcasm indicated at all? Just to be clear, you agree that NOT calling someone the f-word for gay man is not being politically correct, but just plain respectful?
 
What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?

Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...

Apparently you are completely ignorant of what DADT did. Nobody has been asked if they are gay since 1993.
 
They already are showering together.

Navy showers....not exactly romantic.

When I was in we really only showered together in basic and than it was in and out, and everyone was so tired from running drills and PT, no one cared about anyones junk.:doubt:

Totally. In fact, if you REALLY want to pick out the gay guy (or lesbian for that matter) in a communal shower, they are the ones facing the wall, washing and getting the hell out.
 
It's not question begging. It's a factual statement.

No, it's question begging. You say that gay people should not be in the military because they cannot be trusted, because they lie in order to get in. That line of reasoning can only be valid if the prohibitions on getting in are themselves valid. Thus, you are begging the question.

Also, there is no truth to your premises anyway. There is no screening for sexual orientation in the recruitment process. Nobody asks you if you are gay. You are merely advised that homosexual conduct is considered incompatible with military service.

You are asked if you have ever engaged in a homo act when you apply, brainiac.
If you have and you check "NO," you've just lied, and if caught, could be charged with fraudulant enlistment.

Had you ever enlisted, you know such a basic fact.

Idiot.

Not since 1993 when DADT was enacted. When I joined in 1983, I was not asked if I was gay, but if I had ever engaged in "homosexual activity". Since, at that time, I had never tastefully decorated an apartment, I was able to answer that "no" I had never engaged in homosexual activity (oh, and I'd never had sex either).
 
I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.

But this thread has gone to shit.

I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....

Enjoy.....

When would be better timing, if I may ask?

Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...
 
15th post
I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.


It used to. But hasn't for years and years. Now there are no questions on orientation or sex acts, so if they aren't asked they didn't like. That's what DADT was all about.



>>>>

Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.

That's a felony, if convicted...


Feel free to go back 16 years and investigate anyone that enlisted prior to that time to determine if they committed a "gay act".

Seems like a waste of time though since the vast majority of the present military will have joined after 1995 would have fallen under DADT and they would never have been asked if they committed a "gay act".

Remember that standard of proof will be that the committed a "gay" act prior to 1995.


Good luck.


>>>>
 
I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.

But this thread has gone to shit.

I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....

Enjoy.....

When would be better timing, if I may ask?

Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...

Gee a social experiment while engaged in 2 wars. What a great idea.... :cuckoo:
 
When would be better timing, if I may ask?

Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...

Gee a social experiment while engaged in 2 wars. What a great idea.... :cuckoo:

Gee...kicking perfectly capable people out who WANT to fight during 2 wars. What a great idea. :cuckoo:
 
I see it has been a busy day on this thread. Some of you have posted some very good replies. Others still insist on posting fantasy. I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style. I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids. His article is accurate. However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.

"The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.

As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.

Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.

AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]

In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"

HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context. This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors. It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood. That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.

Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene. Would anyone care to guess why? Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield. A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist. They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.

From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.

Well they have dealt with it since the 80's so I bet they have got a handle on it. You should go back to your article ware it talks about the sex trade workers. They need to ban bleeding and sex in the armed forces for the safety of the troops.
 
Back
Top Bottom