The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

Real bad.

 

[yota5]

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.....

The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie. You know the drill. They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin. They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed. Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars. They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face. It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.

On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service. I find myself asking the same question you do. What military did they serve in? It sure wasn't the one that I served in either. I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.

Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right. To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards. Not everyone can serve. Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard. Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.

 

[gautama]

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.....

The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie. You know the drill. They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin. They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed. Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars. They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face. It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.

On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service. I find myself asking the same question you do. What military did they serve in? It sure wasn't the one that I served in either. I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.

Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right. To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards. Not everyone can serve. Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard. Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.

Fact of Life: No matter what one does. there's a ****-up.

Unfortunately, with Obama Bin Lyin, the POS makes sure that the ****-up is built in.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

 

[Seawytch]

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 imagine that you aren't aware that the first Marine wounded in the Iraq invasion was gay.

 

[Seawytch]

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....

Sorry, but it isn't an "experiment" anymore. It might have been an "experiment" over 20 years ago when the Israelis lifted their ban. It might even have still been an "experiment" when 10 or more other countries did it too. Now there are over a score of countries, many of which with cultures similar to our own, that have lifted their bans without incident. None of the "doom and gloom" you are "afraid" is going to happen, happened. NONE. Why do you think our troops are less professional than these other countries?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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....

Sorry, but it isn't an "experiment" anymore. It might have been an "experiment" over 20 years ago when the Israelis lifted their ban. It might even have still been an "experiment" when 10 or more other countries did it too. Now there are over a score of countries, many of which with cultures similar to our own, that have lifted their bans without incident. None of the "doom and gloom" you are "afraid" is going to happen, happened. NONE. Why do you think our troops are less professional than these other countries?

I think realistically speaking there will be "incidents". They will be relatively few and far between and in the grand scheme of things pretty minor. But they will exist and they will come primarily from two sources:

1. Extremists on the left that will manufacture an "incident" in an attempt to make the military command structure look bad and to paint a case for continued institutional discrimination against homosexuals.

and

2. Extremists on the right that will manufacture an "incident" in an attempt to justify re-implementation of DADT and an "I told you so" moment.​

I just pray that both extreme sides of the ailse will let the true leaders in our military do their job and act like the professionals they truly are.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.....

The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie. You know the drill. They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin. They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed. Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars. They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face. It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.

An awful lot of speculation there...got evidence to back it up besides one son's opinion?

On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service. I find myself asking the same question you do. What military did they serve in? It sure wasn't the one that I served in either. I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.

You never heard "What goes on deployment stays on deployment"? You never heard "Wheels up, Rings off"? You never saw an E-club the night AFTER a deployment started? Color me sceptical.

Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right. To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards. Not everyone can serve. Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard. Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.

And once again you are being asked...what is your definition of a "sexual deviant"?

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.

Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.

 

[bodecea]

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.

Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.

I found during my time in that adultery was one of those "extra" charges thrown in if someone really stepped on it...and "fraternization" was usually really stepping on it. For example the CO of the P-3 command sleeping with one of his LT Intell officers...another officer who got a poor fitrep turned them in.

 

[High_Gravity]

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.

Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.

I think they need to get out of private matters and I say this because the Military does absolutely nothing when the civilian spouse of a Military member is cheating, the civilian spouse can have a gangbang in your living room and there is absolutely nothing the Military can do, I talked to an Air Force legal aide on this and they said their hands are tied until the Military member files for divorce, and even than the dependent can stay on base for 30 days getting their freak on, it might be different from base to base but this is what I was told at Vandenberg Air Force Base, when there was rumours going around that I was cheating I was threatened to cut it out or I would lose some rank behind this, and possibly my career, they even contacted the woman I was cheating with and talked to her on the phone but she was smart enough to deny even knowing me.

 

[kaz]

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?

Seriously? I called you Nancy to call you a sensitive girl about political correctness. You seriously need that explained to you, Nancy?

 

[kaz]

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.

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

The Courts find all sort of things in the Constitution that aren't there. That you argue it's Unconstitutional because government said government is infringing on government's rights is patently ludicrous. I want to know where in the Constitution that government employees have the the right to state they are gay in the Constitution. Show me that, don't tell me what liberal judge magically found it there.

The war on drugs isn't there, intrastate commerce isn't there, the right to an abortion isn't there and government employees don't have free speech protection to state they aren't following government employment rules.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

The Courts find all sort of things in the Constitution that aren't there. That you argue it's Unconstitutional because government said government is infringing on government's rights is patently ludicrous. I want to know where in the Constitution that government employees have the the right to state they are gay in the Constitution. Show me that, don't tell me what liberal judge magically found it there.

The war on drugs isn't there, intrastate commerce isn't there, the right to an abortion isn't there and government employees don't have free speech protection to state they aren't following government employment rules.

First Amendment...free speech. Same one that allows straight government employees say they are straight.

 

[kaz]

Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman.

Sept 3, 2010:

A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members.

The Courts find all sort of things in the Constitution that aren't there. That you argue it's Unconstitutional because government said government is infringing on government's rights is patently ludicrous. I want to know where in the Constitution that government employees have the the right to state they are gay in the Constitution. Show me that, don't tell me what liberal judge magically found it there.

The war on drugs isn't there, intrastate commerce isn't there, the right to an abortion isn't there and government employees don't have free speech protection to state they aren't following government employment rules.

First Amendment...free speech. Same one that allows straight government employees say they are straight.

The first Amendment protects the people from government, not government from government. It protects them from being prosecuted, not from being fired. The first Amendment wouldn't protect a private company from firing one of their employees over what they say in public, that it protects government employees from something that it doesn't protect private employees from is inane. And no, the First Amendment doesn't protect straight employees from saying they are straight either.

 

[yota5]

A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS. How surprising is that? One question continues to be conveniently ignored. How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.

 

[bodecea]

A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS. How surprising is that? One question continues to be conveniently ignored. How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.

No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military? How about those translators? How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love? Because you think it's icky? Seriously?

 

[yota5]

A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS. How surprising is that? One question continues to be conveniently ignored. How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.

No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military? How about those translators? How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love? Because you think it's icky? Seriously?

Nice try Bod, but no cigar. Try answering the question if you can. Show me evidence where gays serving openly in the military will contribute to the combat readiness of any unit?

 

[bodecea]

A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS. How surprising is that? One question continues to be conveniently ignored. How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.

No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military? How about those translators? How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love? Because you think it's icky? Seriously?

Nice try Bod, but no cigar. Try answering the question if you can. Show me evidence where gays serving openly in the military will contribute to the combat readiness of any unit?

Note my answer....let me make it bigger for you .