The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[yota5]

how many gays were thrown out in bush's rain ? translators and other important fields in service in Iraq ? 3,000 I think . yet they military was excepting criminals instead . (sinister59)

Interesting. Now where is the link to the evidence that you used to arrive at that conclusion?

 

[yota5]

>

"From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) separated over 13,000 active military servicemembers under its homosexual conduct policy."

For 2004-2009: "Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy."

For 1993-2003: "The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct."​

13,000 people, approximately 288.3 million dollars. Countless man hours wasted, experienced personnel discharged, and replacement training required. For those that were wondering, there is your reason why allowing homosexuals to serve under the same terms is probably a good idea.

If you read the reports you will find those numbers are an UNDER estimation of costs because different services tracked or failed to report information that would have caused those numbers to be even higher.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11170.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

>>>>

A back ground check, and polygraphic testing at MEPS would save the USA millions wouldn't it?

 

[sinister59]

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion. Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to obtain it. You must earn it. Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society. DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve. It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is. If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone. It is just that simple. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. No one has that right. Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.

so what deviant about gays ? straights cause a lot of deviants during occupation of a country , old guys having "straight sex with under gage girls ? straight using anal sex to initiate new members ? and you call gays deviants ? really ? and yet being gay will cause the military action , not rape More pedophilia.

 

[yota5]

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion. Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to obtain it. You must earn it. Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society. DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve. It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is. If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone. It is just that simple. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. No one has that right. Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.

so what deviant about gays ? straights cause a lot of deviants during occupation of a country , old guys having "straight sex with under gage girls ? straight using anal sex to initiate new members ? and you call gays deviants ? really ? and yet being gay will cause the military action , not rape More pedophilia.

You give new meaning to the term "pin head."

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Time for bed.

I'll leave you all this evening with the words of the Commandant of the United State Marine Corps:

"We've not seen issues," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "There's not been anxiety over it from the forces in the field."

<SNIP>

Amos had been one of the strongest opponents of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell ban. Last year, he said his men would be distracted - possibly fatally - by allowing gays to serve.

But testifying alongside the chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Forces Thursday, Amos told the House Armed Services Committee that training of the rank and file was going smoothly.

"There hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback," Amos said.

"Young Marines," he said, "quite honestly, they're focused on the enemy."​

Read more: Openly gay soldiers to begin serving in summer: Pentagon; GOP critic compares DADT repeal to Alamo



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

>

Time for bed.

I'll leave you all this evening with the words of the Commandant of the United State Marine Corps:

"We've not seen issues," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "There's not been anxiety over it from the forces in the field."

<SNIP>

Amos had been one of the strongest opponents of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell ban. Last year, he said his men would be distracted - possibly fatally - by allowing gays to serve.

But testifying alongside the chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Forces Thursday, Amos told the House Armed Services Committee that training of the rank and file was going smoothly.

"There hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback," Amos said.

"Young Marines," he said, "quite honestly, they're focused on the enemy."​

Read more: Openly gay soldiers to begin serving in summer: Pentagon; GOP critic compares DADT repeal to Alamo



>>>>

Well, he hasn't spoken to yota's son yet. Or maybe he's one of those gays yota goes on about and his opinion therefore doesn't count.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion. Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to obtain it. You must earn it. Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society. DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve. It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is. If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone. It is just that simple. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. No one has that right. Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.

The established standards are very low for one thing.crips, bloods, and MS-13 members have been found to be openly serving as well as non English speakers so they have to keep there standards low so thees folks can get in. They are not the norm, but they are there and pose a greater danger of subverting our troops and hurting combat readiness then gays. You are also wrong about serving being a privilege. as long as you meet the criteria you can enlist. Gays have been serving in the military since it has existed and there is yet to be a gang rape in the shower, and no complaints about fags with wood spanking it while a straight fellow isn't looking. You still haven't shown any proof that ending DADT will affect combat readiness. Just like when DADT was brought in there is buzz it would but it did not. It will be the same now. You also go on still about other people lying about there service yet you have screwed up on a butt load of small details like making unauthorized comments to the press, especially comments on political issues. That one is covered for the first time with new recruits before they leave the meps. center and every ware you go from that point on now that I think about it, there was also three other things on the little form that I signed that stuck out, 1 that I could be killed in training or while performing my job, 2 that my pay can be reduced without warning and 3 that I can be reduced to one meal a day. Me and the other kids there were also counseled on dont ask, dont tell. He said "im not asking, so dont tell me" and that was it. You would also know that to get a dishonorable discharge you need to do something pretty bad.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

"From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) separated over 13,000 active military servicemembers under its homosexual conduct policy."

For 2004-2009: "Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy."

For 1993-2003: "The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct."​

13,000 people, approximately 288.3 million dollars. Countless man hours wasted, experienced personnel discharged, and replacement training required. For those that were wondering, there is your reason why allowing homosexuals to serve under the same terms is probably a good idea.

If you read the reports you will find those numbers are an UNDER estimation of costs because different services tracked or failed to report information that would have caused those numbers to be even higher.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11170.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

>>>>

A back ground check, and polygraphic testing at MEPS would save the USA millions wouldn't it?

Oh, that would be really bright.

Tester: "Are you a sexual deviant?"

Recruit: "No"

Tester: "Have you ever given or received oral sex with a male?"

Recruit: "No".

Tester: "Have you ever given or received oral sex with a woman?"

Recruit: "Yes"

Tester: "Have you ever performed sex in a position other than the missionary position?"

Recruit: "Yes"

Tester: "Have you ever performed sex with the lights on?"

Recruit: "Yes"

Tester: "Thank you. Sorry, you are a sexual deviant and are not allowed to serve. Have a nice day."​

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Gays are treated according to the exact same rules as straights. You can argue "fair" but the law isn't about fair, it's about literal. Straights can't talk about gay sex, gays can talk about heterosexual sex. You can't use formulas, sorry. You picked the topic of "the law."

That's some pretty convoluted logic. DADT created a different rule/regulation/law for those that were gay or lesbian. This law did not apply to heterosexuals who could talk about things they did that weekend with their spouses. When asked if they were married, they could respond with the affirmative. They could talk about their kids, their spouse, their girlfriend/boyfriend freely. Gays and lesbians couldn't be seen too often in public with the same person without triggering an investigation. People were discharged when someone ELSE "told" for them.

Let's try it this way. Imagine that Congress passed a law stating that Protestants could not declare their Protestantness. They would be free to practice their religion in private, but if ANYONE found out they were Protestant, they would be discharged immediately. Pass the Constitutional smell test for you now?

 

[slukasiewski]

Gays serving.

Dishonorable.

Pretty much cut and dry.

Case closed...


NEXT !!!!

Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.


>>>>

how many gays were thrown out in bush's rain ? translators and other important fields in service in Iraq ? 3,000 I think .

yet they military was excepting criminals instead .

Gee, I don't know how many were thown out under Bush's "rain." Why don't you post a link and show us dumbass...

 

[slukasiewski]

Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have ******* jobs?

Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.

Get a ******* life...

 

[Seawytch]

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion. Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to obtain it. You must earn it. Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society. DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve. It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is. If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone. It is just that simple. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. No one has that right. Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.

On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the privilege of serving?

How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?

 

[bodecea]

Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have ******* jobs?

Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.

Get a ******* life...

Does that worry you in some way?

 

[bodecea]

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion. Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to obtain it. You must earn it. Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society. DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve. It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is. If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone. It is just that simple. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. No one has that right. Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.

On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the privilege of serving?

How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?

Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc. Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.

 

[Seawytch]

Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have ******* jobs?

Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.

Get a ******* life...

Do you have any sense of irony at all Mr. "ARG"?

 

[High_Gravity]

Damn this thread is never ending.

 

[Seawytch]

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion. Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to obtain it. You must earn it. Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society. DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve. It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is. If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone. It is just that simple. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. No one has that right. Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.

On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the privilege of serving?

How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?

Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc. Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.

A qualified individual contributes to combat readiness, period. The consenting adult they kiss goodnight is completely irrelevant, gay or straight. Under DADT only one of them got discharged for it. That is now ending...happy day!

 

[slukasiewski]

On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the privilege of serving?

How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?

Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc. Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.

A qualified individual contributes to combat readiness, period. The consenting adult they kiss goodnight is completely irrelevant, gay or straight. Under DADT only one of them got discharged for it. That is now ending...happy day!

Happy day for who? Filthy pole-smokers?

 

[bodecea]

Damn this thread is never ending.

This is nothing....now, if it goes on for another month or two.....

 

[slukasiewski]

Damn this thread is never ending.

The same faggots and carpet munchers are sustaining it daily with their filthy gay lifestyle views. Yeeeeeshck! Freaking disgusting!

They must have real important jobs that allow them to post their drivel 24/7.