The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[Gadawg73]

When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?

Dad told me that the Corps had very few problems but poroblems they did have.
The most common problem was he saw blacks put into units with a bad redneck LT. It was hell on those black soldiers. They did it on purpose and he stated it took a few years to sort that out.
But of course the combat readiness has never been the same with blacks in the military. Mass defections and AWOL non stop to date.
Damn *******. Next thing you know they will want to be able to marry white women, live in the same neighborhoods as us and be able to vote.

Since when were soldiers in the Marine Corps?
Defections and AWOLS? What in the **** are you blabbering about.
For someone with three corporations you sound like an idiot. You're a private investigator? Go look for a brain.

Well, you are right on that one as I vividly remember Dad writing an article to his 2nd Marine Division magazine correcting someone for calling a Marine a soldier.
You are one for 1009, a great average.

 

[Gadawg73]

Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.

Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.

Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.

No. Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.

Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?

I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did. So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.

I say this again. Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately. End of story. That is why your fable doesn't hold water. That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.

Check out this story. Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers. "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.

The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."

Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com

Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
http://www.sldn.org/pages/sldn-board-tom-carpenter

or any of these distinguished veterans:
http://www.sldn.org/pages/sldn-military-advisory-council

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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?

Not to the Gays I knew and there were 4 of them. As long as they were not in uniform they were good to go. Its when an issue was made of it that they would have trouble. Everyone knew DADT was going the way of the dodo. That could have just been ware I was at.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.

Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.

Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.

No. Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.

Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?

I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did. So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.

I say this again. Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately. End of story. That is why your fable doesn't hold water. That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.

Check out this story. Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers. "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.

The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."

Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com

yota5, right now a friend of mine from the Navy and her Husband are both reading your shit and you have been pegged in a bunch of lies. Leave DADT alone. Google says one thing, but what actulley happened is another story. You just are not telling the truth.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Which prayer will the school direct? Catholic? Baptist? Muslim? Hindu? Jewish? Methodist? Which one?

any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

The troops were also concerned about serving with African Americans. The troops work for the American people and answer to the duly elected government officials.

Like so many other arguments against homosexuals serving in the military, your HIV arguement is pretty laughable. All soldiers are routinely screened for blood borne illnesses and if they are infected, they are kept out of combat positions.

This was occuring in 2005. Apparently the military got what you do not, HIV is not limited to homosexuals.

 

[Spoonman]

Which prayer will the school direct? Catholic? Baptist? Muslim? Hindu? Jewish? Methodist? Which one?

any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

 

[ogibillm]

any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

they haven't.

 

[bodecea]

any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....

And they shouldn't be. I expect some day, someone will get a lawsuit going over that.

However, if the Congressmen want to pay for it out of their own pockets....I say go for it.

 

[bodecea]

any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

What?

 

[ogibillm]

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

What?

some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.

some people aren't smart.

 

[Spoonman]

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

What?

You obviously understood it, you bolded it.

 

[Spoonman]

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

What?

some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.

some people aren't smart.

And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement

 

[ogibillm]

What?

some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.

some people aren't smart.

And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement

well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?

 

[Spoonman]

some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.

some people aren't smart.

And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement

well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?

If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.

 

[ogibillm]

And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement

well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?

If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.

so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?

 

[Spoonman]

well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?

If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.

so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?

Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?

 

[bodecea]

And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities. Government has no business endorsing sexuality. Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?

What?

You obviously understood it, you bolded it.

I am a little puzzled....what kind of policy change ENDORSED homosexuality? You seem to be going into fantasy land with that one.

 

[ogibillm]

If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.

so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?

Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?

i'm not.

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.

where is the endorsement?

 

[Spoonman]

so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?

Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?

i'm not.

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.

where is the endorsement?

Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?