The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[ogibillm]

Wrong.

Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being. People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.

I was not a "heterosexual Marine." I AM a Marine, period. I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".

When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry **** that is and I don't want you in MY unit. I want Marines. What you do in your off time is YOUR business. Keep it to yourself. ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.

are you married? anyone you served with married?

You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service. I sure as Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.

you so much as mention that you're married and by your standard you're making a big deal out of your heterosexuality. I bet people around you and you yourself did it all the time. I know i've met the spouses of the men and women my wife serves with. they've met me... we're they forcing their heterosexuality on anyone?

but you want a different standard for homosexuals. they shouldn't be allowed to mention their significant others or relationships.

use your ******* head.

 

[Spoonman]

You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?

Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.

What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.

My experience parallels SFC Ollie's. I don't doubt that there were that 2 % of the units that you served with were comprised of gays, and lesbians. Although I would have considered those units compromised. The fact that you knew of this population isn't surprising. The gay community's attraction for one another is well documented. You folks are aware of the telling signs. Heterosexuals aren't as aware.

ROFLMAO! You couldn't be more wrong. We are just a clueless about our "own kind" as the rest of the population. I didn't know who was gay by looking at them and was quite often very surprised at who turned out to actually be gay. I was often even more shocked at who wasn't.

What usually DID happen is that we would run into each other in places often frequented by gays and lesbians. Once you knew one or two people at the base, they usually knew one or two other people and pretty soon you knew who was and who wasn't. There is no secret handshake.

The key here is that you folks didn't serve openly. Therefore you didn't have an impact on unit cohesion, and combat readiness. DADT took care of the ones who weren't as discrete as you were.

Combat readiness, seawtch, it's all about combat readiness. Not everyone has the right to serve in the military.

And you have yet to show how honestly serving gays and lesbians will have any impact on combat readiness. Zero, zip, nada.

so you are saying gaydar isn't real

 

[Spoonman]

Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!

That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".

Uhm dude. I'm guessing i could tell a very high percentage of the people who are gay. it really isn't that hard.

 

[Seawytch]

Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA. They really fell flat on their faces didn't they. You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed. I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.

Nobody is disputing the superiority of our military...but it has nothing to do with closeting the gays and lesbians in the ranks.

That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for. Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason. They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found. Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.

You are (not very effectively I might add) dodging the question. 25 countries stopped discharging their gays and lesbians. 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve honestly without the fear of discharge for their consenting adult behavior. You are incessantly claiming that honestly serving gays and lesbians will harm combat readiness. Surely among these 25 countries, including all our allies, you should be able to find a shred of evidence of your claims. You can't. With such overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim, that leaves only one conclusion...that you are a hateful bigot who is full of shit.

I will ask you this question again. Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness. These numbers don't exist either. I'll bet you know the reason for that too.

So, there is zero evidence that honestly serving gays will detract from combat readiness and yet you STILL want to keep a draconian law in place that requires gays and lesbians to serve under a completely different set of rules and regulations than heterosexuals serve under. Why? So that you don't have to KNOW there are "icky gays" covering your miserable ass in a firefight? That seems awfully bigoted, homophobic and self serving. That sure seems like the more "deviant" behavior than two people having consensual sex.

It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA. Serving is an earned privilege. This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards. Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard. I'll bet that you knew this too.

Well, since sexual orientation isn't "sexual deviance", you are shooting blanks.

 

[Spoonman]

Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA. They really fell flat on their faces didn't they. You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed. I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.

Nobody is disputing the superiority of our military...but it has nothing to do with closeting the gays and lesbians in the ranks.

That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for. Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason. They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found. Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.

You are (not very effectively I might add) dodging the question. 25 countries stopped discharging their gays and lesbians. 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve honestly without the fear of discharge for their consenting adult behavior. You are incessantly claiming that honestly serving gays and lesbians will harm combat readiness. Surely among these 25 countries, including all our allies, you should be able to find a shred of evidence of your claims. You can't. With such overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim, that leaves only one conclusion...that you are a hateful bigot who is full of shit.

I will ask you this question again. Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness. These numbers don't exist either. I'll bet you know the reason for that too.

So, there is zero evidence that honestly serving gays will detract from combat readiness and yet you STILL want to keep a draconian law in place that requires gays and lesbians to serve under a completely different set of rules and regulations than heterosexuals serve under. Why? So that you don't have to KNOW there are "icky gays" covering your miserable ass in a firefight? That seems awfully bigoted, homophobic and self serving. That sure seems like the more "deviant" behavior than two people having consensual sex.

It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA. Serving is an earned privilege. This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards. Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard. I'll bet that you knew this too.

Well, since sexual orientation isn't "sexual deviance", you are shooting blanks.

holy crap dude TLR

seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.

 

[Valerie]

Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA. They really fell flat on their faces didn't they. You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed. I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.

Nobody is disputing the superiority of our military...but it has nothing to do with closeting the gays and lesbians in the ranks.

That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for. Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason. They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found. Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.

You are (not very effectively I might add) dodging the question. 25 countries stopped discharging their gays and lesbians. 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve honestly without the fear of discharge for their consenting adult behavior. You are incessantly claiming that honestly serving gays and lesbians will harm combat readiness. Surely among these 25 countries, including all our allies, you should be able to find a shred of evidence of your claims. You can't. With such overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim, that leaves only one conclusion...that you are a hateful bigot who is full of shit.

I will ask you this question again. Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness. These numbers don't exist either. I'll bet you know the reason for that too.

So, there is zero evidence that honestly serving gays will detract from combat readiness and yet you STILL want to keep a draconian law in place that requires gays and lesbians to serve under a completely different set of rules and regulations than heterosexuals serve under. Why? So that you don't have to KNOW there are "icky gays" covering your miserable ass in a firefight? That seems awfully bigoted, homophobic and self serving. That sure seems like the more "deviant" behavior than two people having consensual sex.

It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA. Serving is an earned privilege. This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards. Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard. I'll bet that you knew this too.

Well, since sexual orientation isn't "sexual deviance", you are shooting blanks.

Yes, not to mention it goes against our basic principles of individual freedom which our forces fight for in the first place. If an individual is combat ready in every other way there should be no need for them to be secretive about who they are. The soldier who can't handle that knowledge is the one who is not combat ready...

 

[Seawytch]

Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!

That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".

Uhm dude. I'm guessing i could tell a very high percentage of the people who are gay. it really isn't that hard.

Uh miss, not in the military you wouldn't. The stereotypical gay man does not join the military. You might think you can guess some of the women and statistically you might end up being more right than wrong, but I guarantee that you will get some of the women wrong. (I know I did )

 

[Spoonman]

That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".

Uhm dude. I'm guessing i could tell a very high percentage of the people who are gay. it really isn't that hard.

Uh miss, not in the military you wouldn't. The stereotypical gay man does not join the military. You might think you can guess some of the women and statistically you might end up being more right than wrong, but I guarantee that you will get some of the women wrong. (I know I did )

Gay women I can always tell. they are the ones who don't make passes at me

 

[Seawytch]

seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.

I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".

I lived through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?

 

[Spoonman]

seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.

I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".

I lived through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?

I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally. But I am who i am and I'm not changing. So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold. My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it. lol Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me. Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are. It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.

I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference. Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it. I don't know what the right answer is.

 

[Seawytch]

seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.

I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".

I lived through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?

I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally. But I am who i am and I'm not changing. So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold. My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it. lol Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me. Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are. It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.

I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference. Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it. I don't know what the right answer is.

The point is that it doesn't matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, who are already serving to serve under the exact same rules as everyone else does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, knows gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".

 

[Seawytch]

Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT’s End

The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.

In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."

 

[Gadawg73]

Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT’s End

The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.

In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."

Going, going, going............................GONE.
This subject will soon be a non-subject.

 

[yota5]

Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT’s End

The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.

In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."

Hey seawatch, you've posted the publicly issued opinion of a senior NCO in the Marine Corps. I thank him for his service. But I also understand that he has a career and pension to protect. All of us who've served know the drill. You should also know that this doesn't explain how an openly serving gay contributes to combat readiness. The Sgt/Major made a politicaly correct statement. This Sgt/Major probably remembers Gen McChrystal very well, and he probably remembers what happened when the generals true feelings about the CinC were made public. Only the CinC can make public politicaly correct statements, and survive the experience. Obama's famous for his closed mic statements isn't he.

If gays were a positive influence they would not have been dishonorably discharged for their deviant behavior. If gays had been allowed to serve the numbers that you're looking for so desperately would exist. Since gays haven't been allowed to serve openly they haven't been able to negatively impact combat readiness.

I worked in the health care field. There were many gays and lesbians at my facility. I don't begrudge their position, and we are all cordial, and professionally respectful of each other. I didn't socialize with them after hours. I didn't have to serve in a military environment with them either. That is the difference.

Serving in the military isn't a right. Serving is an earned privilege.

 

[rightwinger]

Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT’s End

The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.

In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."

Hey seawatch, you've posted the publicly issued opinion of a senior NCO in the Marine Corps. I thank him for his service. But I also understand that he has a career and pension to protect. All of us who've served know the drill. You should also know that this doesn't explain how an openly serving gay contributes to combat readiness. The Sgt/Major made a politicaly correct statement. This Sgt/Major probably remembers Gen McChrystal very well, and he probably remembers what happened when the generals true feelings about the CinC were made public. Only the CinC can make public politicaly correct statements, and survive the experience. Obama's famous for his closed mic statements isn't he.

If gays were a positive influence they would not have been dishonorably discharged for their deviant behavior. If gays had been allowed to serve the numbers that you're looking for so desperately would exist. Since gays haven't been allowed to serve openly they haven't been able to negatively impact combat readiness.

I worked in the health care field. There were many gays and lesbians at my facility. I don't begrudge their position, and we are all cordial, and professionally respectful of each other. I didn't socialize with them after hours. I didn't have to serve in a military environment with them either. That is the difference.

Serving in the military isn't a right. Serving is an earned privilege.[/QUOTE]

Hell yes....serving your country is a privilege......

And people who hate gays should not have the right to deny that privilege to others

 

[yota5]

Hey seawatch, you've posted the publicly issued opinion of a senior NCO in the Marine Corps. I thank him for his service. But I also understand that he has a career and pension to protect. All of us who've served know the drill. You should also know that this doesn't explain how an openly serving gay contributes to combat readiness. The Sgt/Major made a politicaly correct statement. This Sgt/Major probably remembers Gen McChrystal very well, and he probably remembers what happened when the generals true feelings about the CinC were made public. Only the CinC can make public politicaly correct statements, and survive the experience. Obama's famous for his closed mic statements isn't he.

If gays were a positive influence they would not have been dishonorably discharged for their deviant behavior. If gays had been allowed to serve the numbers that you're looking for so desperately would exist. Since gays haven't been allowed to serve openly they haven't been able to negatively impact combat readiness.

I worked in the health care field. There were many gays and lesbians at my facility. I don't begrudge their position, and we are all cordial, and professionally respectful of each other. I didn't socialize with them after hours. I didn't have to serve in a military environment with them either. That is the difference.

Serving in the military isn't a right. Serving is an earned privilege.[/QUOTE]

Hell yes....serving your country is a privilege......

And people who hate gays should not have the right to deny that privilege to others

Good morning rightwwinger. At least you finally admitted that serving in the military is a privilege. However your flawed sexually deviant brain keeps thinking along the lines of rights. The difference between an earned privilege and a right is with a right you can just do it. A privilege must be earned by meeting or exceeding standards. A lot of servicemen want to be pilots, and spec ops. Unfortunately we all can't meet the physical standards. Sexual deviants can't meet standards either. Their deviance isn't wanted. That is why they're discharged where they are found.

 

[rightwinger]

Hell yes....serving your country is a privilege......

And people who hate gays should not have the right to deny that privilege to others

Good morning rightwwinger. At least you finally admitted that serving in the military is a privilege. However your flawed sexually deviant brain keeps thinking along the lines of rights. The difference between an earned privilege and a right is with a right you can just do it. A privilege must be earned by meeting or exceeding standards. A lot of servicemen want to be pilots, and spec ops. Unfortunately we all can't meet the physical standards. Sexual deviants can't meet standards either. Their deviance isn't wanted. That is why they're discharged where they are found.

I said nothing about rights other than you have no right to deny the privilege of serving your country solely on your ingrained biases

Gays exceed standards every day and are currently serving their country. The only difference is with cowards such as yourself who don't want to hear that a gay person could actually be an exceptional soldier. Thats all it comes down to "I don't want to hear it"

It is your bias that is no longer wanted and it is being refuted every day. That is why you are outraged

 

[Seawytch]

So Yota, I guess you still haven't found that evidence that allowing honestly serving gays is harmful to combat readiness eh? Typical...

 

[ogibillm]

in this country we generally speaking need a good reason to deny someone a privilege.

we're waking up to the fact that sexual orientation isn't a good reason.

 

[iggy pop]

I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".

I lived through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?

I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally. But I am who i am and I'm not changing. So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold. My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it. lol Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me. Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are. It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.

I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference. Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it. I don't know what the right answer is.

The point is that it doesn't matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, who are already serving to serve under the exact same rules as everyone else does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, knows gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".

So Spoon. You notice he totally blew of the rest of you conversation with him and went right back to his gay agenda.