The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[Spoonman]

Why?

because it still is an issue for some people

And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?

kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like

 

[Spoonman]

Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.

Yes, it will cause tension in the ranks. Not what you need when you are expected to have each others backs.

Why?

mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12. Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays. and it's a lot more than polls show

 

[konradv]

because it still is an issue for some people

And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?

kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like

That's not hypocritical, that's life. WE'RE the bosses and the troops in the ranks will just have to suck it up.

 

[Spoonman]

And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?

kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like

That's not hypocritical, that's life. WE'RE the bosses and the troops in the ranks will just have to suck it up.

MMMm why wouldn't the gays just have to suck it up?

Again, no pun intended

 

[bodecea]

Yes, it will cause tension in the ranks. Not what you need when you are expected to have each others backs.

Why?

mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12. Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays. and it's a lot more than polls show

Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.

And so some people are not comfortable with gays. Some are uncomfortable with blacks. Some are uncomfortable with women. Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South. Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.

Big fat so what, if they can do the job.

 

[bodecea]

And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?

kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like

That's not hypocritical, that's life. WE'RE the bosses and the troops in the ranks will just have to suck it up.

Yep....in the military scheme of things, not liking gays is very small. We don't like getting shot at either, but we do it.

 

[Spoonman]

Why?

mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12. Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays. and it's a lot more than polls show

Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.

And so some people are not comfortable with gays. Some are uncomfortable with blacks. Some are uncomfortable with women. Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South. Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.

Big fat so what, if they can do the job.

My aren't we dissagreeable You don't here the southerners and the filippinos making all this noise do you?

 

[bodecea]

mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12. Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays. and it's a lot more than polls show

Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.

And so some people are not comfortable with gays. Some are uncomfortable with blacks. Some are uncomfortable with women. Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South. Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.

Big fat so what, if they can do the job.

My aren't we dissagreeable You don't here the southerners and the filippinos making all this noise do you?

Nope, tho there was a time where Filippinos were segregated into the Mess Specialist rating. But that changed and it is no longer a big deal...as will this in a matter of time.

No worries.

 

[Spoonman]

Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.

And so some people are not comfortable with gays. Some are uncomfortable with blacks. Some are uncomfortable with women. Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South. Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.

Big fat so what, if they can do the job.

My aren't we dissagreeable You don't here the southerners and the filippinos making all this noise do you?

Nope, tho there was a time where Filippinos were segregated into the Mess Specialist rating. But that changed and it is no longer a big deal...as will this in a matter of time.

No worries.

Yea, but Mcarthur could have held out longer on Bataan if the filippinos were actually good soldiers

 

[Douger]

How long before they start issuing condoms and Anal Glow at butt camp ?

What color do you prefer?

Well. The military meatheads love that night vision sooooooooo...........
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ergv1kWe0HI]YouTube - glow-in-the-dark condom fight[/ame]

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like Spoonman said, he isn't the one who mixed up his military facts. It is my experience with the military that caused me to start this thread. Gays will have a negative impact upon a units combat readiness. It is a shame when gays have to cite their groups cowardice in order to rationalize the implementation of a social engineering experiment.

If Obama's rump rangers can't be trusted to do their duty with DADT, why should I trust them in the foxhole. My son just made a profound statement. "Repealing DADT wont change a sexual deviant's integrity. If they can't use DADT as a way to shirk their duty they'll find another way." It all comes back to trust doesn't it.

Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).

I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.

I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983. Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.

Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)

Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........

Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts. They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.

No. I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY. Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.

Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either. It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.

Hello maggot, I was wondering when you'd surface with more of your deviant BS. My experience with the military is first hand. I knew my MOS, and attending job description. You seem to be having problems with your rating, and attending job description.

You've posted that you were doing evals for openly serving gays. You've said how these deviants out performed straights. Give me a break. Openly serving gays would be immediately discharged under DADT, or existing SOP prior to DADT.

The only place that your scenario plays out is between those deviant ears of yours. If you did don your personnel man cape, and fudged the record for your fellow rump rangers you should have found yourself in the stockade.

Again this all comes down to integrity doesn't it? You've just made my case that deviants are liars and can't be trusted to do their duty. You're a prime example maggot.

Hey there you cock smoking colon jouster, got news for ya.........my rate was PN during my time in, or did you miss the point that I made about the merge happening between the rates TWO YEARS after I retired?

I never said I was doing evals for openly serving gays, I stated that because of my job as a PN, as well as the fact that everyone on the boat trusted me, gays would tell me that they were gay, and then ask me to keep my big mouth shut, which I did. Would I drop dime on anyone because of orientation? No. Why? Because their job performance is more important to me than who they date.

As far as DADT? Wasn't passed until 1993/1994. Prior to that? If you stated you were gay, you were discharged within 48 hours. The only exception to that I saw was a Data Processing tech who was the best computer tech on the waterfront, and the command saw fit to let him finish his enlistment.

As far as messing with the exam sheets? Wrong again asshole. I told you that because I ALREADY KNEW who was gay, it was pretty easy to see where they fell on the eval averages and awards as compared to their straight counterparts.

Try again you ******* retard. What? Did you get kicked out after your first enlistment because of you bigoted asshole views?

 

[Spoonman]

Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).

I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.

I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983. Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.

Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)

Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........

Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts. They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.

No. I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY. Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.

Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either. It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.

Hello maggot, I was wondering when you'd surface with more of your deviant BS. My experience with the military is first hand. I knew my MOS, and attending job description. You seem to be having problems with your rating, and attending job description.

You've posted that you were doing evals for openly serving gays. You've said how these deviants out performed straights. Give me a break. Openly serving gays would be immediately discharged under DADT, or existing SOP prior to DADT.

The only place that your scenario plays out is between those deviant ears of yours. If you did don your personnel man cape, and fudged the record for your fellow rump rangers you should have found yourself in the stockade.

Again this all comes down to integrity doesn't it? You've just made my case that deviants are liars and can't be trusted to do their duty. You're a prime example maggot.

Hey there you cock smoking colon jouster, got news for ya.........my rate was PN during my time in, or did you miss the point that I made about the merge happening between the rates TWO YEARS after I retired?

I never said I was doing evals for openly serving gays, I stated that because of my job as a PN, as well as the fact that everyone on the boat trusted me, gays would tell me that they were gay, and then ask me to keep my big mouth shut, which I did. Would I drop dime on anyone because of orientation? No. Why? Because their job performance is more important to me than who they date.

As far as DADT? Wasn't passed until 1993/1994. Prior to that? If you stated you were gay, you were discharged within 48 hours. The only exception to that I saw was a Data Processing tech who was the best computer tech on the waterfront, and the command saw fit to let him finish his enlistment.

As far as messing with the exam sheets? Wrong again asshole. I told you that because I ALREADY KNEW who was gay, it was pretty easy to see where they fell on the eval averages and awards as compared to their straight counterparts.

Try again you ******* retard. What? Did you get kicked out after your first enlistment because of you bigoted asshole views?

hell i wasn't even in the navy and I knew what it was.

How did you know who was gay? do you have like gaydar or something?

 

[SFC Ollie]

An NCO who purposely refused to follow the UCMJ? Not much of an NCO....

Sorry but that's the facts.

 

[Sense]

Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.

 

[bodecea]

Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.

Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?

 

[Spoonman]

Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.

Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?

so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?

 

[Sense]

Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.

Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?

so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?

Exactly

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.

Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?

so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?

Actually, yes. Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that. First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command. If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.

However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays. It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.

And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?

 

[Spoonman]

Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?

so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?

Actually, yes. Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that. First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command. If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.

However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays. It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.

And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?

so now what happens if they leer at you in the shower?

 

[ABikerSailor]

so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?

Actually, yes. Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that. First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command. If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.

However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays. It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.

And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?

so now what happens if they leer at you in the shower?

Same deal........sexual harassment is sexual harassment and has no place in the military.