Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gays in Military deadhorseFollow

#27 Feb 28 2007 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Is there really some sort of crushing social responsibility to allow gay service members to be openly gay? Why? There's a long list of things service people aren't aloud to speak openly about, why is this a big deal?


I don't care if a homosexual going into the army wants to be openly gay or not. The problem is, when someone wants to be open about it, they get kicked out. It's not that there should be a "social responsibility" to be openly gay. That should be the serviceman/woman's choice.

The answer to "why is this a big deal?" seems simple enough to me. There may be a "long list of things you can't talk about," but it doesn't seem right that a hetero guy, when given leave from the base, can go sleep with any number of women, come back to the base and brag about it, but a homosexual has to be careful about whether or not they have sex with a guy, and make sure they aren't seen flirting, or they'll be thrown out.
#28 Feb 28 2007 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

There may be a "long list of things you can't talk about," but it doesn't seem right that a hetero guy, when given leave from the base, can go sleep with any number of women, come back to the base and brag about it, but a homosexual has to be careful about whether or not they have sex with a guy, and make sure they aren't seen flirting, or they'll be thrown out.


It's not fair. Virtually nothing in the military is fair. If fairness was the standard for policy in the military, it would be essentially non functioning in an hour. The entire premise that one will blindly follow instructions and risk death without question isn't particularly fair.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Feb 28 2007 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
It's not fair. Virtually nothing in the military is fair. If fairness was the standard for policy in the military, it would be essentially non functioning in an hour. The entire premise that one will blindly follow instructions and risk death without question isn't particularly fair.


But at least it's equally unfair.

Don't want gays to be able to be "open" in the military? Fine. But then you should start kicking hetero's out for having sex with women when on leave.
#30 Feb 28 2007 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

But at least it's equally unfair.


Of course it's not. How did you ever get that impression??
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#31 Feb 28 2007 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
the argument against elephants taking the place of tanks is completely different than the argument for camels taking the place of railroad cars.
Can I have my brane back now please Smash?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#32 Feb 28 2007 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Belkira wrote:
The answer to "why is this a big deal?" seems simple enough to me. There may be a "long list of things you can't talk about," but it doesn't seem right that a hetero guy, when given leave from the base, can go sleep with any number of women, come back to the base and brag about it, but a homosexual has to be careful about whether or not they have sex with a guy, and make sure they aren't seen flirting, or they'll be thrown out.


Not true. Were a service member to leave the base and sleep with a ton of women there is disciplinary action taken by senior cadre now. This type of action is frowned on now, and is not allowed. This doesn't mean that everyone is caught now, and measures do vary from post to post. Essentially, what the military wants the pubilc to see is one of the most professional service groups on the planet, not a bunch of womanizing, drunkards. That's saved for the Senate.
#33 Feb 28 2007 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Of course it's not. How did you ever get that impression??


I thought everyone is asked to follow the orders they are given unflagginly, everyone is asked to lay their life on the line when told to, everyone is elegible for the same degrading treatment from superior officers. But, like you pointed out before, I'm not in the military, so it's possible I'm wrong.

Metastophicleas wrote:
Not true. Were a service member to leave the base and sleep with a ton of women there is disciplinary action taken by senior cadre now.


That's very interesting, I had no idea. Thanks. Smiley: smile

However, disciplinary action for sleeping around is different from being thrown out for sleeping with one person of the same sex.
#34 Feb 28 2007 at 12:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,504 posts
A little side note after rereading this thread and seeing the part about why we don't let women be "on the front line". IMHO the main reason we do not is its been tried and doesent work. The Isralie Army has at various times in the past had women server as Infantry men. The women served side by side with the men with no issue until they saw action.

No in a normal Infantry unit, if 1 man is shot 1 man will perform first aid to keep him alive until a medic arrives and that soldier can go back to the mission. Best case the wounded soldies performs "self aid " if able.

When the Isralies tried it, when it was the femals soldier that was hit, several men would go to help. This pulls bodies from the mission at hand.

IMHO the men were acting from a form of instinct by doing this. It was no fault of the female soldier at all.

____________________________
"If you ask me, we could do with a little less motivation. The people who are causing all the trouble seem highly motivated to me. Serial killers, stock swindlers, drug dealers, Christian Republicans"

George Carlin.

#35 Feb 28 2007 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
418 posts
You know those "300" Spartans that fought at Thermopylae - you know, the ones in that movie that's coming out soon...


They were 150 gay couples.

Just something to think about.
#36 Feb 28 2007 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Belkira wrote:
However, disciplinary action for sleeping around is different from being thrown out for sleeping with one person of the same sex.



This is true, but when you're doing something you're not supposed to, what is the difference?
#37 Feb 28 2007 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
Metastophicleas wrote:
This is true, but when you're doing something you're not supposed to, what is the difference?


Well, that's my point.

Why should it be "wrong" for a gay man in the military to go have sex with his partner (or any guy really) on his leave, when it's not "wrong" for a hetero guy to go have sex with his girlfriend (or any random girl really) on his leave?
#39 Feb 28 2007 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
naatdog wrote:
You know those "300" Spartans that fought at Thermopylae - you know, the ones in that movie that's coming out soon...

They were 150 gay couples.
Prudes. It would have been cooler if they were one massive orgy-pile of three hundred muscular bodies, blindly thrusting their meaty ***** into whatever holes they could penetrate.

In fact, they should have blocked the pass with their great writhing man-pile.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Feb 28 2007 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Belkira wrote:
Metastophicleas wrote:
This is true, but when you're doing something you're not supposed to, what is the difference?


Well, that's my point.

Why should it be "wrong" for a gay man in the military to go have sex with his partner (or any guy really) on his leave, when it's not "wrong" for a hetero guy to go have sex with his girlfriend (or any random girl really) on his leave?


Well, first of all, you're comparing apples to oranges. A man sleeping with one woman is far different than a man sleeping with a dozen women. What's frowned on is sleeping with multiple women, and members of the same sex.

I have to echo Smash's point though, what does the homosexual movement gain with this fight, besides the right do charge while wearing hot pink BDUs? Ok, horrible pun aside, what's really to gain for them?

Oh, and Joph...that was just wrong.
#42 Feb 28 2007 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Prudes. It would have been cooler if they were one massive orgy-pile of three hundred muscular bodies, blindly thrusting their meaty ***** into whatever holes they could penetrate.

In fact, they should have blocked the pass with their great writhing man-pile.


I wouldn't have imagined it still possible from reading this forum, but this just made me blush. Good show!

It's a little warm in here, isn't it?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#43 Feb 28 2007 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Metastophicleas wrote:
Well, first of all, you're comparing apples to oranges. A man sleeping with one woman is far different than a man sleeping with a dozen women. What's frowned on is sleeping with multiple women, and members of the same sex.


No, I wasn't.

I wrote:
Why should it be "wrong" for a gay man in the military to go have sex with his partner (or any guy really) on his leave, when it's not "wrong" for a hetero guy to go have sex with his girlfriend (or any random girl really) on his leave?


One guy, one girl. Not multiple. Heterosexual guy goes on leave, hooks up with one hoochie and has sex all weekend. Comes back to the base and all is well, even if the Superior officer knows about it. Homosexual guy goes on leave, hooks up with one guy and has sex all weekend. Comes back to the base and, if the superior officer finds out, he's out of the military.

Metastophicleas wrote:
I have to echo Smash's point though, what does the homosexual movement gain with this fight, besides the right do charge while wearing hot pink BDUs? Ok, horrible pun aside, what's really to gain for them?


The ability to serve in the military without their sexual orientation being a factor. To me, that's like asking, "What's the gay movement got to gain by asking not to be fired from their job at a law firm for being gay?"
#44 Feb 28 2007 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
From the thread title I really expected a Trojan joke.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#45 Feb 28 2007 at 2:32 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Belkira wrote:

One guy, one girl. Not multiple. Heterosexual guy goes on leave, hooks up with one hoochie and has sex all weekend. Comes back to the base and all is well, even if the Superior officer knows about it. Homosexual guy goes on leave, hooks up with one guy and has sex all weekend. Comes back to the base and, if the superior officer finds out, he's out of the military.


Wrong. The homosexual soldier is not removed from the service unless they make an issue of their homosexuality. Most commands look the other way, and ignore things, unless the is causing a disruption among the ranks.

Quote:
The ability to serve in the military without their sexual orientation being a factor. To me, that's like asking, "What's the gay movement got to gain by asking not to be fired from their job at a law firm for being gay?"


It's not until someone makes it a factor. There are thousands of men and women in the military that are homosexual, with thousands more joining each year. Few are discharged annually as a Chapter 15. If it's not made an issue, it's not an issue.
#46 Feb 28 2007 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Metastophicleas wrote:
Wrong. The homosexual soldier is not removed from the service unless they make an issue of their homosexuality. Most commands look the other way, and ignore things, unless the is causing a disruption among the ranks.


The way I understood it, if a superior officer finds out your gay, you're out.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html wrote:
(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.


The way I read that, if a homosexual soldier given leave on a weekend has sex with a member of the same sex, he's out of the military. Now, I'm not in the military, so if this isn't true anymore or has changed, then please let me know.

Having a superior officer willing to "look the other way" doesn't seem like enough to me. How do you know if said superior officer will "look the other way" or if he won't?
#47 Feb 28 2007 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Because they allow them to enlist knowingly. Once you've in-processed a few thousand guys into the army, you start to pick up on the fact that cadre doesn't give a Shit if you're taking it up the *** or not, as long as you can still fire a rifle, carry your gear, and pass the APFT. As long as you don't make waves, you're fine.

For those that think people don't know, trust me, they know, they just don't care.
#48 Feb 28 2007 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Metastophicleas wrote:
Because they allow them to enlist knowingly. Once you've in-processed a few thousand guys into the army, you start to pick up on the fact that cadre doesn't give a **** if you're taking it up the *** or not, as long as you can still fire a rifle, carry your gear, and pass the APFT. As long as you don't make waves, you're fine.

For those that think people don't know, trust me, they know, they just don't care.


And yet, if a guy goes on leave and have sex with another guy and a superior officer finds out about it, you can be kicked out. Especially if said superior officer is real dick. No pun intended.

So... if no one cares, then why have the silly "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and just let homosexuals in no matter what? What's the big deal?

#49 Feb 28 2007 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Belkira wrote:
So... if no one cares, then why have the silly "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and just let homosexuals in no matter what? What's the big deal?


Um...that's the point, so it doesn't become a big deal.
#50 Feb 28 2007 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Metastophicleas wrote:
Um...that's the point, so it doesn't become a big deal.


That makes no sense...

If what you're saying is true, and no one cares if there are gays in the military, then removing the policy would have no effect whatsoever on the way things are currently being run.
#51 Feb 28 2007 at 3:22 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Pretty much. The policy is in place to keep the type of homosexual that you see in sterotypes out of the military. If you're a guy that likes guys, but you're not the stereotype, the likelyhood of someone bothering you about it is almost nil, as long as you don't parade it.

It's a fine line, but as long as you don't **** in the general's corn flakes, you have little to worry about.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 293 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)