PDA

View Full Version : DADT becomes DDTS



Madisonian
12-18-2010, 07:33 PM
I let meggy or Poli post the links, but it looks like DADT will now become Don't Drop The Soap as the Congress has voted to repeal the controversial law.

I have not seen the official roll call of the votes, but there were a few Conjobs that voted with the Dems to get it passed in the Senate by a 65-31.

As I said in another thread, the Dims are using this lame duck session as a final Fuck You to the American citizens, with a little help from there friends on the other side of the aisle.

m00
12-18-2010, 07:38 PM
Here is what I dont get. Before DADT, gays couldn't serve in the military right? So DADT was fairly progressive in that regard because it allowed gays to serve as long as they kept it to themselves (the "dont ask" part was key here).

So if DADT is repealed, why is the assumption that this means gays openly serving as opposed to once again being completely banned.

djones520
12-18-2010, 07:45 PM
Because it isn't being repealed. It's being overturned. The law is specific in that it is allowing Gays to openly serve.

Now... I expect a lot of teeth gnashing to ensue, but let me remind you that there are only a few people here that this will ever effect, and as Adm. Mullen stated, we will deal with it, or we will get out.

There is a reason we are the greatest military in the world. It's because when new challenges are presented to us, we rise to meet them and then overcome them. And that is all this is. A new challenge that we will rise to meet, and will be stronger for in the long run.

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 07:50 PM
Because it isn't being repealed. It's being overturned. The law is specific in that it is allowing Gays to openly serve.

Now... I expect a lot of teeth gnashing to ensue, but let me remind you that there are only a few people here that this will ever effect, and as Adm. Mullen stated, we will deal with it, or we will get out.

There is a reason we are the greatest military in the world. It's because when new challenges are presented to us, we rise to meet them and then overcome them. And that is all this is. A new challenge that we will rise to meet, and will be stronger for in the long run.

This isn't a challenge dealt to you by your enemies this is a challenge being handed to you by a disintegrating society, I don't think your analogy applies here. Liberalism has never made any institution stronger.

megimoo
12-18-2010, 07:52 PM
Here is what I dont get. Before DADT, gays couldn't serve in the military right? So DADT was fairly progressive in that regard because it allowed gays to serve as long as they kept it to themselves (the "dont ask" part was key here).

So if DADT is repealed, why is the assumption that this means gays openly serving as opposed to once again being completely banned.Clinton 'screwed the pooch' with his rules changes to pay off his queer vote just as Obama has done !

As a result of this there will be a lot of unexplained combat deaths from falls from choppers and patrols missing point men .


THEY WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THIS AFTER A WHILE .

*Uniform Code Of Military Justice 925. art 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
*............................

Adam Wood
12-18-2010, 07:56 PM
Here is what I dont get. Before DADT, gays couldn't serve in the military right? So DADT was fairly progressive in that regard because it allowed gays to serve as long as they kept it to themselves (the "dont ask" part was key here).

So if DADT is repealed, why is the assumption that this means gays openly serving as opposed to once again being completely banned.Language of the bill is such that the military can't use homosexuality as a reason to boot someone out of the service. It's referred to parochially as "repealing DADT" which kind of sounds like reverting back to previous policy, but it's really more accurately described as "removing the prohibition of gays serving in the military."

djones520
12-18-2010, 08:00 PM
This isn't a challenge dealt to yopu by your enemies this is a challenge being handed to you by a disintegrating society, I don't think your analogy applies here. Liberalism has never made any institution stronger.

It's an all volunteer military Rock. If it comes to the point that only the people who can deal with it are volunteering, then that is how it will be. With people who have been spending 4 years out of a 6 year enlistment in Iraq and Afghanistan and reenlisting, I seriously doubt something like this is going to "break" them.

Just because someone is gay, does not mean he'll be any worse at forecasting then I am, or turning a wrench on a jet, or translating arabic.

I am not in a direct combat AFSC/MOS, but I'm pretty sure that when the mortar shells are landing, and the bullets are flying, the last thing on a guys mind will be if the man on the line next to him smokes pole or not.

I do anticipate troubles. Troubles caused by homosexuals, and heterosexuals. There will probably be a fair share of people who leave the service over this. Others who will be forced to leave. But I have faith that the vast majority are willing to put their service above issues like this.

I've been living the life for 9 years now, and I've seen no reason to think otherwise.

Adam Wood
12-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Because it isn't being repealed. It's being overturned. The law is specific in that it is allowing Gays to openly serve.

Now... I expect a lot of teeth gnashing to ensue, but let me remind you that there are only a few people here that this will ever effect, and as Adm. Mullen stated, we will deal with it, or we will get out.

There is a reason we are the greatest military in the world. It's because when new challenges are presented to us, we rise to meet them and then overcome them. And that is all this is. A new challenge that we will rise to meet, and will be stronger for in the long run.I take it from your status as "deployed" and your location as somewhere probably east of Baku that you are one of the "boots on the ground."

Assuming that this is correct, what's your feeling on this from a combat standpoint? IOW, you're the one who is pulling triggers next to those affected by this, so what's you're take on how this affects your job?


ETA: well, you answered most of this above, but I'd love your further opinion if you're interested in sharing it.

Madisonian
12-18-2010, 08:04 PM
Clinton 'screwed the pooch' with his rules changes to pay off his queer vote just as Obama has done !

As a result of this there will be a lot of unexplained combat deaths from falls from choppers and patrols missing point men .


THEY WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THIS AFTER A WHILE .

*Uniform Code Of Military Justice 925. art 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
*............................

No, the lawyers will point to the words "unnatural carnal copulation" and say that since gheys are now accepted as "natural" by society and Congress as it applies to the military, that they way gheys copulate is not unnatural to their lifestyle. They will make the argument that oral sex and sometimes anal sex between heterosexual couples is not considered to be unnatural and to punish the LGBTABCDEF individuals without holding heteros to the same standard is discriminatory.

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 08:07 PM
It's an all volunteer military Rock. If it comes to the point that only the people who can deal with it are volunteering, then that is how it will be. With people who have been spending 4 years out of a 6 year enlistment in Iraq and Afghanistan and reenlisting, I seriously doubt something like this is going to "break" them.

Just because someone is gay, does not mean he'll be any worse at forecasting then I am, or turning a wrench on a jet, or translating arabic.

I am not in a direct combat AFSC/MOS, but I'm pretty sure that when the mortar shells are landing, and the bullets are flying, the last thing on a guys mind will be if the man on the line next to him smokes pole or not.

I do anticipate troubles. Troubles caused by homosexuals, and heterosexuals. There will probably be a fair share of people who leave the service over this. Others who will be forced to leave. But I have faith that the vast majority are willing to put their service above issues like this.

I've been living the life for 9 years now, and I've seen no reason to think otherwise.

I can understand you saying that we will survive this, but your claim that this will make us stronger makes no sense on any level.

djones520
12-18-2010, 08:13 PM
I take it from your status as "deployed" and your location as somewhere probably east of Baku that you are one of the "boots on the ground."

Assuming that this is correct, what's your feeling on this from a combat standpoint? IOW, you're the one who is pulling triggers next to those affected by this, so what's you're take on how this affects your job?


ETA: well, you answered most of this above, but I'd love your further opinion if you're interested in sharing it.

As I said, I'm not in a direct combat AFSC. I am in one of the more combat prone ones though. 40% of the people in my job serve with the Army, and plenty of forecasters have fired their weapons in defense since 9/11.

Right now, I'm in Kyrgyzstan. A very "safe" zone, and not in any direct danger, so I cannot give you anything other then my opinion on how it'll affect combat zones. How do I think this will affect my job though? As a weather forecaster it won't. As an NCO, it may, in a disciplinary sense.


I read the AF Times story about this the other day, and I will say I am not pleased with how some things are going to come out with this. Seperate quarters, showers, etc. are not being considered. Commanders will be allowed to make case by case decisions on this, but overall we will be expected to continue living alongside them as if they were heterosexuals.

This is not fair to heterosexuals, because it is no differant then saying a bunch of women have to shower with a man. Live in the same room with one. So forth and so on.

Kay
12-18-2010, 08:16 PM
There is a reason we are the greatest military in the world. It's because when new challenges are presented to us, we rise to meet them and then overcome them. And that is all this is. A new challenge that we will rise to meet, and will be stronger for in the long run.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the last part.
I don't see this making our military stronger in the long run.

I think the worst part is going to be some who rush to recruiting offices
just wanting to throw it in your face and make a statement with this. I
feel there will be more than one that pushes the limit just hoping to be
discharged so they can file a big lawsuit.

Also next comes all the fudge packers and bull dykes claiming dependent
status so they can rake in dependent benefits - that we all get to pay for.

Odysseus
12-18-2010, 08:17 PM
Language of the bill is such that the military can't use homosexuality as a reason to boot someone out of the service. It's referred to parochially as "repealing DADT" which kind of sounds like reverting back to previous policy, but it's really more accurately described as "removing the prohibition of gays serving in the military."
Except that if they don't amend the UCMJ, then the sexual behavior that defines being openly gay is still a violation. So, how many article 15s will a gay Soldier have to incur before they can put him out?

Because it isn't being repealed. It's being overturned. The law is specific in that it is allowing Gays to openly serve.

Now... I expect a lot of teeth gnashing to ensue, but let me remind you that there are only a few people here that this will ever effect, and as Adm. Mullen stated, we will deal with it, or we will get out.

There is a reason we are the greatest military in the world. It's because when new challenges are presented to us, we rise to meet them and then overcome them. And that is all this is. A new challenge that we will rise to meet, and will be stronger for in the long run.

No, we won't be stronger for it. We will lose a lot of very good troops and leaders who will find this policy odious, and that's not taking into account the PC witch hunts that will dog those of us who choose to stay but oppose the new policy. It's going to lead to a purge of officers and NCOs who can't bring themselves to parrot the PC line, with Obama as our very own Stalin.

djones520
12-18-2010, 08:24 PM
Except that if they don't amend the UCMJ, then the sexual behavior that defines being openly gay is still a violation. So, how many article 15s will a gay Soldier have to incur before they can put him out?


No, we won't be stronger for it. We will lose a lot of very good troops and leaders who will find this policy odious, and that's not taking into account the PC witch hunts that will dog those of us who choose to stay but oppose the new policy. It's going to lead to a purge of officers and NCOs who can't bring themselves to parrot the PC line, with Obama as our very own Stalin.

Obama is out in less then two years. It could take 6 months or more for this policy to go into effect.

I'm sorry, but there are some parallels to the desegregation back in the 50's. There are differances, but there are many similarities. People were saying all of these horrible things back then as well, and it never happened.

I'm sorry Major cause this isn't going to sound right, but I think I have a higher opinion of our service members then you do.

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 08:29 PM
Obama is out in less then two years. It could take 6 months or more for this policy to go into effect.

I'm sorry, but there are some parallels to the desegregation back in the 50's. There are differances, but there are many similarities. People were saying all of these horrible things back then as well, and it never happened.

I'm sorry Major cause this isn't going to sound right, but I think I have a higher opinion of our service members then you do.

Dude you can't compare a race of people to a group that wants special treatment because of how they choose to have sex, would bestiality make you stronger? How about polygamy or necromancy, anything goes.

Kay
12-18-2010, 08:32 PM
Jones, I'm interested to know how your superior officers are reacting to this?
What are the opinions you are hearing from those you work with?

djones520
12-18-2010, 08:33 PM
Jones, I'm interested to know how your superior officers are reacting to this?
What are the opinions you are hearing from those you work with?

Back home, I'm not sure.

My OIC here is pretty much of the same mind as I am though. Asides from him and the Major here, I haven't spoken to many officers on the matter.

From my peers and subordinates, I've never really heard anyone speak negatively about the matter. Granted though, I've been deployed to a 4 man shop since this has been a major issue, so I haven't had a very big pool to sample.

megimoo
12-18-2010, 08:35 PM
Except that if they don't amend the UCMJ, then the sexual behavior that defines being openly gay is still a violation. So, how many article 15s will a gay Soldier have to incur before they can put him out?


No, we won't be stronger for it. We will lose a lot of very good troops and leaders who will find this policy odious, and that's not taking into account the PC witch hunts that will dog those of us who choose to stay but oppose the new policy. It's going to lead to a purge of officers and NCOs who can't bring themselves to parrot the PC line, with Obama as our very own Stalin.You can bet there will be a purge of those members of the 'O' corp who don't gush over this ruling.There will also be a large number of troopers leaving the military as soon as the economy starts to recover.This is PC gone insane in an attempt to placate the queer big money Obama donors.

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 08:39 PM
Back home, I'm not sure.

My OIC here is pretty much of the same mind as I am though. Asides from him and the Major here, I haven't spoken to many officers on the matter.

From my peers and subordinates, I've never really heard anyone speak negatively about the matter. Granted though, I've been deployed to a 4 man shop since this has been a major issue, so I haven't had a very big pool to sample.

I for one don't really think you thought out the it will make us stronger comment, I personally think you meant we will be just fine despite this.

Articulate_Ape
12-18-2010, 09:11 PM
This isn't a challenge dealt to you by your enemies this is a challenge being handed to you by a disintegrating society, I don't think your analogy applies here. Liberalism has never made any institution stronger.

Disintegrating society? I would say that it reflects an integrating society. While this thing will surely ruffle the self-righteous among the socially conservative/religious camp, I would remind everyone that, like it or not, homosexuality has been around for a very, very, very long time and it's not going away. I don't pretend to understand the phenomenon, but it is clearly as much a part of the human condition as any other accepted or unaccepted anomaly.

For me, at the end of the day, any American willing to put themselves in harm's way to protect me, my family, and this nation from those who would do us harm is going to receive my greatest gratitude and respect. I don't give a rat's ass whether they are brilliant, dull, male, female, black, white, hispanic, gay, or straight.

We have way bigger fish to fry than whether those, whose sexual proclivities we may not understand or loathe on some moral grounds, are allowed to do what so many we might approve of would never dream of doing or for whatever reason cannot do.

I don't ever recall God asking Gideon or any other Biblical commander if his army was straight. My guess is that God understands far more than any of us try to on his behalf. I'm just sayin'.

megimoo
12-18-2010, 09:14 PM
I for one don't really think you thought out the it will make us stronger comment, I personally think you meant we will be just fine despite this.I think Sargent Jones is an Air Force lifer and feels that he best 'toe the party line' if he wants to advance !

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 09:21 PM
Disintegrating society? I would say that it reflects an integrating society. While this thing will surely ruffle the self-righteous among the socially conservative/religious camp, I would remind everyone that, like it or not, homosexuality has been around for a very, very, very long time and it's not going away. I don't pretend to understand the phenomenon, but it is clearly as much a part of the human condition as any other accepted or unaccepted anomaly.

For me, at the end of the day, any American willing to put themselves in harm's way to protect me, my family, and this nation from those who would do us harm is going to receive my greatest gratitude and respect. I don't give a rat's ass whether they are brilliant, dull, male, female, black, white, hispanic, gay, or straight.

We have way bigger fish to fry than whether those, whose sexual proclivities we may not understand or loathe on some moral grounds, are allowed to do what so many we might approve of would never dream of doing or for whatever reason cannot do.

I don't ever recall God asking Gideon or any other Biblical commander if his army was straight. My guess is that God understands far more than any of us try to on his behalf. I'm just sayin'.
So are we ready for the bestiality, polygamy, necrophiliacs yet. I'm just sayin'

Adam Wood
12-18-2010, 09:26 PM
As I said, I'm not in a direct combat AFSC. I am in one of the more combat prone ones though. 40% of the people in my job serve with the Army, and plenty of forecasters have fired their weapons in defense since 9/11.

Right now, I'm in Kyrgyzstan. A very "safe" zone, and not in any direct danger, so I cannot give you anything other then my opinion on how it'll affect combat zones. How do I think this will affect my job though? As a weather forecaster it won't. As an NCO, it may, in a disciplinary sense.


I read the AF Times story about this the other day, and I will say I am not pleased with how some things are going to come out with this. Seperate quarters, showers, etc. are not being considered. Commanders will be allowed to make case by case decisions on this, but overall we will be expected to continue living alongside them as if they were heterosexuals.

This is not fair to heterosexuals, because it is no differant then saying a bunch of women have to shower with a man. Live in the same room with one. So forth and so on.Thanks for that. I certainly agree (from my admittedly never-military armchair civilian standpoint) that the transition will not be an easy one. And, as others have said, I expect "gate-crashers" to come along and try to make a statement by wearing a pink feather boa to basic or something like that, but I do genuinely expect that those to wash away pretty soon. Let's face it: the military doesn't countenance much bullshit for very long, and there's only so many activist kooks who will throw themselves into a situation in which they have to do 1000 push-ups just to prove a political point.


I will say that my opinion on this got changed right here on CU about five years ago. I used to be fiercely opposed to gays in the military. I had all sorts of reasons: unit cohesion, blackmail, and I'll certainly admit my own stereotypes like concerns about guys buggaring one another in foxholes (as if anyone actually fights from a foxhole anymore) or guys getting ass-raped by gays in the showers or whatever.

I got my mind changed by a combat veteran Marine (among some other veterans) when we got to talking about my concerns about gays in the military. I've been forced to accept some facts (and it wasn't easy for me to make this step forward) that pretty much destroyed my opposition. Among these:
Gays are now and have been serving in all branches of the military for a long time now. Plenty of gays (pretty much all of them throughout the history of this country) who have been in the military have served with distinction and honor, and near enough as makes odds, none of them were ever buggaring anyone in a foxhole. There have been more than a couple of gays who have served with special valor over the history of our wars. Given that there are already gays serving in the military, and given that there have long been things like communal showers, if ass-raping in the shower were really a concern, then it would have cropped up long ago; buggary will get you kicked out, but rape in any form will land you in Leavenworth for a very long time. Most gay's trigger fingers work just as well as mine, and with military training, they almost certainly work better. Many gays work in difficult-to-replace specialties such as translation or intel, and the damage by removing someone who took two years to train vastly outweighs the irrational fears of that person who has never indicated anything other than complete loyalty to the country and the job (Corps, Navy, etc.) during the entire time they've served. Most gays really aren't like the San Francisco lunatic PRIDE types giving each other blowjobs in the streets in front of children. There are a whole lot of conservative gays out there (not really an effect on my change of mind, but interesting information nonetheless). Hey, they make a bunch of money, and they don't like taxes any more than the rest of us do.

When I got down to it and cast aside everything else and asked myself if I would rather have a gay person who is a master marksman on my shoulder kicking in a door or whatever, or if I would rather that person have been turned away for the sole reason that he fucks other guys, the answer for me was clear: I want the most qualified shooter I can possibly get at my side if I'm the infantryman on the streets of Kabul or the guy handing me mortar shells when every split second of bombardment matters or the guy who makes damn well certain that Warthog is well-maintained and fully-stocked with ammo or whatever. The answer turned into a no-brainer for me once I stripped away my own prejudices and looked at it from a purely logical standpoint. Not an easy thing to do, but in retrospect I'm glad I did.

Adam Wood
12-18-2010, 09:35 PM
Except that if they don't amend the UCMJ, then the sexual behavior that defines being openly gay is still a violation. So, how many article 15s will a gay Soldier have to incur before they can put him out?I haven't read chapter-and-verse on this bill yet, but my understanding is that there is a trigger in there to require the UCMJ to be updated to remove some of the "gay" aspects of it.

That's not Gospel at all, though. Like I said, I haven't read chapter-and-verse on this bill.

Articulate_Ape
12-18-2010, 09:41 PM
So are we ready for the bestiality, polygamy, necrophiliacs yet. I'm just sayin'


Please. Rock, are you planning on enlisting? If not, then we can examine your proclivities at another time. :p

Bleda
12-18-2010, 09:49 PM
I used to oppose repealing DADT, but lately I've been indifferent, although I've always believed the decision should be left to the military, not civilians. My view is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And it's not broke.

A lot of countries allow gays to serve openly, and as far as I know, they haven't had many problems. I know most militaries aren't even remotely comparable to America's, but some good militaries, like Israel's, have done this and it was mostly not the end of the world. But there are good arguments against the Israel comparison, as well. My point is, let's give this a shot and see what the effect will be. I don't like it, but DADT is gone and we can't do anything about it right now. If it's damaging, there'll be pressure to reinstitute it (I hope). If it's not bad... well, good news.

patriot45
12-18-2010, 10:03 PM
Well it certainly got the big press! Nothings gonna change. The BS lame ducks got the facetime and Lalala
gays are ok in the military! And in tomorrows news.........

wilbur
12-20-2010, 09:52 AM
Dude you can't compare a race of people to a group that wants special treatment

Being able to serve in the military is "special treatment"?

wilbur
12-20-2010, 09:54 AM
Thanks for that. I certainly agree (from my admittedly never-military armchair civilian standpoint) that the transition will not be an easy one. And, as others have said, I expect "gate-crashers" to come along and try to make a statement by wearing a pink feather boa to basic or something like that, but I do genuinely expect that those to wash away pretty soon. Let's face it: the military doesn't countenance much bullshit for very long, and there's only so many activist kooks who will throw themselves into a situation in which they have to do 1000 push-ups just to prove a political point.


I will say that my opinion on this got changed right here on CU about five years ago. I used to be fiercely opposed to gays in the military. I had all sorts of reasons: unit cohesion, blackmail, and I'll certainly admit my own stereotypes like concerns about guys buggaring one another in foxholes (as if anyone actually fights from a foxhole anymore) or guys getting ass-raped by gays in the showers or whatever.

I got my mind changed by a combat veteran Marine (among some other veterans) when we got to talking about my concerns about gays in the military. I've been forced to accept some facts (and it wasn't easy for me to make this step forward) that pretty much destroyed my opposition. Among these:
Gays are now and have been serving in all branches of the military for a long time now. Plenty of gays (pretty much all of them throughout the history of this country) who have been in the military have served with distinction and honor, and near enough as makes odds, none of them were ever buggaring anyone in a foxhole. There have been more than a couple of gays who have served with special valor over the history of our wars. Given that there are already gays serving in the military, and given that there have long been things like communal showers, if ass-raping in the shower were really a concern, then it would have cropped up long ago; buggary will get you kicked out, but rape in any form will land you in Leavenworth for a very long time. Most gay's trigger fingers work just as well as mine, and with military training, they almost certainly work better. Many gays work in difficult-to-replace specialties such as translation or intel, and the damage by removing someone who took two years to train vastly outweighs the irrational fears of that person who has never indicated anything other than complete loyalty to the country and the job (Corps, Navy, etc.) during the entire time they've served. Most gays really aren't like the San Francisco lunatic PRIDE types giving each other blowjobs in the streets in front of children. There are a whole lot of conservative gays out there (not really an effect on my change of mind, but interesting information nonetheless). Hey, they make a bunch of money, and they don't like taxes any more than the rest of us do.

When I got down to it and cast aside everything else and asked myself if I would rather have a gay person who is a master marksman on my shoulder kicking in a door or whatever, or if I would rather that person have been turned away for the sole reason that he fucks other guys, the answer for me was clear: I want the most qualified shooter I can possibly get at my side if I'm the infantryman on the streets of Kabul or the guy handing me mortar shells when every split second of bombardment matters or the guy who makes damn well certain that Warthog is well-maintained and fully-stocked with ammo or whatever. The answer turned into a no-brainer for me once I stripped away my own prejudices and looked at it from a purely logical standpoint. Not an easy thing to do, but in retrospect I'm glad I did.

This is a great post, thank you.

Odysseus
12-20-2010, 11:17 AM
Okay, since we've established that the same troops that those same activists see a knuckle-dragging troglodytes are actually consummate professionals who can adapt to anything, let's take this to the next logical step: Separate facilities for male and female Soldiers is an obvious waste of resources, and since sexual attraction between servicemembers is obviously controllable with the right mix of policy memos and training, why bother maintaining separate barracks and showers for men and women? We're all professionals, right?

And, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the military benefits from this change.

m00
12-20-2010, 11:19 AM
And, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the military benefits from this change.

Well, there will be a lot more cunning linguists...

Odysseus
12-20-2010, 01:45 PM
Well, there will be a lot more cunning linguists...

Yes, and watch what happens to the career of the guy who makes that joke in front of one. Seriously there is no upside to this for the military, and a ton of downside. And all because Wilbur and his ilk want to be seen as socially conscious.

I'm serious, though. Who can give me an argument against co-ed barracks and showers that will endure the anti-DADT arguments? An who can give me an upside to this for the military beyond making Wilbur feel all warm and fuzzy about winning one against us bigoted old-timers? When I take BN command, and I have to stand in front of my troops and pretend to enthusiastically endorse this idiocy, what can I tell myself to keep the fake smile going? Anyone?

m00
12-20-2010, 01:50 PM
When I take BN command, and I have to stand in front of my troops and pretend to enthusiastically endorse this idiocy, what can I tell myself to keep the fake smile going? Anyone?

You don't run the risk of getting rid of the best person for the job, because of something that is completely irrelevant to the mission. Again, this is more true for some roles (such as linguists) than others.

But it's not like gays get a waiver out of basic, or whatever schools they need to complete for their job.

CueSi
12-20-2010, 02:00 PM
Being able to serve in the military is "special treatment"?

It's like driving. It's a privilege, not a right.

~QC

CueSi
12-20-2010, 02:02 PM
Yes, and watch what happens to the career of the guy who makes that joke in front of one. Seriously there is no upside to this for the military, and a ton of downside. And all because Wilbur and his ilk want to be seen as socially conscious.

I'm serious, though. Who can give me an argument against co-ed barracks and showers that will endure the anti-DADT arguments? An who can give me an upside to this for the military beyond making Wilbur feel all warm and fuzzy about winning one against us bigoted old-timers? When I take BN command, and I have to stand in front of my troops and pretend to enthusiastically endorse this idiocy, what can I tell myself to keep the fake smile going? Anyone?

You'll retire soon? That maybe you won't have that one fuck up that ruins it for everyone?

~QC

Odysseus
12-20-2010, 05:29 PM
You don't run the risk of getting rid of the best person for the job, because of something that is completely irrelevant to the mission. Again, this is more true for some roles (such as linguists) than others.

But it's not like gays get a waiver out of basic, or whatever schools they need to complete for their job.

You're assuming that the best guy in the unit is gay? Quite a stretch there. And I'm still going to lose my best guys, in fact, I suspect that I will lose more good troops to the PC BS than I ever did to DADT. We usually only lost gay troops when they came out (usually right before a deployment) or after they sexually harassed someone. OTOH, I've lost great Soldiers to PT failure, PTSD, medical boards, height/weight... You name it. We put out an order of magnitude more people for being overweight than being for gay, but usually only after deployment (you can be fat in combat, but not in CONUS). So, no, that doesn't cut it as a benefit. But we lost a lot of good men after women came into the force. Remember Tailhook? Naval aviation was decimated by a non-scandal. Can't wait to see that happen again.

You'll retire soon? That maybe you won't have that one fuck up that ruins it for everyone?

~QC

Nope. That'll be what I tell the wife at the end of each day, just before happy hour.:rolleyes:

Novaheart
12-20-2010, 06:17 PM
It's an all volunteer military Rock. If it comes to the point that only the people who can deal with it are volunteering, then that is how it will be. With people who have been spending 4 years out of a 6 year enlistment in Iraq and Afghanistan and reenlisting, I seriously doubt something like this is going to "break" them.

Just because someone is gay, does not mean he'll be any worse at forecasting then I am, or turning a wrench on a jet, or translating arabic.

I am not in a direct combat AFSC/MOS, but I'm pretty sure that when the mortar shells are landing, and the bullets are flying, the last thing on a guys mind will be if the man on the line next to him smokes pole or not.

I do anticipate troubles. Troubles caused by homosexuals, and heterosexuals. There will probably be a fair share of people who leave the service over this. Others who will be forced to leave. But I have faith that the vast majority are willing to put their service above issues like this.

I've been living the life for 9 years now, and I've seen no reason to think otherwise.

I would alter that to say that there will probably be those who CLAIM to be quitting or to have quit or to have been discharged as a result of it. I would put that on the same truth meter scale as "doctors leaving the profession due to the cost of malpractice insurance". Yeah, some probably have, and each case deserves it's own analysis for actual causes.

The things I keep reading keep coming back to an approximate cause of equal rights for gay people will take the fun out of life because guys won't be able to call other guys "faggot" anymore. Well, they weren't supposed to be calling their comrades "faggot" in the first place, or "******" or "kike" or "poor white trash" or "Slovenian piece of shit" or whatever. They were supposed to be treating each other with respect, and if they had, then maybe people wouldn't be so sensitive and selective when someone does use an epithet.

By the way, I'm one of those who would rather have an honest jackass call me a faggot to my face than the weasely kind of behind the scenes bullshit most socially cowardly people engage in, but since that's actionable you can't hardly blame people for being careful.

Novaheart
12-20-2010, 06:18 PM
I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the last part.
I don't see this making our military stronger in the long run.

I think the worst part is going to be some who rush to recruiting offices
just wanting to throw it in your face and make a statement with this. I
feel there will be more than one that pushes the limit just hoping to be
discharged so they can file a big lawsuit.

Also next comes all the fudge packers and bull dykes claiming dependent
status so they can rake in dependent benefits - that we all get to pay for.

Wow, all that charm and sophistication in one person, how can it be?

Rockntractor
12-20-2010, 07:27 PM
Wow, all that charm and sophistication in one person, how can it be?

Go eat a large crate of dicks!:rolleyes:

Odysseus
12-20-2010, 08:22 PM
I would alter that to say that there will probably be those who CLAIM to be quitting or to have quit or to have been discharged as a result of it. I would put that on the same truth meter scale as "doctors leaving the profession due to the cost of malpractice insurance". Yeah, some probably have, and each case deserves it's own analysis for actual causes.

The things I keep reading keep coming back to an approximate cause of equal rights for gay people will take the fun out of life because guys won't be able to call other guys "faggot" anymore. Well, they weren't supposed to be calling their comrades "faggot" in the first place, or "******" or "kike" or "poor white trash" or "Slovenian piece of shit" or whatever. They were supposed to be treating each other with respect, and if they had, then maybe people wouldn't be so sensitive and selective when someone does use an epithet.

By the way, I'm one of those who would rather have an honest jackass call me a faggot to my face than the weasely kind of behind the scenes bullshit most socially cowardly people engage in, but since that's actionable you can't hardly blame people for being careful.
Another armchair Patton weighs in. I guess you missed the Tailhook scandal, where a group of female Naval officers claimed sexual harassment at a convention for Navy pilots. The congressional feminists went berserk and flagged every officer who attended the event, even if there were no allegations against them personally. When it turned out that the claims were bogus, some of the finest officers in the Navy, aviators who each represented millions of dollars in training, had been denied promotion and forced out. The shortage of pilots that resulted was a bonanza for the same feminists, who had been try to get women into combat aviation slots for years. The fact that fighter pilots require tremendous upper body strength and that almost ne women ever met the standard meant nothing to the bean counters. Google the name Kara Hultgreen for an example of what happened.

But, since you obviously know more about the mindset of military personnel than I do, maybe you can answer my questions:


Who can give me an argument against co-ed barracks and showers that will endure the anti-DADT arguments?
And, how does the new policy benefit the military? How does it improve readiness, combat effectiveness or any of the other areas that you social engineers can't seem to notice?

Kay
12-20-2010, 09:22 PM
Wow, all that charm and sophistication in one person, how can it be?

God given talents.
He put me here as a counter-balance to internetidiots.

m00
12-20-2010, 09:23 PM
You're assuming that the best guy in the unit is gay? Quite a stretch there. And I'm still going to lose my best guys, in fact, I suspect that I will lose more good troops to the PC BS than I ever did to DADT. We usually only lost gay troops when they came out (usually right before a deployment) or after they sexually harassed someone. OTOH, I've lost great Soldiers to PT failure, PTSD, medical boards, height/weight... You name it. We put out an order of magnitude more people for being overweight than being for gay, but usually only after deployment (you can be fat in combat, but not in CONUS). So, no, that doesn't cut it as a benefit. But we lost a lot of good men after women came into the force. Remember Tailhook? Naval aviation was decimated by a non-scandal. Can't wait to see that happen again.

Hey, you asked the question "When I take BN command, and I have to stand in front of my troops and pretend to enthusiastically endorse this idiocy, what can I tell myself to keep the fake smile going? Anyone?" and I was trying to be helpful. :p Howabout this: you can tell yourself that any gays who aren't serious or decent, will probably wash out anyway.

As for the "best guy in the unit" that's not what I said - I said you don't run the risk of losing someone who is the best person for the job, because of something irrelevant to the mission. Again, was just trying to put a positive spin on a crappy situation.

Kay
12-20-2010, 09:26 PM
When I take BN command, and I have to stand in front of my troops and pretend to enthusiastically endorse this idiocy, what can I tell myself to keep the fake smile going? Anyone?

Ask yourself, "what would Gen. George byGod Patton say at a moment like this?"
Then just let the words flow.....

Rockntractor
12-20-2010, 09:30 PM
God given talents.
He put me here as a counter-balance to internetidiots.

Is this the first time you have met Tinkerbell?

Novaheart
12-20-2010, 10:11 PM
And, how does the new policy benefit the military?


It brings the military into the 20th century.

Novaheart
12-20-2010, 10:17 PM
I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the last part.
I don't see this making our military stronger in the long run.

I think the worst part is going to be some who rush to recruiting offices
just wanting to throw it in your face and make a statement with this. I
feel there will be more than one that pushes the limit just hoping to be
discharged so they can file a big lawsuit.

Also next comes all the fudge packers and bull dykes claiming dependent
status so they can rake in dependent benefits - that we all get to pay for.

You mean like the guys who have titty babes on their mudflaps, pinup girls in their tattoos, and all manner of low class blatantly heterosexual expression unabashedly displayed?

CueSi
12-20-2010, 10:53 PM
You mean like the guys who have titty babes on their mudflaps, pinup girls in their tattoos, and all manner of low class blatantly heterosexual expression unabashedly displayed?

You forgot Girls Gone Wild, Nova. :p

(and if you want to survive here, don't insult service people. That's low class.)

~QC

Odysseus
12-20-2010, 11:29 PM
Hey, you asked the question "When I take BN command, and I have to stand in front of my troops and pretend to enthusiastically endorse this idiocy, what can I tell myself to keep the fake smile going? Anyone?" and I was trying to be helpful. :p Howabout this: you can tell yourself that any gays who aren't serious or decent, will probably wash out anyway.

As for the "best guy in the unit" that's not what I said - I said you don't run the risk of losing someone who is the best person for the job, because of something irrelevant to the mission. Again, was just trying to put a positive spin on a crappy situation.
No, I can't tell myself that, because when a gay troop does wash out, the entire chain of command will have to justify it and orove that they aren't bigots who singled out the gay guy. I can't tell you how many phony IG complaints, congressional inquiries and commander's inquests I've seen because a member of a protected group was held accountable for something. Eventually, the chain learns that diversity is more important to the leadership than competence, discipline, honor or anything else, and they lay low. That's why MAJ Nidal Hasan was able to chat with jihadis and keep his clearance and get promoted, or why PFC Bradley Manning could get access to the most sensitive data imaginable while dating a drag queen.

Ask yourself, "what would Gen. George byGod Patton say at a moment like this?"
Then just let the words flow.....
"When you put your hand into a pile of goo that was where your best friend's face used to be...". Nevermind... :D

It brings the military into the 20th century.

So, it sets us back a decade. Got it.

Now that you've given us the pat, self-righteous and woefully ignorant PC response, why don't you take a moment to demonstrate your mastery of military subjects and give me a real answer?

You forgot Girls Gone Wild, Nova. :p
(and if you want to survive here, don't insult service people. That's low class.)

~QC
Nova has made his opinion of us clear. We're clueless bigoted breeders who drive around with metal bimbos on our mudflaps to and from Klan meetings. Funny thing is, my Honda Civic and my wife's Odyssey don't have mudflaps, and I don't put up girly images where my 7 and 3 year old daughters will see them, and the last time I looked, Jews weren't welcome at Klan meetings. But, as long as the likes of Nova can tell us, not just what we ought to think, but what we do think, then we'll just fall right into line. And if a few of us happen to die in the line of duty because his pet cause diverted resources away from combat training, well, what's a few less grunts to the self-anointed enlightened?

Kay
12-20-2010, 11:32 PM
Is this the first time you have met Tinkerbell?

Yes, yes it is.


You mean like the guys who have titty babes on their mudflaps, pinup girls in their tattoos, and all manner of low class blatantly heterosexual expression unabashedly displayed?

No, I meant like the fudge packers and bull dykes claiming dependent status so they
can rake in dependent benefits that my tax dollars will be paying for. Can't you read?

CueSi
12-20-2010, 11:36 PM
That's why MAJ Nidal Hasan was able to chat with jihadis and keep his clearance and get promoted, or why PFC Bradley Manning could get access to the most sensitive data imaginable while dating a drag queen.

Nova has made his opinion of us clear. We're clueless bigoted breeders who drive around with metal bimbos on our mudflaps to and from Klan meetings. Funny thing is, my Honda Civic and my wife's Odyssey don't have mudflaps, and I don't put up girly images where my 7 and 3 year old daughters will see them, and the last time I looked, Jews weren't welcome at Klan meetings. But, as long as the likes of Nova can tell us, not just what we ought to think, but what we do think, then we'll just fall right into line. And if a few of us happen to die in the line of duty because his pet cause diverted resources away from combat training, well, what's a few less grunts to the self-anointed enlightened?

The bolded is why I am not 100% sold on the repeal. If they could promise that... Hey, we let gays in, but if they can't roll with the punches like everyone else, they get washed out, no questions. We have had gay people in the Armed forces all this time. Many have been exemplary. Some haven't. I want this repeal to succeed not because it'll make the activists look good, but because I want the damn Arab linguists back. F*ck the activists. They just wanted a damn trophy. I want to see the linguists come back, that's all. :p

I know Nova from another board, and I've never seen him exhibit any anti-military attitudes. Anti-islam, anti-illegal immigration...anti-Republican, yeah. But Anti-military is new to me. I'm not defending, just stating where I'm coming from.

~QC

Odysseus
12-22-2010, 03:07 PM
The bolded is why I am not 100% sold on the repeal. If they could promise that... Hey, we let gays in, but if they can't roll with the punches like everyone else, they get washed out, no questions. We have had gay people in the Armed forces all this time. Many have been exemplary. Some haven't. I want this repeal to succeed not because it'll make the activists look good, but because I want the damn Arab linguists back. F*ck the activists. They just wanted a damn trophy. I want to see the linguists come back, that's all. :p
We could have gotten the linguists back with a waiver. That would have kept the policy in place and provided a test case for future analysis of the effects of repeal. But, the activists wanted a trophy. And, of course, Obama now gets to impose a purge. The armed forces were the only branch of government that resisted liberal pieties, but this gives the left an opportunity to cull anyone who doesn't have the politically correct attitudes. How long do you think it will be before my comments here will be used as evidence of my unsuitability to continue to serve in the new order? Every time Wilbur called those of us who opposed lifting the ban bigots, he was making the administration's case for our expulsion.

And, make no mistake about it, this repeal will succeed, in that it will allow gays to serve openly. The effects on the rest of the force will be suppressed, and we will do what we always do, which is soldier on in the face of the idiocy of our higher ups. Ten years from now, when we have bent over backwards to prevent the worst effects of this policy from destroying the force, we'll be told that we were worried over nothing.

I know Nova from another board, and I've never seen him exhibit any anti-military attitudes. Anti-islam, anti-illegal immigration...anti-Republican, yeah. But Anti-military is new to me. I'm not defending, just stating where I'm coming from.

~QC
We're not on his side of the debate, therefore, we are the enemy. You've seen how he talks about others who he doesn't agree with, why would the military be any different? Notice that he has ignored every point that I've made, but simply issued a blanket condemnation of everyone who is opposed to this change. I'm the one that he can't argue with, but by attacking the most extreme comments, he can ignore my statements with impunity.

What really sucks about this debate is that I get shouted down by both sides.

m00
12-22-2010, 03:19 PM
We could have gotten the linguists back with a waiver. That would have kept the policy in place and provided a test case for future analysis of the effects of repeal.

This is exactly what I had hoped would happen. As the Chief Executive, Obama has the power to set policy in this area without messing with the underlying rules. But this isn't what happened - Obama wanted a political victory more than he wanted a stronger military.

The problem in my mind is that the administration isn't approaching the problem from the "how do we make the military stronger" angle, it's using the military as just another political football to influence poll numbers and energize his voting base. I consider that criminal.

CueSi
12-22-2010, 03:25 PM
I hesitate to think there will be an ideological purge of the armed forces, but when I think about the Daily Show worshipping stupidity of some officers I've been around, maybe you're right.

Major, you've said a lot I want to respond to, but I can only type so much on this touchscreen. You're not the only one between a rock and a...yeah.

~QC

M21
12-22-2010, 03:26 PM
And, make no mistake about it, this repeal will succeed, in that it will allow gays to serve openly. The effects on the rest of the force will be suppressed, and we will do what we always do, which is soldier on in the face of the idiocy of our higher ups. Ten years from now, when we have bent over backwards to prevent the worst effects of this policy from destroying the force, we'll be told that we were worried over nothing.


Great posts. Keep up the Fire.

Novaheart
12-22-2010, 04:15 PM
We could have gotten the linguists back with a waiver. That would have kept the policy in place and provided a test case for future analysis of the effects of repeal. But, the activists wanted a trophy. And, of course, Obama now gets to impose a purge. The armed forces were the only branch of government that resisted liberal pieties, but this gives the left an opportunity to cull anyone who doesn't have the politically correct attitudes. How long do you think it will be before my comments here will be used as evidence of my unsuitability to continue to serve in the new order? Every time Wilbur called those of us who opposed lifting the ban bigots, he was making the administration's case for our expulsion.

And what would you have thought of a person who would have continued to serve under a special exception for folks who are unworthy of equal treatment, fairness, promotion, and respect regardless of their rank, awards, or valor?

To the best of my knowledge you are permitted to hold anyone with whom you serve in the utmost contempt, as long as you treat him or her with the respect for his or her uniform that you personally deserve and expect.

Is there an intelligent defense for person being unable to accept that his religious views are not the policy of the US armed forces?

Novaheart
12-22-2010, 04:22 PM
I hesitate to think there will be an ideological purge of the armed forces, but when I think about the Daily Show worshipping stupidity of some officers I've been around, maybe you're right.

Major, you've said a lot I want to respond to, but I can only type so much on this touchscreen. You're not the only one between a rock and a...yeah.

~QC

I love the callers to the talk shows. They all know someone who is going to quit or not sign up because of this. Hell of a bunch of patriots, aren't they?

You know what? My best friend from high school quit the Navy during training because he wasn't going to allow himself to be yelled at and ordered around by someone he considered his social and intellectual inferior. So I guess it can happen, but the Navy managed to carry on without my friend. Amazing, isn't it?

wilbur
12-22-2010, 11:43 PM
Every time Wilbur called those of us who opposed lifting the ban bigots, he was making the administration's case for our expulsion.


Lol, man... I've turned you into a whimpering, whining butt-hurt little girl. Every post of yours, you now mewl "b-b-but Wilbur called me a bigot *sniffle*"... How bout that.

CueSi
12-23-2010, 02:42 AM
I love the callers to the talk shows. They all know someone who is going to quit or not sign up because of this. Hell of a bunch of patriots, aren't they?

You know what? My best friend from high school quit the Navy during training because he wasn't going to allow himself to be yelled at and ordered around by someone he considered his social and intellectual inferior. So I guess it can happen, but the Navy managed to carry on without my friend. Amazing, isn't it?

To answer your question to Ody earlier... that's what black soldiers did for two hundred years before ya'll came along. Most black soldiers pre- WWII that deserved medals didn't even get 'em while they were ALIVE.

After WWI, there were returning black soldiers what were lynched WHILE STILL IN UNIFORM. We've been doing the work twice as hard for half as much recognition deal for a while. :cool: We made that shit cool. I'm just saying.

As to your friend, the Navy was prolly better without a prick like that. I'm gonna be honest. From what I can tell from Ody, he's wondering about the paperwork nightmare that ending DADT will bring about.

~QC

Odysseus
12-23-2010, 07:35 PM
And what would you have thought of a person who would have continued to serve under a special exception for folks who are unworthy of equal treatment, fairness, promotion, and respect regardless of their rank, awards, or valor?
I'd give them the respect that they were due as critical professionals and, if the test demonstrated that there were no issues with gays in the ranks, I'd consider widening the waiver and even repeal, but unlike you, I'd want to see empirical proof before I committed to a policy change that will cost much, but promises little. Once again, I ask you, what does the military get out of repeal? How does it benefit recruitment, retention, morale, discipline or any other area that is important to us?

And, while we're at it, why shouldn't we eliminate redundant facilities for women? Since sex can be controlled with policy memos, training and fear of punishment, why not just have men and women sleep in the same barracks and shower in the same facilities? If we are professional enough to ignore men who are sexually attracted to men in the next bed, why can't we be professional enough to ignore women in the next bed?

Until you can answer that, without resorting to the kind of contemptuous snide comments that comprise your understanding of us, I will give your input as much consideration as it warrants, which is next to none.


To the best of my knowledge you are permitted to hold anyone with whom you serve in the utmost contempt, as long as you treat him or her with the respect for his or her uniform that you personally deserve and expect.
The best of your knowledge is quite inadequate, but your bias shows again. We treat each other with respect and deference that has nothing to do with our rank, because we are all members of an elite group within our society, and those who meet the standards for service are entitled to respect.

Is there an intelligent defense for person being unable to accept that his religious views are not the policy of the US armed forces?


Lol, man... I've turned you into a whimpering, whining butt-hurt little girl. Every post of yours, you now mewl "b-b-but Wilbur called me a bigot *sniffle*"... How bout that.
No, Wilbur. You've done nothing of the sort. The arguments that you made, as inadequate and unreasoned as they are, are exactly what the activists in positions of power will use. I could care less what you call me, because your opinion in this is irrelevant, except as an exercise. I used you the way that I use a target on a range, Wilbur, as something to refine my skills against an object that approximates what I'll be up against. You calling me names doesn't matter, but when Barney Frank does it, and he uses his congressional power to flag my promotion packet and force me out, as Patsy Schroeder did with hundreds of naval aviators whose only crime was signing in to the Tailhook Convention, then the namecalling will have impact.

The sad part is, you didn't prove a single thing except your ignorance of the issues and your lack of interest in anything but your self-image as a crusader against perceived injustice, but you still got what you wanted, while those of us who have to live with the consequences of your hubris don't have the luxury of wallowing in unearned feelings of superiority.

To answer your question to Ody earlier... that's what black soldiers did for two hundred years before ya'll came along. Most black soldiers pre- WWII that deserved medals didn't even get 'em while they were ALIVE.

After WWI, there were returning black soldiers what were lynched WHILE STILL IN UNIFORM. We've been doing the work twice as hard for half as much recognition deal for a while. :cool: We made that shit cool. I'm just saying.
Agreed, but it doesn't justify doing more wrongs. The segregated army ended before I was born. The legacy of that segregation was a painful period of adjustment, during which race relations in the force hit rock bottom. In the 70s, Staff Duty Officers carried loaded sidearms in CONUS and even then they hesitated to enter certain barracks. Racial tensions led to fraggings in combat and murders in peacetime. It took the Army decades to restore order, and it only came with the advent of the all-volunteer force.

As to your friend, the Navy was prolly better without a prick like that. I'm gonna be honest. From what I can tell from Ody, he's wondering about the paperwork nightmare that ending DADT will bring about.

~QC
It's not the paperwork nightmare, although there is that, but it is the least of it. I believe that this is going to lead to a serious assault on the culture of the military. The armed forces are one of the few bastions of conservatism in the government, and now, the left has a wedge that it can drive into the force and separate those who don't accept their worldview from those who are willing to pay lip service to it. All that they have to do is not do anything, but simply lift the restrictions, and then watch how we handle the ensuing chaos, with every officer under a microscope in order to discern the "bigotry" that liberals already claim that we have in abundance. A few examples:


Will straight Soldiers who object to showering with openly gay Soldiers be condemned as bigots, or will they be allowed to shower at special times? How will gays react to that? If I, as a commander, implement specific shower times for straights and gays, will I run afoul of higher? If I don't, and the straight Soldiers file congressional or IG complaints, will I be wrong?
Does a Soldier who is having a urine test have the right to object to having a gay Soldier as his observer? If I restrict the observers to straights, am I illegally discriminating? If I don't, am I discriminating against straight Soldiers who object to being ogled?
Every command has a BOSS, or Better Opportunities for Single Soldiers, program. It's basically a mixer run by the chaplains. What happens to chaplains whose denominations consider homosexuality a sin? Will they be expected to deny their faith and accept behavior that offends them? Will I have to order them to arrange gay events?

A male or female Soldier would certainly be within their rights to object to having a person of the opposite sex showering, sleeping or observing them at intimate moments, so what will I have to do in order to meet their legitimate expectations while not offending the gay troops and their litigious activist buddies? Is there a right answer that won't impact my career or impose hardship on my troops? Of course not. The careers and sensibilities straight troops aren't on the activists' agenda. In fact, the more discomfited we are, the better, since that will mean fewer of us in the force, which won't bother the likes of Nova one bit.

Zathras
12-23-2010, 07:43 PM
Heh heh....and once again Ody has wilbur projecting again, describing what the Major has done to him yet again, just like in every debate the two have faced off against each other.

Just like the gap toothed, stuck up, Victoria Secrets model Jess Hart said in another thread, we're out of your league. But, by all means wilbur, keep up the pathetic attemps to debate with us. They are good for a laugh but not much else. Plus, the more time you spend here means less time for you to be passing your defective DNA on to your spawn and lower the collective IQ of the human race by 10 points.