# Homosexuals should not be accepted into U.S. military forces.



## 52ndStreet

The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act. 
The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.


----------



## hjmick

Sorry, dude. As far as I'm concerned, anyone willing to lay down their lives to preserve the freedoms I enjoy is welcome to serve. I couldn't care less where they're getting their jollies so long as they maintain the level of professionalism expected of all military personel.


----------



## jillian

52

-- They already ARE accepted into military service.

YOU just want them to be liars because you're insecure in your own sexuality.


----------



## Toome

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.



Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.

First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.

Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.

Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.

You just haven't been there, son.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Toome said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.
Click to expand...


My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the 
United States military services.
I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how  it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.


----------



## Mobius

Toome said:


> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.



You sir, are the type of guy who allows me to keep a least some semblance of respect for the professionalism that our armed forces are supposed to embody. Kudos to you.



> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.
> I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
> Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.



Should we bar people who openly admit to foot fetishes from joining the military? I mean, where is the line drawn here? 

Bottom line is, the body of psychological research on militaries and civil service organizations (like fire and police departments) show that allowing open homosexuals to serve doesn't really contribute to any empirically identifiable drop in unit cohesion or morale. If that was a genuine issue, there might be some merit in your arguments, but as far as we can tell the evidence simply isn't there. It's wasteful to be losing skilled and professional people in the name of such an unnecessary prohibition.

Also, "homos", really? Should we really base our public policy on slurs?

EDIT: Added in a response to 52nd and corrected some spelling and grammar errors.


----------



## daveman

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.


I think it's a mistake allowing bigots to serve.


----------



## Bern80

52ndStreet said:


> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.
> I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how  it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
> Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.
Click to expand...


dude go be a bigot somewhere else.


----------



## Mobius

Bern80 said:


> dude go be a bigot somewhere else



Indeed.


----------



## TonyLamentola

They should just make them serve with the women.


----------



## TonyLamentola

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.



Our reputation would represent what we America stands for, opportunity and equality to all people. If gays want to serve their country, and put their lives on the line for my family and I, I'll personally thank them.


----------



## xotoxi

Tank and 52nd Street


----------



## bodecea

52ndStreet said:


> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.
> I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how  it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
> Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.
Click to expand...


As opposed to the "What goes on Deployment, Stays on Deployment"  and "Wheels Up, Rings Off" philosophy in the military?


----------



## Epsilon Delta

They should have just as much of a right to die over what their masters tell them are their country's interests as any other God-fearin' soldier on every nation on earth. Let them serve.


----------



## Ozmar

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake.* Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.*



And just how do they plan to enforce that, genius?


----------



## Ozmar

52ndStreet said:


> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other *sexual deviants *will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.



I wouldn't have wanted _you_ serving with me either.


----------



## 52ndStreet

The U.S. Army soldier who has leaked thousands of documents to Wikileakes is a Homosexual who
infiltrated himself into the U.S. Army. He claims part of the reason for him leaking thousands of classified files, was that he was being treated unfairly , because of his homosexuality!
Should we allow more of these morally , and mentally unstable Homosexuals into the U.S. military.
Look at all the damage this one disgruntled homosexual has done, to United States national secuirty
and reputation.!?


----------



## rdean

52ndStreet said:


> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.
> I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how  it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
> Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.
Click to expand...


You're a deviant.  They probably let you in.

Openly flamboyant?  Yea, because so many are.  Except for that doctor that sees you naked and puts his finger, well, never mind.


----------



## daveman

JOINT BASE LEWIS-McCHORD, Wash. (AP) - An Army staff sergeant charged with shooting at unarmed Afghans this year pleaded guilty Wednesday in a deal that requires him to testify against other defendants implicated in an alleged scheme to kill civilians for kicks.

Staff Sgt. Robert Stevens, of Portland, Ore., admitted to aggravated assault, lying to investigators and other charges at his court-martial.​
White guys are obviously too unstable to be in the military.


----------



## AquaAthena

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.


----------



## SFC Ollie

We've heard about every argument thare can be both for and against DADT. 

DADT was considered a gift to gay people when it was initiated. Now they want special treatment. And yes if they are permitted to serve openly there will be special treatment. When we did away with the WAC and incorporated women into the regular army there was special treatment. With gays there will be even more. 

Sorry, I still find it totally unacceptable. I am glad to be retired. But I will still support the numerous Veterans organizations regardless. And I will still continue to do volunteer work at the clinic. 

But ending DADT is still a mistake.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> We've heard about every argument thare can be both for and against DADT.
> 
> DADT was considered a gift to gay people when it was initiated. Now they want special treatment. And yes if they are permitted to serve openly there will be special treatment. When we did away with the WAC and incorporated women into the regular army there was special treatment. With gays there will be even more.
> 
> Sorry, I still find it totally unacceptable. I am glad to be retired. But I will still support the numerous Veterans organizations regardless. And I will still continue to do volunteer work at the clinic.
> 
> But ending DADT is still a mistake.



Well Ollie, I respect your opinion.
But all you offer is opinion.
The facts prove you wrong on this one.


----------



## Gadawg73

Toome said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.
Click to expand...


I haven't been there either but my Dad, who we lost last Memorial Day at age 88, and my brother who was in Nam. were.
And they both echo what you just said.
I have not seen it better said anywhere.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've heard about every argument thare can be both for and against DADT.
> 
> DADT was considered a gift to gay people when it was initiated. Now they want special treatment. And yes if they are permitted to serve openly there will be special treatment. When we did away with the WAC and incorporated women into the regular army there was special treatment. With gays there will be even more.
> 
> Sorry, I still find it totally unacceptable. I am glad to be retired. But I will still support the numerous Veterans organizations regardless. And I will still continue to do volunteer work at the clinic.
> 
> But ending DADT is still a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ollie, I respect your opinion.
> But all you offer is opinion.
> The facts prove you wrong on this one.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I hope that I am wrong as far as it hurting the military. But I know for a fact it will require special treatment.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> We've heard about every argument thare can be both for and against DADT.
> 
> DADT was considered a gift to gay people when it was initiated. Now they want special treatment. And yes if they are permitted to serve openly there will be special treatment. *When we did away with the WAC and incorporated women into the regular army there was special treatment.* With gays there will be even more.
> 
> Sorry, I still find it totally unacceptable. I am glad to be retired. But I will still support the numerous Veterans organizations regardless. And I will still continue to do volunteer work at the clinic.
> 
> But ending DADT is still a mistake.



Bull Puckie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.



who cares if someone is gay or not serving in the military.  A gay man or woman is just as capable as a straight one.

And why would someone who is gay go running around telling everyone "OH HEY I"M GAY"   I mean why do that anyway?


----------



## Ozmar

SFC Ollie said:


> We've heard about every argument thare can be both for and against DADT.
> 
> DADT was considered a gift to gay people when it was initiated. Now they want special treatment. And yes if they are permitted to serve openly there will be special treatment. When we did away with the WAC and incorporated women into the regular army there was special treatment. With gays there will be even more.
> 
> Sorry, I still find it totally unacceptable. I am glad to be retired. But I will still support the numerous Veterans organizations regardless. And I will still continue to do volunteer work at the clinic.
> 
> But ending DADT is still a mistake.



I'm sure the gays are glad for you to be retired too.


----------



## Ozmar

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who cares if someone is gay or not serving in the military.  A gay man or woman is just as capable as a straight one.
> 
> And why would someone who is gay go running around telling everyone "OH HEY I"M GAY"   I mean why do that anyway?
Click to expand...


I dunno. I've tried to have a normal conversation with a gay person (also lesbians) on a few occasions, no knowing about their sexuality, and not talking about anything remotely related to sexuality, and somehow they always tend to bring it up.

A lesbian once asked me if I was in to acting. I said "no, I think most actors are assholes." She took offense to that and replied "What are you? Straight? Gay?"

Maybe she thought I was poking fun at gays because a lot of actors are gay. But then sexuality isn't at the forefront of my thinking process in matters such as everyday conversation, so I don't read between the lines like that. You better believe there would be a lot of gays who would be in your face about it, just as there's a lot of gays in your face about it in the real world.


----------



## bodecea

Ozmar said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who cares if someone is gay or not serving in the military.  A gay man or woman is just as capable as a straight one.
> 
> And why would someone who is gay go running around telling everyone "OH HEY I"M GAY"   I mean why do that anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. I've tried to have a normal conversation with a gay person (also lesbians) on a few occasions, no knowing about their sexuality, and not talking about anything remotely related to sexuality, and somehow they always tend to bring it up.
> 
> A lesbian once asked me if I was in to acting. I said "no, I think most actors are assholes." She took offense to that and replied "What are you? Straight? Gay?"
> 
> Maybe she thought I was poking fun at gays because a lot of actors are gay. But then sexuality isn't at the forefront of my thinking process in matters such as everyday conversation, so I don't read between the lines like that. You better believe there would be a lot of gays who would be in your face about it, just as there's a lot of gays in your face about it in the real world.
Click to expand...

How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?


----------



## Big Black Dog

I'm glad that I'm retired from the military and don't have to put up with all the political correctness bullshit.  Allowing gays to openly serve in the military is nothing more than political correctness.  For years and years, you could not be assigned to one of the PRP duties if you were gay and now it's suddenly ok?  Sorry.  I think it's a big mistake and time will bear it out.


----------



## Nosmo King

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> *Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.*
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.



Criminal?  Really?  Seems you and John McCain have problems with gays serving.  McCain remembers the problems he had with a homosexual Spartan during the Seige of Troy.  Your problems are with your fear and misunderstanding of homosexuals.

And don't lisp, dear.  It's not very butch.  Our 'throops' will be just fine, as always.


----------



## Ozmar

bodecea said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> who cares if someone is gay or not serving in the military.  A gay man or woman is just as capable as a straight one.
> 
> And why would someone who is gay go running around telling everyone "OH HEY I"M GAY"   I mean why do that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. I've tried to have a normal conversation with a gay person (also lesbians) on a few occasions, no knowing about their sexuality, and not talking about anything remotely related to sexuality, and somehow they always tend to bring it up.
> 
> A lesbian once asked me if I was in to acting. I said "no, I think most actors are assholes." She took offense to that and replied "What are you? Straight? Gay?"
> 
> Maybe she thought I was poking fun at gays because a lot of actors are gay. But then sexuality isn't at the forefront of my thinking process in matters such as everyday conversation, so I don't read between the lines like that. You better believe there would be a lot of gays who would be in your face about it, just as there's a lot of gays in your face about it in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?
Click to expand...


I'm going to look past the illogical nature of your question.

Ah, screw it: How can I make a quantifiable answer to your question? If I never knew they were gay, how could I know how many said conversations were had? Idiot!

Obviously, if I had a conversation with someone and the topic of sexuality wasn't brought up, I wouldn't know what that person's sexuality was. So in answer to your ridiculous question, there are probably countless people I have talked to who may or may not have been gay. It really doesn't matter to me. What does bother me is when someone has a chip on one's shoulder about it, and has to bring it up. If it does come up, it could at least be if that was somehow the topic of conversation.


----------



## 007

Bern80 said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, partner, but this thread is wrong on so many levels that I have to comment.
> 
> First of all, I've served with soldiers who turned out to be homosexual.  These were men who served the nation honorably with great distinction.  They served during a time before DADT, and the rest of team kept it quiet within the team.  In other words, nobody cared.  All that mattered is that these men did their jobs and looked out after their fellow soldier.
> 
> Second of all, get off your high horse about morality.  This naive statement tells me that you never walked in the woods in the dark of night with the Devil at your side.  Otherwise, you'd know that morality in the military is nothing more than a bunch of kumbaya bullshit advertised for PR purposes.
> 
> Combat is the most immoral thing a man will ever do.  War is man's brutality in its purest, ugliest form.  If you've never experienced it, then you are in no position to say shit about what is and what isn't moral.  Men holding hands doesn't compare to carving out someone's guts with your K-bar.
> 
> You just haven't been there, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.
> I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how  it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
> Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude go be a bigot somewhere else.
Click to expand...


Dude, go try and shut people up just because their opinion differs with yours somewhere else.

Oh... and how do like that... you accusing someone of being a BIGOT when it's YOUR behavior that's BIGOTED.


----------



## Ozmar

Pale Rider said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the
> United States military services.
> I do realize that there are homosexuals serving in the military now, but those homos keep their sexuality to themselves. This is how  it should remain, for the sake of unit cohesion, and moral.
> Which will be affected if don't ask don't tell is done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude go be a bigot somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dude, go try and shut people up just because their opinion differs with yours somewhere else.*
> 
> Oh... and how do like that... you accusing someone of being a BIGOT when it's YOUR behavior that's BIGOTED.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with 52nd douche, but I must point out the irony of your statement.


----------



## hortysir

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.


Says a chickenshit that's never served


----------



## 007

Ozmar said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude go be a bigot somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dude, go try and shut people up just because their opinion differs with yours somewhere else.*
> 
> Oh... and how do like that... you accusing someone of being a BIGOT when it's YOUR behavior that's BIGOTED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with 52nd douche, but I must point out the irony of your statement.
Click to expand...


It's not irony Einstein... it's using his own words to illustrate his bigotry. Course you knew that, but thought you'd be oh so cute to build a little straw man.


----------



## Ozmar

Pale Rider said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dude, go try and shut people up just because their opinion differs with yours somewhere else.*
> 
> Oh... and how do like that... you accusing someone of being a BIGOT when it's YOUR behavior that's BIGOTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with 52nd douche, but I must point out the irony of your statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not irony Einstein... it's using his own words to illustrate his bigotry. Course you knew that, but thought you'd be oh so cute to build a little straw man.
Click to expand...


You told him to go somewhere else because you don't like what he has to say. The irony here is that you are lecturing him for being intolerant of others, while at the same time being intolerant of him. Don't try to spin this into a strawman fallacy where there is none.


----------



## bodecea

Ozmar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. I've tried to have a normal conversation with a gay person (also lesbians) on a few occasions, no knowing about their sexuality, and not talking about anything remotely related to sexuality, and somehow they always tend to bring it up.
> 
> A lesbian once asked me if I was in to acting. I said "no, I think most actors are assholes." She took offense to that and replied "What are you? Straight? Gay?"
> 
> Maybe she thought I was poking fun at gays because a lot of actors are gay. But then sexuality isn't at the forefront of my thinking process in matters such as everyday conversation, so I don't read between the lines like that. You better believe there would be a lot of gays who would be in your face about it, just as there's a lot of gays in your face about it in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to look past the illogical nature of your question.
> 
> Ah, screw it: How can I make a quantifiable answer to your question? If I never knew they were gay, how could I know how many said conversations were had? Idiot!
> 
> Obviously, if I had a conversation with someone and the topic of sexuality wasn't brought up, I wouldn't know what that person's sexuality was. So in answer to your ridiculous question, there are probably countless people I have talked to who may or may not have been gay. It really doesn't matter to me. What does bother me is when someone has a chip on one's shoulder about it, and has to bring it up. If it does come up, it could at least be if that was somehow the topic of conversation.
Click to expand...

It's not a ridiculous question at all....but if you wish to be touchy about it......well, go right ahead.


----------



## kwc57

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.



Not to mention that you could get cooties from them.


----------



## Ozmar

bodecea said:


> It's not a ridiculous question at all....but if you wish to be touchy about it......well, go right ahead.



"How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?"

How about you try thinking about this question, and answering it. It's not only an illogical question, it is a retardedly illogical question. Non sequitur.

How many times has B seen A when B never knew it because A never revealed to B that is was in fact A?

How many times did I screw your boss, but not know it, because she never told me she was your boss?


----------



## Gadawg73

Ozmar said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who cares if someone is gay or not serving in the military.  A gay man or woman is just as capable as a straight one.
> 
> And why would someone who is gay go running around telling everyone "OH HEY I"M GAY"   I mean why do that anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. I've tried to have a normal conversation with a gay person (also lesbians) on a few occasions, no knowing about their sexuality, and not talking about anything remotely related to sexuality, and somehow they always tend to bring it up.
> 
> A lesbian once asked me if I was in to acting. I said "no, I think most actors are assholes." She took offense to that and replied "What are you? Straight? Gay?"
> 
> Maybe she thought I was poking fun at gays because a lot of actors are gay. But then sexuality isn't at the forefront of my thinking process in matters such as everyday conversation, so I don't read between the lines like that. You better believe there would be a lot of gays who would be in your face about it, just as there's a lot of gays in your face about it in the real world.
Click to expand...


Yours was a 1 in a thousand situation.
Doesn't happen that way the other 999 times.


----------



## ABikerSailor

52ndStreet said:


> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.



Yo.......52 Types of Sleaze.........quick question for you sportcheck.........how many enlistments did YOU serve?  None?  Shut the fuck up then, you don't know shit about what you speak.

Barring gays from the soil of various countries?  Won't happen.  Why?  Because there is a thing called the SOFA which is Status of Forces Agreement which EVERY nation that allows US Military on their shores has.  Nothing is said of sexual behavior.

As far as saying that the Wikileaks guy got his stuff from a gay military member?  Okay.....but you wanna explain about John Walker whose whole family (father and himself) were selling secrets to the Soviets?  The Navy had to change a whole bunch of our procedures because of them.  Does that mean we should ban white boys named Walker as well?

Oh yeah........speaking from experience as a servicemember who has experienced many deployments, wanna know what gets you through the night?  Having someone to talk with about your family or SO back home, because when things aren't right back on the homefront, that person's performance at their job out in the field suffers quite a bit.  Imagine what it's like when you're deployed with these people and everyone has pictures of their wife or SO, but the gay service members can't, because then they'd be kicked out.

Additionally, if the gays were able to serve openly, that would mean that their families back home would be able to use Ombudsman and other services that keep the families and SO's of people in touch with their servicemembers when they're away.

Oh.......as far as being looked down upon?  Do you know that the only NATO country (of which we are a part of) that DOESN'T allow gays to serve is the US?

It's our enemies that don't allow gays to serve (you know.......Middle East countries).  I mean shit.......even Israel allows gays to serve openly.

Tell ya what 52 Types of Sleaze, go enlist in the military, serve a full 4 year hitch and get discharged HONORABLY, then maybe your punk ass will have enough information to form a cogent opinion.

Until then douchebag?  Fuck off you cowardly pussy.


----------



## bodecea

Ozmar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a ridiculous question at all....but if you wish to be touchy about it......well, go right ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?"
> 
> How about you try thinking about this question, and answering it. It's not only an illogical question, it is a retardedly illogical question. Non sequitur.
> 
> How many times has B seen A when B never knew it because A never revealed to B that is was in fact A?
> 
> How many times did I screw your boss, but not know it, because she never told me she was your boss?
Click to expand...


No, it is not.....but if you feel better with silly dis-connected analogies, go right ahead.


----------



## Gadawg73

Ozmar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. I've tried to have a normal conversation with a gay person (also lesbians) on a few occasions, no knowing about their sexuality, and not talking about anything remotely related to sexuality, and somehow they always tend to bring it up.
> 
> A lesbian once asked me if I was in to acting. I said "no, I think most actors are assholes." She took offense to that and replied "What are you? Straight? Gay?"
> 
> Maybe she thought I was poking fun at gays because a lot of actors are gay. But then sexuality isn't at the forefront of my thinking process in matters such as everyday conversation, so I don't read between the lines like that. You better believe there would be a lot of gays who would be in your face about it, just as there's a lot of gays in your face about it in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to look past the illogical nature of your question.
> 
> Ah, screw it: How can I make a quantifiable answer to your question? If I never knew they were gay, how could I know how many said conversations were had? Idiot!
> 
> Obviously, if I had a conversation with someone and the topic of sexuality wasn't brought up, I wouldn't know what that person's sexuality was. So in answer to your ridiculous question, there are probably countless people I have talked to who may or may not have been gay. It really doesn't matter to me. What does bother me is when someone has a chip on one's shoulder about it, and has to bring it up. If it does come up, it could at least be if that was somehow the topic of conversation.
Click to expand...


If someone told you that YOU were an immoral human piece of shit for being gay or lesbian would you have "a chip" on your shoulder?
I find it amazing how far gays and lesbians advance professionally with so much ignorance still around.


----------



## Ozmar

Gadawg73 said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to look past the illogical nature of your question.
> 
> Ah, screw it: How can I make a quantifiable answer to your question? If I never knew they were gay, how could I know how many said conversations were had? Idiot!
> 
> Obviously, if I had a conversation with someone and the topic of sexuality wasn't brought up, I wouldn't know what that person's sexuality was. So in answer to your ridiculous question, there are probably countless people I have talked to who may or may not have been gay. It really doesn't matter to me. What does bother me is when someone has a chip on one's shoulder about it, and has to bring it up. If it does come up, it could at least be if that was somehow the topic of conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone told you that YOU were an immoral human piece of shit for being gay or lesbian would you have "a chip" on your shoulder?
> I find it amazing how far gays and lesbians advance professionally with so much ignorance still around.
Click to expand...


Maybe so. What about if someone is just having a conversation un-gay-related. Does that give the gay person free license to broadcast it, just in case?
I'm a veteran with a disability rating. In a casual conversation, you wouldn't know it because I don't bring it up. Some friends of mine were surprised to learn that after we got into a conversation _about_ the military. I guess I just don't go around with a chip on my shoulder demanding special attention because of my status.

I once knew this amputee who had a prosthetic leg. He walked with such an unnoticeable limp that I didn't even realize it (he wore jeans). He brought up the fact that he was disabled. Kind of got offended when I told him I had no idea.


----------



## hortysir

Why is it so hard for some to believe that someone from the LGBT community could be patriotic and want to serve their country?
What other country on earth has such freedoms and liberties that (should) allow them to be who they want to be.
Anyone that has read more than 5 of my posts know that I'm a pretty far right wing Christian. 
I don't agree with the lifestyle. I pray for my niece and grand daughter daily to realize that they are not living according to how we were created.
Besides that, it's between them and Him. 
It doesn't affect how they do their jobs.
They're both in committed relationships. They're not out hitting on every female they bump in to.
If one of them wanted to serve, I'd be at their swearing in ceremony and boot camp graduation supporting them.

Is it insecurity that causes people to have issues with this?
Pride? Ego? To think that they may be too attractive for a gay to be able to control their self around them???

I wonder how many gays or lesbians were killed on 911.
Does their orientation diminish the price they paid?


----------



## 52ndStreet

ABikerSailor said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo.......52 Types of Sleaze.........quick question for you sportcheck.........how many enlistments did YOU serve?  None?  Shut the fuck up then, you don't know shit about what you speak.
> 
> Barring gays from the soil of various countries?  Won't happen.  Why?  Because there is a thing called the SOFA which is Status of Forces Agreement which EVERY nation that allows US Military on their shores has.  Nothing is said of sexual behavior.
> 
> As far as saying that the Wikileaks guy got his stuff from a gay military member?  Okay.....but you wanna explain about John Walker whose whole family (father and himself) were selling secrets to the Soviets?  The Navy had to change a whole bunch of our procedures because of them.  Does that mean we should ban white boys named Walker as well?
> 
> Oh yeah........speaking from experience as a servicemember who has experienced many deployments, wanna know what gets you through the night?  Having someone to talk with about your family or SO back home, because when things aren't right back on the homefront, that person's performance at their job out in the field suffers quite a bit.  Imagine what it's like when you're deployed with these people and everyone has pictures of their wife or SO, but the gay service members can't, because then they'd be kicked out.
> 
> Additionally, if the gays were able to serve openly, that would mean that their families back home would be able to use Ombudsman and other services that keep the families and SO's of people in touch with their servicemembers when they're away.
> 
> Oh.......as far as being looked down upon?  Do you know that the only NATO country (of which we are a part of) that DOESN'T allow gays to serve is the US?
> 
> It's our enemies that don't allow gays to serve (you know.......Middle East countries).  I mean shit.......even Israel allows gays to serve openly.
> 
> Tell ya what 52 Types of Sleaze, go enlist in the military, serve a full 4 year hitch and get discharged HONORABLY, then maybe your punk ass will have enough information to form a cogent opinion.
> 
> Until then douchebag?  Fuck off you cowardly pussy.
Click to expand...


You are the Pussy speaking up for the Queer Fags Mr. Not me.
You are the one supporting sexual deviancy, and homosexuality.!!
You queer supporters and Fags need to all be arrested.!!Removed from normal society.!!


----------



## Gadawg73

52ndStreet said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo.......52 Types of Sleaze.........quick question for you sportcheck.........how many enlistments did YOU serve?  None?  Shut the fuck up then, you don't know shit about what you speak.
> 
> Barring gays from the soil of various countries?  Won't happen.  Why?  Because there is a thing called the SOFA which is Status of Forces Agreement which EVERY nation that allows US Military on their shores has.  Nothing is said of sexual behavior.
> 
> As far as saying that the Wikileaks guy got his stuff from a gay military member?  Okay.....but you wanna explain about John Walker whose whole family (father and himself) were selling secrets to the Soviets?  The Navy had to change a whole bunch of our procedures because of them.  Does that mean we should ban white boys named Walker as well?
> 
> Oh yeah........speaking from experience as a servicemember who has experienced many deployments, wanna know what gets you through the night?  Having someone to talk with about your family or SO back home, because when things aren't right back on the homefront, that person's performance at their job out in the field suffers quite a bit.  Imagine what it's like when you're deployed with these people and everyone has pictures of their wife or SO, but the gay service members can't, because then they'd be kicked out.
> 
> Additionally, if the gays were able to serve openly, that would mean that their families back home would be able to use Ombudsman and other services that keep the families and SO's of people in touch with their servicemembers when they're away.
> 
> Oh.......as far as being looked down upon?  Do you know that the only NATO country (of which we are a part of) that DOESN'T allow gays to serve is the US?
> 
> It's our enemies that don't allow gays to serve (you know.......Middle East countries).  I mean shit.......even Israel allows gays to serve openly.
> 
> Tell ya what 52 Types of Sleaze, go enlist in the military, serve a full 4 year hitch and get discharged HONORABLY, then maybe your punk ass will have enough information to form a cogent opinion.
> 
> Until then douchebag?  Fuck off you cowardly pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the Pussy speaking up for the Queer Fags Mr. Not me.
> You are the one supporting sexual deviancy, and homosexuality.!!
> You queer supporters and Fags need to all be arrested.!!Removed from normal society.!!
Click to expand...


Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
America was founded on protecting the rights of all citizens and especially the minorities  someone, anyone, or everyone may despise the most.
Homosexuals are citizens of this great nation. If you or anyone is attempting to remove them or anyone seeking to protect their rights then you are the one that needs to leave.
You are not a true patriot and supporter of freedom.
Delta is ready when you are.


----------



## daveman

52ndStreet said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon and the United states government will be making a big mistake by allowing openly flamboyent homosexuals to serve in United States military forces.
> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.
> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks. It is a big mistake. Countries where homosexuality is illegal can now look to bar U.S. military homosexual throops from their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo.......52 Types of Sleaze.........quick question for you sportcheck.........how many enlistments did YOU serve?  None?  Shut the fuck up then, you don't know shit about what you speak.
> 
> Barring gays from the soil of various countries?  Won't happen.  Why?  Because there is a thing called the SOFA which is Status of Forces Agreement which EVERY nation that allows US Military on their shores has.  Nothing is said of sexual behavior.
> 
> As far as saying that the Wikileaks guy got his stuff from a gay military member?  Okay.....but you wanna explain about John Walker whose whole family (father and himself) were selling secrets to the Soviets?  The Navy had to change a whole bunch of our procedures because of them.  Does that mean we should ban white boys named Walker as well?
> 
> Oh yeah........speaking from experience as a servicemember who has experienced many deployments, wanna know what gets you through the night?  Having someone to talk with about your family or SO back home, because when things aren't right back on the homefront, that person's performance at their job out in the field suffers quite a bit.  Imagine what it's like when you're deployed with these people and everyone has pictures of their wife or SO, but the gay service members can't, because then they'd be kicked out.
> 
> Additionally, if the gays were able to serve openly, that would mean that their families back home would be able to use Ombudsman and other services that keep the families and SO's of people in touch with their servicemembers when they're away.
> 
> Oh.......as far as being looked down upon?  Do you know that the only NATO country (of which we are a part of) that DOESN'T allow gays to serve is the US?
> 
> It's our enemies that don't allow gays to serve (you know.......Middle East countries).  I mean shit.......even Israel allows gays to serve openly.
> 
> Tell ya what 52 Types of Sleaze, go enlist in the military, serve a full 4 year hitch and get discharged HONORABLY, then maybe your punk ass will have enough information to form a cogent opinion.
> 
> Until then douchebag?  Fuck off you cowardly pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the Pussy speaking up for the Queer Fags Mr. Not me.
> You are the one supporting sexual deviancy, and homosexuality.!!
> You queer supporters and Fags need to all be arrested.!!Removed from normal society.!!
Click to expand...

Hey, come on now. If you kick out the gooks, the next thing, you have to kick out the chinks, the spicks, the spooks and kikes. All that's gonna be left in here are a couple of brain-dead rednecks, and what fun would that be? 

-- Adrian Cronauer


----------



## SFC Ollie

The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement late Friday calling the Pentagon's report on the issue a "flawed survey instrument." VFW had previously stated its opposition to repealing the military ban, but the 2.1 million-member group has stopped short of calling for grassroots advocacy on the issue.

We reported last week that social conservatives have been leading the fight against repeal.

Now it appears that veterans, who could be influential on this issue, are also weighing in.

Congress.org - News : Vets group criticizes DADT report


----------



## hortysir

SFC Ollie said:


> The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement late Friday calling the Pentagon's report on the issue a "flawed survey instrument." VFW had previously stated its opposition to repealing the military ban, but the 2.1 million-member group has stopped short of calling for grassroots advocacy on the issue.
> 
> We reported last week that social conservatives have been leading the fight against repeal.
> 
> Now it appears that veterans, who could be influential on this issue, are also weighing in.
> 
> Congress.org - News : Vets group criticizes DADT report


Clarify that for me Ollie.
Are the for or against gays in the military?


----------



## SFC Ollie

hortysir said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement late Friday calling the* Pentagon's report on the issue a "flawed survey instrument.*" *VFW had previously stated its opposition* to repealing the military ban, but the 2.1 million-member group has stopped short of calling for grassroots advocacy on the issue.
> 
> We reported last week that social conservatives have been leading the fight against repeal.
> 
> Now it appears that veterans, who could be influential on this issue, are also weighing in.
> 
> Congress.org - News : Vets group criticizes DADT report
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify that for me Ollie.
> Are the for or against gays in the military?
Click to expand...


I would say the VFW are against the repeal of DADT. The American Legion has not made any statements for or against as far as I know.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

52ndStreet said:


> Homosexuality in and of itself is a immoral criminal act.


In which of these great United States?



			
				52ndStreet said:
			
		

> The United States forces reputation will be tarnished globally by way of accepting homosexuals into their ranks.


I don't know.  After we brutally maul down a number of enemy soldiers, we can always have the gay guys teabag their corpses.  Nothing is so humiliating to an opponent as being teabagged.  I learned that on Halo.  Which is like real military.  In the future. 

But if you're so against gays serving, perhaps you would volunteer your own services to dilute down their ranks?  Yes, I think we should put a bigot on the front line in place of every gay serving.  Great idea. 



52ndStreet said:


> My point is homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. If we allow homosexuals to serve in the U.S. Armed forces, then other sexual deviants will also demand to be accepted into the United States military services.


Yes, that's always how it works.  We let in people who like having consensual sex with other adults, and the next thing you know, the goat !#$@ers want to sign up too.  I heard that happened in Massachusetts right after they legalized the gay. Next thing you know there will be a goat-@%^#er uprising rebellion, after they join forces with the gay and other deviants to take over the military entirely.  We can't let that happen.  You should enlist immediately.



Pale Rider said:


> Dude, go try and shut people up just because their opinion differs with yours somewhere else.
> 
> Oh... and how do like that... you accusing someone of being a BIGOT when it's YOUR behavior that's BIGOTED.


False.  Opinions are not equal just because they're opinions.  Some are much better than others.  An opinion based on prejudice of a person's character that has nothing to do with you is a horrible and moronic one to hold.  An opinion based on observing such bigotry is perfectly legitimate.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Ozmar said:


> "How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?"
> 
> How about you try thinking about this question, and answering it. It's not only an illogical question, it is a retardedly illogical question. Non sequitur.


You think it's illogical because it went over your head.  You pointed out situations in which the topic of conversation was the characteristic in question.  The point he was trying to make is that you have NO CLUE how many people you've had conversations with who were gay but DID NOT bring it up.  You can in fact replace the subject of your examples with just about anything.  I can similarly say that when sports fans bring up sports, they're always bringing up sports and want to talk about it.  In short: your argument was not valid.  His question was purposely contradictory, to point out your error, which you missed.



Gadawg73 said:


> If someone told you that YOU were an immoral human piece of shit for being gay or lesbian would you have "a chip" on your shoulder?
> I find it amazing how far gays and lesbians advance professionally with so much ignorance still around.


I agree, and and on average they have higher salaries than straight people!  



hortysir said:


> I don't agree with the lifestyle. I pray for my niece and grand daughter daily to realize that they are not living according to how we were created.


How we were created?  What part of us is in his image?  Was it the penis?  Pray for your own better understanding of this topic.  Your family sounds like they're doing just fine without your prayer.  Or better yet, spend the same amount of time on education instead. 



52ndStreet said:


> You are the Pussy speaking up for the Queer Fags Mr. Not me.
> You are the one supporting sexual deviancy, and homosexuality.!!
> You queer supporters and Fags need to all be arrested.!!Removed from normal society.!!


You'll make better points if you don't need to resort to second grade slurs, child.


----------



## Cain

Ok, I am going to be rather lengthy, considering where I am in my life and what my future is, and how it is affected by this change:

First off, buddy, I don't care what anyone thinks about anyone else, what matters is the facts and the law. I honestly, do not care. I have my opinion, but frankly, it doesn't matter in the military so I am leaving it at the door. Here is what I plan to do: NOTHING. I do not care if your heterosexual, homosexual, homosapien, bisexual, trisexual, omnisexual, dinotopian, mystiopian, etc...

Now you ask, why don't I care? Well, first off, I am a glad adherer to the *Heterosexual* community, and guess what? That isn't going to change, because that is just part of being the Cain. I am comfortable with who I am, and guess what? No one can make me uncomfortable, cause I avoid crap like that. Now I must admit, this is going to be awkward, but guess what? Life goes on. 

This doesn't mean Gays can just now join, I am gonna break the ice, people homosexuals are EVERYWHERE. They are in front of you, walking to you, walking from you, behind you [humor].  Get over it.

I am a Christian, and I do not believe it is correct, and I believe it is a sin, but I am not going to bash people, cause guess what? Matthew 7:1, "Judge not that ye be not judged." Honestly, to most people I am just as simple in everything. If you believe my religion is wrong, ok, glad for you. If you think I should die, alrighty then. Their are people who would challenge my Christianity cause I have this stance, well, guess what? Good Luck, cause if its God vs You, I am putting my faith in God buddy. 

Look, I must admit, it bothers me somewhat that Homosexuals are so rapidly a growing trend, at least thats what it appears to me, but I cannot change that, and I do not really care. Their are enough heterosexual females that I have good chances of finding someone to settle down with, if I live to do that, that is. Honestly, I am happy for anyone who wants to serve the US of A, and if their gay, eh, everyone has a philosophy.

Now, I have my limits. I won't stand for a guy/girl to wave in my face their gay. At that point I would say "Shut up, cause no one really cares." Sorry, harsh, but its the truth. 

I am glad this topic came up, cause my recruiter, and my fellow DEP'ers (Delayed Entry Programers) are spazzing out, and I just told them how I seen it. Everytime I think of homosexuals and the military I always think of 'I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" the shower scene I hope is not repeated in my case haha.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement late Friday calling the Pentagon's report on the issue a "flawed survey instrument." VFW had previously stated its opposition to repealing the military ban, but the 2.1 million-member group has stopped short of calling for grassroots advocacy on the issue.
> 
> We reported last week that social conservatives have been leading the fight against repeal.
> 
> Now it appears that veterans, who could be influential on this issue, are also weighing in.
> 
> Congress.org - News : Vets group criticizes DADT report



Ollie, do you respect the opinions of the soldiers in the field more than the VFW?
You have to make a choice here Ollie. You have to side with the soldiers in the field over the VFW and you know it.


----------



## daveman

Cain said:


> Look, I must admit, it bothers me somewhat that Homosexuals are so rapidly a growing trend...


I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement late Friday calling the Pentagon's report on the issue a "flawed survey instrument." VFW had previously stated its opposition to repealing the military ban, but the 2.1 million-member group has stopped short of calling for grassroots advocacy on the issue.
> 
> We reported last week that social conservatives have been leading the fight against repeal.
> 
> Now it appears that veterans, who could be influential on this issue, are also weighing in.
> 
> Congress.org - News : Vets group criticizes DADT report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie, do you respect the opinions of the soldiers in the field more than the VFW?
> You have to make a choice here Ollie. You have to side with the soldiers in the field over the VFW and you know it.
Click to expand...


NO I don't. I will side with the law. I disagree with repealing DADT. And if there were a vote I would vote against repealing it. As I have written to both of my senators and the White house telling them my views. That's all I can do. However the VFW is a very large organization, You can bet that a few politicians will take note of anything they endorse or come out against. I wished the American Legion and Am Vets would join them in opposing the repeal.


----------



## Cain

daveman said:


> Cain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I must admit, it bothers me somewhat that Homosexuals are so rapidly a growing trend...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.
Click to expand...


Eh, I just see so many people in high school coming out of the "closet" although I have found myself asking "Why in a closet in the first place?"


----------



## Ozmar

SmarterThanHick said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How many conversations have you had with people who were gay and you never knew it cause they didn't bring it up?"
> 
> How about you try thinking about this question, and answering it. It's not only an illogical question, it is a retardedly illogical question. Non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's illogical because it went over your head.  You pointed out situations in which the topic of conversation was the characteristic in question.  The point he was trying to make is that you have NO CLUE how many people you've had conversations with who were gay but DID NOT bring it up.  You can in fact replace the subject of your examples with just about anything.  I can similarly say that when sports fans bring up sports, they're always bringing up sports and want to talk about it.  In short: your argument was not valid.  His question was purposely contradictory, to point out your error, which you missed.
Click to expand...

Did you graduate grade school?

Unless someone is flamboyantly gay, there's really no way of knowing they are gay unless they bring it up. It's not a matter of something going over my head. My argument is perfectly valid.

If someone is not wearing fan clothes for a sports team, and doesn't bring up their favorite sports team, how the fuck am I supposed to know that person is a sports fan? Am I supposed to have sportsdar or something?

More to the point, if someone is not obviously gay, and doesn't bring up the fact that they are gay, I will not know that they are gay unless they tell me. The question is therefore illogical. If I talk to 100 people in a week, and not one of them mentions their sexuality, how the hell can I give an answer as to how many of those 100 people are gay? 

Don't bother answering that last question. You are too retarded to admit that you are wrong.


----------



## Gadawg73

daveman said:


> Cain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I must admit, it bothers me somewhat that Homosexuals are so rapidly a growing trend...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.
Click to expand...


Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.

He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.


----------



## rdean

SFC Ollie said:


> We've heard about every argument thare can be both for and against DADT.
> 
> *DADT was considered a gift to gay people when it was initiated*. Now they want special treatment. And yes if they are permitted to serve openly there will be special treatment. When we did away with the WAC and incorporated women into the regular army there was special treatment. With gays there will be even more.
> 
> Sorry, I still find it totally unacceptable. I am glad to be retired. But I will still support the numerous Veterans organizations regardless. And I will still continue to do volunteer work at the clinic.
> 
> But ending DADT is still a mistake.



That's so funny.  Right wingers squat on America.  They give trillions to millionaires and billionaires and consider it a "gift" to America.

Considering the number of gays who graduated at or near the top of their class, the Arabic translators who led American soldiers into Islamic cities.  The sacrifices the gays made.  It's the country who was "given the gift" of their service.  Too many right wingers hate the gays because they hate being shown up by men they consider "pansies" because of who they fall in love with.

Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva







Fehrenbach's discharge comes two years before he would have been able to take a 20-year retirement.

*Fehrenbach said he has nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion.* (how many straight soldiers are alive today because of this gay guy?) He told Maddow that he and his wingman spotted a dozen armored personnel carriers laying in wait for advancing U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad.

The wingman's plane suffered a malfunction which made it impossible for him to accurately fire his weapons, Sarvis said, so in addition to unleashing his own he guided the wingman so that he could fire on target, as well, all while under fire.

The two knocked out the ambush, he said.






AF Boots Decorated Pilot for Being Gay


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.......I've been a lifetime member of the VFW since 1992.

I still support gays serving in the military.

Bag Lady Ollie, the UPS delivery girl?  Fuck you very much asshole.  I'm glad you've retired.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Ozmar said:


> Unless someone is flamboyantly gay, there's really no way of knowing they are gay unless they bring it up. It's not a matter of something going over my head. My argument is perfectly valid.
> 
> If someone is not wearing fan clothes for a sports team, and doesn't bring up their favorite sports team, how the fuck am I supposed to know that person is a sports fan? Am I supposed to have sportsdar or something?
> 
> More to the point, if someone is not obviously gay, and doesn't bring up the fact that they are gay, I will not know that they are gay unless they tell me. The question is therefore illogical. If I talk to 100 people in a week, and not one of them mentions their sexuality, how the hell can I give an answer as to how many of those 100 people are gay?
> 
> Don't bother answering that last question. You are too retarded to admit that you are wrong.


Am I the second or third person telling you that you missed the point on this one?  How many is it going to take before it starts to sink in that you either have poor communication skills, or are completely missing his point?  I'm going to spell this one out for you, so you can figure out the answer.

You stated that you have spoken with gay people about things unrelated to sexuality and "somehow they always tend to bring it up."  This is known as a generalization.  In the context of this sentence, it appears that you are stating that all gay people always bring up their sexuality anytime you speak to them.  Note how my use of the word "always" is the same word you used in your sentence as well.  Generalization.  The point being that you would have no idea who is gay that does NOT bring up sexuality in a conversation, thus making your generalization of "somehow they always tend to bring it up" to be fallacious, as you have no way of gauging how often "they" actually do bring it up.  

Let me know if you have questions.


----------



## daveman

Cain said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I must admit, it bothers me somewhat that Homosexuals are so rapidly a growing trend...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I just see so many people in high school coming out of the "closet" although I have found myself asking "Why in a closet in the first place?"
Click to expand...

Because of attitudes like the OP's.


----------



## daveman

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I must admit, it bothers me somewhat that Homosexuals are so rapidly a growing trend...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
> As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.
> 
> He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.
Click to expand...

  A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.


----------



## Ozmar

daveman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
> As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.
> 
> He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'll be allowed back in once they repeal DADT.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Accord*ing to an arti*cle by Tom Philpott, the end of the DADT pol*icy will not mean that same-sex part*ners will auto*mat*i*cally gain access to mil*i*tary benefits, since the DoD is bound by the 1996 Defense of Mar*riage Act. The 1996 law, which defines mar*riage as a legal union between one man and one woman as hus*band and wife and defines spouse to mean  a per*son of the oppo*site sex who is a hus*band or a wife, also bars the Fed*eral gov*ern*ment from rec*og*niz*ing same-sex mar*riages and does not allow  spouse related ben*e*fits for gay part*ners.

http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/12/dadt-out-gay-benefits-in/


----------



## hortysir

If your going to c/p bullshit at least fix the damned spelling, Ollie


----------



## Gadawg73

daveman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it's more prevalent now than any other time in history.  It's just that fewer gays are hiding their sexuality than before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
> As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.
> 
> He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
Click to expand...


The workplace changed my mind Dave. As a former competitor I always admired the guy that worked hard and over came adversity. When I saw the hatred of gays and lesbians in the work place many years ago I sort of stood up for the underdog so to speak. Then I saw their work ethic and how they were really no different than me and my wife except they fall in love with folks of the same sex.
And there is something about me that does not give a shit about what other folks think. They put guys like me on the defensive line!!
I do not understand it but what is there to understand? I support their rights and fight for them. I have a friend of mine retired from the Army 2 years ago.
"40 years from now we will see how silly this argument was" is what he has been saying for a while.
And he once was also against their open service.
An open mind is a powerful thing and you have one.


----------



## bodecea

SmarterThanHick said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone is flamboyantly gay, there's really no way of knowing they are gay unless they bring it up. It's not a matter of something going over my head. My argument is perfectly valid.
> 
> If someone is not wearing fan clothes for a sports team, and doesn't bring up their favorite sports team, how the fuck am I supposed to know that person is a sports fan? Am I supposed to have sportsdar or something?
> 
> More to the point, if someone is not obviously gay, and doesn't bring up the fact that they are gay, I will not know that they are gay unless they tell me. The question is therefore illogical. If I talk to 100 people in a week, and not one of them mentions their sexuality, how the hell can I give an answer as to how many of those 100 people are gay?
> 
> Don't bother answering that last question. You are too retarded to admit that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the second or third person telling you that you missed the point on this one?  How many is it going to take before it starts to sink in that you either have poor communication skills, or are completely missing his point?  I'm going to spell this one out for you, so you can figure out the answer.
> 
> You stated that you have spoken with gay people about things unrelated to sexuality and "somehow they always tend to bring it up."  This is known as a generalization.  In the context of this sentence, it appears that you are stating that all gay people always bring up their sexuality anytime you speak to them.  Note how my use of the word "always" is the same word you used in your sentence as well.  Generalization.  The point being that you would have no idea who is gay that does NOT bring up sexuality in a conversation, thus making your generalization of "somehow they always tend to bring it up" to be fallacious, as you have no way of gauging how often "they" actually do bring it up.
> 
> Let me know if you have questions.
Click to expand...


Ah...good to know that my point was not that obscure.


----------



## bodecea

Ozmar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
> As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.
> 
> He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you'll be allowed back in once they repeal DADT.
Click to expand...


Did  you not get where he said it was an internet friend of his....not him?    Now I understand how you can so easily misunderstand other posters' posts.


----------



## daveman

Ozmar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
> As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.
> 
> He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you'll be allowed back in once they repeal DADT.
Click to expand...

I haven't left.  I retire in two months with 20 years of service.

Oh, you thought you were insulting me?  What's wrong with being gay?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

The OP is clearly is bigoted, probably closeted, dumbass,


----------



## daveman

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dave as it is obvious that many of us southerners have come to the reality of the facts concerning human sexuality years ago.
> As a flannel shirt wearing, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, former defensive end, straight, good old boy red neck I do not waste my time worrying about the gay boogey man.
> 
> He is not interested in me and I feel the same way. Been married 35 years and have come to the conclusion I do not understand it so I accept them as who they are and have found they are not bad folk at all.
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The workplace changed my mind Dave. As a former competitor I always admired the guy that worked hard and over came adversity. When I saw the hatred of gays and lesbians in the work place many years ago I sort of stood up for the underdog so to speak. Then I saw their work ethic and how they were really no different than me and my wife except they fall in love with folks of the same sex.
> And there is something about me that does not give a shit about what other folks think. They put guys like me on the defensive line!!
> I do not understand it but what is there to understand? I support their rights and fight for them. I have a friend of mine retired from the Army 2 years ago.
> "40 years from now we will see how silly this argument was" is what he has been saying for a while.
> And he once was also against their open service.
> An open mind is a powerful thing and you have one.
Click to expand...

As do you.  It's an increasingly rare thing, I think, an open mind.


----------



## SFC Ollie

hortysir said:


> If your going to c/p bullshit at least fix the damned spelling, Ollie



Excuse the fuck out of me, but Military.com is not Bullshit. And I don't know why the characters changed. Read the fucking link. It says so much more.


----------



## Sunni Man

daveman said:


> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.



Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your going to c/p bullshit at least fix the damned spelling, Ollie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse the fuck out of me, but Military.com is not Bullshit. And I don't know why the characters changed. Read the fucking link. It says so much more.
Click to expand...


Not our fault that you don't know how to operate a computer.  Guess being a bag lady in the Army is kinda to blame for that.

Fuck off you pussified pud pounding asshole.  Great that you're already retired, the military could use a lot less close minded dinosaurs such as yourself.

Good thing you've retired, now walk in front of a bus.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your going to c/p bullshit at least fix the damned spelling, Ollie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse the fuck out of me, but Military.com is not Bullshit. And I don't know why the characters changed. Read the fucking link. It says so much more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not our fault that you don't know how to operate a computer.  Guess being a bag lady in the Army is kinda to blame for that.
> 
> Fuck off you pussified pud pounding asshole.  Great that you're already retired, the military could use a lot less close minded dinosaurs such as yourself.
> 
> Good thing you've retired, now walk in front of a bus.
Click to expand...


Awe, does the paperpushers pussy hurt? Keep attacking my service dickwad and I'll keep sending the neg rep at you. Not fuck off, but fuck you. Have a fucked up day.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse the fuck out of me, but Military.com is not Bullshit. And I don't know why the characters changed. Read the fucking link. It says so much more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not our fault that you don't know how to operate a computer.  Guess being a bag lady in the Army is kinda to blame for that.
> 
> Fuck off you pussified pud pounding asshole.  Great that you're already retired, the military could use a lot less close minded dinosaurs such as yourself.
> 
> Good thing you've retired, now walk in front of a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awe, does the paperpushers pussy hurt? Keep attacking my service dickwad and I'll keep sending the neg rep at you. Not fuck off, but fuck you. Have a fucked up day.
Click to expand...


Keep attacking your service?  Not a chance asshole.........I'm attacking YOU PERSONALLY because you've got a bigoted fucked up attitude that will only harm our military if more people think as fucked as you.

Like I said......glad you retired.  Now do us all a favor and get your whole head in front of the rifle.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not our fault that you don't know how to operate a computer.  Guess being a bag lady in the Army is kinda to blame for that.
> 
> Fuck off you pussified pud pounding asshole.  Great that you're already retired, the military could use a lot less close minded dinosaurs such as yourself.
> 
> Good thing you've retired, now walk in front of a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe, does the paperpushers pussy hurt? Keep attacking my service dickwad and I'll keep sending the neg rep at you. Not fuck off, but fuck you. Have a fucked up day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep attacking your service?  Not a chance asshole.........I'm attacking YOU PERSONALLY because you've got a bigoted fucked up attitude that will only harm our military if more people think as fucked as you.
> 
> Like I said......glad you retired.  Now do us all a favor and get your whole head in front of the rifle.
Click to expand...


You cannot attack your betters without getting your ass kicked. haven't you had enough of that yet? 
You want to tell us all again about how brave you were behind that desk?


----------



## bodecea

Sunni Man said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.
Click to expand...


Fuck you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe, does the paperpushers pussy hurt? Keep attacking my service dickwad and I'll keep sending the neg rep at you. Not fuck off, but fuck you. Have a fucked up day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep attacking your service?  Not a chance asshole.........I'm attacking YOU PERSONALLY because you've got a bigoted fucked up attitude that will only harm our military if more people think as fucked as you.
> 
> Like I said......glad you retired.  Now do us all a favor and get your whole head in front of the rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot attack your betters without getting your ass kicked. haven't you had enough of that yet?
> You want to tell us all again about how brave you were behind that desk?
Click to expand...


How the fuck could an overweight, out of shape retarded bigoted asshole POSSIBLY be my better?

Oh yeah........forgot..........it's you thinking again.  By the way pussy, wanna explain why you attack MY service yet tell me that yours is off limits?

I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?  

As far as being brave behind my desk?  Nope.  Not really, just busy as shit keeping my error rates for pay and personnel for the command below 2 percent overall (Navy standards said 5 percent is outstanding), as well as volunteered for Security Forces (made squad leader in 6 months), was a member of the PRP team while stationed with FA-18's, was flight deck qualified to go up on deck, and a whole bunch of other stuff like counselor for alcohol and drugs, suicide prevention counselor, and physical fitness coordinator.

Nope, nothing wrong with working behind a desk, because I was competent at my job, I was allowed to volunteer for all sorts of other things.  Ever flown in an FA-18?  I have.

Not my fault all you got to do was be a delivery boy, that's on you, I actually volunteered for almost every duty that was different from what I'd done that I could.

Why else do you think I've also been deployed on CIVMAR ships as well as worked as the LPO of Amarillo MEPS?  From Sept 1999 until May 2002, the MEPS never missed goal, because I was running the show.  After I left?  They had to haul someone up from San Antonio because they MISSED for 10 months straight.

Yep, I'm proud of what I did.  Wanna try some more snide remarks?  I've been called a titless wave since '82 and it hasn't bothered me a bit.

You on the other hand are a bit sensitive about being a delivery boy.  Wanna explain why you're not proud of what you did?


----------



## Jos

ABikerSailor said:


> I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?


If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> You cannot attack your betters without getting your ass kicked. haven't you had enough of that yet?
> You want to tell us all again about how brave you were behind that desk?



I don't really care about your cat fight with that other dude, but you're still a thoughtless bigot.  Doesn't matter whether I'm saying that from behind a desk or on the moon.  It's still true.


----------



## Jos

The brits tried it
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## hortysir

Jos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
> theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight
Click to expand...

  Personnelmen made sure I got paid accordingly. i.e. sea pay, haz. duty pay, etc.... Also made sure I got deducted when I was fined 1/2 my pay for 2 months


----------



## ABikerSailor

Jos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
> theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight
Click to expand...


You're right, there is about 2 years of training at Coronado that you've gotta go through before being allowed to wear the Budweiser.  However, I never said that was the only thing, what I said is I couldn't pass the initial screening because of my eyesight.  Before volunteering though, I was running 30 miles/week and also in some of the best shape I've ever been.

And no, a PN isn't a teacher.  A PN is a paper pusher who is responsible for taking care of the service records and pay accounts of all enlisted members of the command.  If you stay as just a titless wave, yeah.........you don't do much.  However, if you use your job to find out all the other stuff you can do (like I did), then yeah, you can go just about anywhere.

It was only because of being selected for advanced YN/PN school from the PSD at Newport RI that allowed me to volunteer for CIVMAR fleet.  And, because I did so well on independent duty (yeah......I was a department head as an E-6, as well as one of the VERY FEW E-6's that was allowed to order, handle and run Navy Wide Advancement exams.  That's a billet that usually goes to an E-7 or higher), I was selected yet again to go to independent duty as the LPO of MEPS Amarillo.

200 bucks/month extra in classification pay was pretty sweet!


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot attack your betters without getting your ass kicked. haven't you had enough of that yet?
> You want to tell us all again about how brave you were behind that desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about your cat fight with that other dude, but you're still a thoughtless bigot.  Doesn't matter whether I'm saying that from behind a desk or on the moon.  It's still true.
Click to expand...


We all have our opinions, mine is based upon life experience, how about yours? Now why would you call me names for expressing my opinion? Are you as stupid as Gaybikerbitch?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Jos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
> theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight
Click to expand...


No Jose he worked in personnel, he was basically a clerk typist. And today he is a braggart.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
> theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Jose he worked in personnel, he was basically a clerk typist. And today he is a braggart.
Click to expand...


Like I asked before you hypocritical bastard, wanna explain why YOUR service is off limits, yet you seem to feel MINE is okay to denigrate?

Fucking idiot...........


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
> theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Jose he worked in personnel, he was basically a clerk typist. And today he is a braggart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I asked before you hypocritical bastard, wanna explain why YOUR service is off limits, yet you seem to feel MINE is okay to denigrate?
> 
> Fucking idiot...........
Click to expand...


No you little sawed off fuckhead, Look back at the many times I have made you eat shit. Each and every time,  you started it. Do play again sometime.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Like I said, at least I'm proud of what I did and don't have to hide my service.

You're the one that's pissed about being a delivery boy, not me.


----------



## Jos

SFC Ollie said:


> Like I asked before you hypocritical bastard, wanna explain why YOUR service is off limits, yet you seem to feel MINE is okay to denigrate?
> 
> Fucking idiot...........



No you little sawed off fuckhead, Look back at the many times I have made you eat shit. Each and every time,  you started it. Do play again sometime.[/QUOTE]

So would I be right in thinking you two are not Mates?


----------



## Jos

So tell me, was SFC your major achievement in life SFC Ollie?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Jos said:


> So tell me, was SFC your major achievement in life SFC Ollie?



Successfully raised 7 children, each of which lives their own lives and do not live on government handouts.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> We all have our opinions, mine is based upon life experience, how about yours? Now why would you call me names for expressing my opinion?


Yes, you are entitled to whatever mentally deficient opinion your little mind can spew forth.  The basic ability to form an opinion does not however mean it is a good one, or accurate, let alone equal to any other opinion.  Yours, for example, is complete trash.

My assessment of you which you pointed out as name calling stems from observation of your opinions, and accurately identifying the content therein.  You ARE a bigot. Do you disagree?  Perhaps you thought it was inaccurate to call you that because you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word?  Nonetheless, the prejudiced observation bias you call your limited life experience doesn't amount to much, just as the opinion drawn from it is similarly lacking in power. 

Let me know if you have any further questions.  I'd be happy to answer them.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, was SFC your major achievement in life SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Successfully raised 7 children, each of which lives their own lives and do not live on government handouts.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one who said one of his sons was living with him, picking through trash each week and selling it under the table at flea markets to avoid taxes? 

I also wouldn't say that figuring out how to get a woman pregnant and not abandoning the children is a major life achievement. At least brag that they went to college or something.


----------



## Jos

SFC Ollie said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, was SFC your major achievement in life SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Successfully raised 7 children, each of which lives their own lives and do not live on government handouts.
Click to expand...

Seven Kids? well done


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have our opinions, mine is based upon life experience, how about yours? Now why would you call me names for expressing my opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are entitled to whatever mentally deficient opinion your little mind can spew forth.  The basic ability to form an opinion does not however mean it is a good one, or accurate, let alone equal to any other opinion.  Yours, for example, is complete trash.
> 
> My assessment of you which you pointed out as name calling stems from observation of your opinions, and accurately identifying the content therein.  You ARE a bigot. Do you disagree?  Perhaps you thought it was inaccurate to call you that because you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word?  Nonetheless, the prejudiced observation bias you call your limited life experience doesn't amount to much, just as the opinion drawn from it is similarly lacking in power.
> 
> Let me know if you have any further questions.  I'd be happy to answer them.
Click to expand...


You have a right to your opinion and your opinion of me. Of course that opinion is wrong. It is obvious you don't know me and did not really follow my links I have posted in this thread. Now the people who automatically call people names seldom understand basic facts. Things like, did you know that my eldest step son is gay? And do you know he agrees with me that gays should not serve openly? Did you read the controversial articles I posted from Military.com? Did you understand when I said I will support the law? Did you read where I will still continue to support the numerous veterans organizations and continue to put in volunteer time at the local VA Clinic?

So you take your opinion of me and place it where the sun don't shine. have a lovely day.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Just because you know 1 gay person who is too afraid to serve, therefore believing that gays shouldn't serve hardly counts as a consensus Bag Lady Ollie.

70 percent of the military says they've got no problem.  BTW.........don't you think that kicking out an Arabic linguist serving in combat on the front lines when we've only got 500 TOTAL in the military is a waste of good resources?

If you don't, then tell me how many Americans you know that speak Arabic.  Then tell me how many who DO speak Arabic are willing to serve?  That is one of the hardest language specialties to find in recruiting.

Think Daniel Choi.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Just because you know 1 gay person who is too afraid to serve, therefore believing that gays shouldn't serve hardly counts as a consensus Bag Lady Ollie.
> 
> 70 percent of the military says they've got no problem.  BTW.........don't you think that kicking out an Arabic linguist serving in combat on the front lines when we've only got 500 TOTAL in the military is a waste of good resources?
> 
> If you don't, then tell me how many Americans you know that speak Arabic.  Then tell me how many who DO speak Arabic are willing to serve?  That is one of the hardest language specialties to find in recruiting.
> 
> Think Daniel Choi.



Breaking the established rules is not the way we make our military stronger. And people can be taught a language.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you know 1 gay person who is too afraid to serve, therefore believing that gays shouldn't serve hardly counts as a consensus Bag Lady Ollie.
> 
> 70 percent of the military says they've got no problem.  BTW.........don't you think that kicking out an Arabic linguist serving in combat on the front lines when we've only got 500 TOTAL in the military is a waste of good resources?
> 
> If you don't, then tell me how many Americans you know that speak Arabic.  Then tell me how many who DO speak Arabic are willing to serve?  That is one of the hardest language specialties to find in recruiting.
> 
> Think Daniel Choi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking the established rules is not the way we make our military stronger. And people can be taught a language.
Click to expand...


Really?  wanna tell that to the Tuskeege Airmen?  How about the Buffalo Soldiers?

On the day that Fillipinos were allowed to serve in something OTHER THAN service billets (steward, cook), it made the whole Navy stronger.

And anyone can be taught a language?  You do realize that Arabic is one of the toughest languages to learn, right?

Like I said, just because you know a gay person who is scared to serve, doesn't mean that your (or their) opinion is the right one.

All NATO countries allow their military to serve openly, and I've not seen any kind of negative impact.

Try again stupid..........


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> You have a right to your opinion and your opinion of me. Of course that opinion is wrong. It is obvious you don't know me and did not really follow my links I have posted in this thread. Now the people who automatically call people names seldom understand basic facts. Things like, did you know that my eldest step son is gay? And do you know he agrees with me that gays should not serve openly? Did you read the controversial articles I posted from Military.com? Did you understand when I said I will support the law? Did you read where I will still continue to support the numerous veterans organizations and continue to put in volunteer time at the local VA Clinic?


Yes.  I have read your stance on the matter.  The focus of it appears to stem from unsupported speculation, believing the ability to mention ones sexuality as equivalent to the changes that occurred when women were able to join the armed forces.  The basis of this completely unsupported speculation is that other people don't like it too.  This is called circular reasoning. People who draw reasonable opinions do so based on facts, evidence, and support to their beliefs. You do so based on......  articles that other people agree with you.  

Now let's examine my opinion of you being a bigot.  You believe that the identification of a specific group of people should be prohibited in the participation in the armed forces.  Now let's look at the definition of the word bigot:  "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance", where intolerance is defined as: "unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression" or "unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights".  Yeah, I'd say that describes you pretty well.  It's great that your son is gay, but perhaps you should be fighting for his rights to be secured so that all normal and reasonable differences are ACCEPTED in this country instead of pushing everyone into the closet because of your fears and unsupported speculation.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to your opinion and your opinion of me. Of course that opinion is wrong. It is obvious you don't know me and did not really follow my links I have posted in this thread. Now the people who automatically call people names seldom understand basic facts. Things like, did you know that my eldest step son is gay? And do you know he agrees with me that gays should not serve openly? Did you read the controversial articles I posted from Military.com? Did you understand when I said I will support the law? Did you read where I will still continue to support the numerous veterans organizations and continue to put in volunteer time at the local VA Clinic?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have read your stance on the matter.  The focus of it appears to stem from unsupported speculation, believing the ability to mention ones sexuality as equivalent to the changes that occurred when women were able to join the armed forces.  The basis of this completely unsupported speculation is that other people don't like it too.  This is called circular reasoning. People who draw reasonable opinions do so based on facts, evidence, and support to their beliefs. You do so based on......  articles that other people agree with you.
> 
> Now let's examine my opinion of you being a bigot.  You believe that the identification of a specific group of people should be prohibited in the participation in the armed forces.  Now let's look at the definition of the word bigot:  "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance", where intolerance is defined as: "unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression" or "unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights".  Yeah, I'd say that describes you pretty well.  It's great that your son is gay, but perhaps you should be fighting for his rights to be secured so that all normal and reasonable differences are ACCEPTED in this country instead of pushing everyone into the closet because of your fears and unsupported speculation.
Click to expand...


I was enlisted when they first started to allow women on seagoing vessels.  My next sea tour I was serving on a forward deployed unit (carrier) and we had women pilots.  Now?  They're allowing women to serve in all sorts of billets.

And yes........my Navy DID get stronger when we allowed women to serve on combat vessels.

Repealing DADT is not only the right thing to do, but after the first bit of adjustment period, it will seem like a silly fight.

And no.........just like you can't sexually harass women or men if you're the opposite gender, you can't harass people of the same gender if you're gay.  The UCMJ is quite clear on those rules.

The only people I could see protesting this are closeted individuals who are afraid of their own sexuality, or those who are simply ignorant bigots who need to leave the military ANYWAY.


----------



## daveman

Sunni Man said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.
Click to expand...


You're wrong, but that's the normal state of affairs for you.

I'd rather to into battle with my gay friend John than you, any day.  I wouldn't trust you anywhere near with me a weapon.


----------



## daveman

SFC Ollie said:


> Now why would you call me names for expressing my opinion?



Wait for it...


SFC Ollie said:


> Are you as stupid as Gaybikerbitch?


Hypocrite.


----------



## daveman

SFC Ollie said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a Personnelman.  It is one of the only 13 rates allowed to volunteer for SEALs (didn't qualify, because my vision was not correctable to 20/70), as well as the ONLY RATE that has a go anywhere, do anything capability?
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right Personnelman is basicly a Teacher?
> theres a lot more to getting a (NEC) 5326 selection than eyesight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Jose he worked in personnel, he was basically a clerk typist. And today he is a braggart.
Click to expand...

And without support personnel, you would not have been able to do your job, no matter what it was.  

Idiot.


----------



## daveman

Jos said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, was SFC your major achievement in life SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Successfully raised 7 children, each of which lives their own lives and do not live on government handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seven Kids? well done
Click to expand...

Pffft.  His wife did all the hard work.


----------



## ABikerSailor

daveman said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Successfully raised 7 children, each of which lives their own lives and do not live on government handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> Seven Kids? well done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffft.  His wife did all the hard work.
Click to expand...


You know.......according to Gee Ollie (the fat one who's a friend of Laurel), he considers gays to be "defective" in some way.

Wonder if that still counts as a "success"?


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, was SFC your major achievement in life SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Successfully raised 7 children, each of which lives their own lives and do not live on government handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weren't you the one who said one of his sons was living with him, picking through trash each week and selling it under the table at flea markets to avoid taxes?
> 
> I also wouldn't say that figuring out how to get a woman pregnant and not abandoning the children is a major life achievement. At least brag that they went to college or something.
Click to expand...


Um, I am not bragging, I was asked a question. And I did have one son living with me, he never picked trash, and has since moved to Europe and gotten married.  

Bragg about them? One is a member of the entertainers guild. One is a dental hygienist. Another is a Registered Nurse. Another is a Farm worker. Another is a shift supervisor at a manufacturing plant. One works for the US Government and one is a Homemaker like her mother. Now do go stick your nose in someone else business.


----------



## bodecea

daveman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but that's the normal state of affairs for you.
> 
> I'd rather to into battle with my gay friend John than you, any day.  I wouldn't trust you anywhere near with me a weapon.
Click to expand...


You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seven Kids? well done
> 
> 
> 
> Pffft.  His wife did all the hard work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know.......according to Gee Ollie (the fat one who's a friend of Laurel), he considers gays to be "defective" in some way.
> 
> Wonder if that still counts as a "success"?
Click to expand...


Hey asswipe, please show me where I said that.  Little fuckers like you are the only ones afraid of anything.


----------



## Cain

bodecea said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but that's the normal state of affairs for you.
> 
> I'd rather to into battle with my gay friend John than you, any day.  I wouldn't trust you anywhere near with me a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.
Click to expand...


Whenever I end up in a combat tour, I am going to trust my fellow soldiers. Whether gay or Muslim, I don't care. It doesn't change their capability as a soldier, or their loyalty to their comrades. 

I wouldn't want a military that judges based on personal beliefs, I want a military that judges on character, and above all, capability as a comrade in arms.


----------



## daveman

bodecea said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but that's the normal state of affairs for you.
> 
> I'd rather to into battle with my gay friend John than you, any day.  I wouldn't trust you anywhere near with me a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.
Click to expand...

No need to bring groups into it, because that will just devolve into posting stories about "a Muslim Soldier did this!" vs. "a gay Soldier did that!"

On a personal basis, one-on-one, face to face, I'd trust my gay friend John next to me armed.  I would not trust Sunni Man.  Their sexuality/religion have nothing to do with it.  Their character does.


----------



## bodecea

daveman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but that's the normal state of affairs for you.
> 
> I'd rather to into battle with my gay friend John than you, any day.  I wouldn't trust you anywhere near with me a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to bring groups into it, because that will just devolve into posting stories about "a Muslim Soldier did this!" vs. "a gay Soldier did that!"
> 
> On a personal basis, one-on-one, face to face, I'd trust my gay friend John next to me armed.  I would not trust Sunni Man.  Their sexuality/religion have nothing to do with it.  Their character does.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see your point.


----------



## daveman

bodecea said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to bring groups into it, because that will just devolve into posting stories about "a Muslim Soldier did this!" vs. "a gay Soldier did that!"
> 
> On a personal basis, one-on-one, face to face, I'd trust my gay friend John next to me armed.  I would not trust Sunni Man.  Their sexuality/religion have nothing to do with it.  Their character does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, I see your point.
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

10 Problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report - HUMAN EVENTS


1.  Report creates an answer to a question it failed to ask: Do you favor repeal?   The report states We did not poll the military or conduct a referendum on the overall question of whether to repeal the current [DADT] law.  

2. Costs associated with repeal.  The report estimates repeal will cost $30-$40 million for the expansion of benefits eligibility, privacy accommodations, and sensitivity training. 

3. CRWG silenced many who opposed repeal.  The CRWG conducted 95 face-to-face information exchange forums, 140 small focus group sessions and sponsored two web-based sites to gather confidential comments.  The report admits the majority of views expressed [in these fora] were against repeal of the current policy.   But that opposition was not quantified, according to the report, because it was too hard.

4. Who says homosexuals are any more perfect than anyone else? The report indicates many expressed discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be homosexual.  In spite of these concerns the report does not endorse separate bathroom facilities or living quarters.

5. Report fails to highlight surveys flaws.   The reports service member survey was emailed to 400,000 active and reserve personnel but only 28% responded, or five percent of the 2.2 million military force.  The report does not explain how the Defense Manpower Data Center selected those respondents.  Was it a true random sample or were those deployed excluded?  

Further, the Air Force (39% responded) and Coast Guard (54% responded) enjoyed a disproportionate advantage to the much larger Army (19% responded).   The report fails to account for this dramatic difference.


So basically the survey was a 10 month waste of time and money and proves nothing. And I only hit the highlights. Please follow the link and read more.

10 Problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## Gadawg73

bodecea said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Marines won by getting rid of a homo pervert in their ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but that's the normal state of affairs for you.
> 
> I'd rather to into battle with my gay friend John than you, any day.  I wouldn't trust you anywhere near with me a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.
Click to expand...


I would trust them both equally if one was not a homophobe.
Sunni Man would frag the gay soldier given the oppurtunity.


----------



## Ozmar

daveman said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good internet friend of mine changed my mind about gays serving openly.  He was a good Marine, but he couldn't hide who he was anymore...so he got out.  The Corps lost out, he lost out, and America lost out.  Nobody won.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be allowed back in once they repeal DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't left.  I retire in two months with 20 years of service.
> 
> Oh, you thought you were insulting me?  What's wrong with being gay?
Click to expand...


Nothing. Do you think something is wrong with being gay, homophobe?


----------



## Ozmar

bodecea said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up a valid point that needs bringing up....whom do you trust (based on past track records) with a weapon near you in a firefight....a gay soldier or a Muslim soldier.   Awkward, but needs to be asked.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to bring groups into it, because that will just devolve into posting stories about "a Muslim Soldier did this!" vs. "a gay Soldier did that!"
> 
> On a personal basis, one-on-one, face to face, I'd trust my gay friend John next to me armed.  I would not trust Sunni Man.  Their sexuality/religion have nothing to do with it.  Their character does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, I see your point.
Click to expand...


Considering what planet you two are from, I don't doubt it creeper.


----------



## daveman

Ozmar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be allowed back in once they repeal DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't left.  I retire in two months with 20 years of service.
> 
> Oh, you thought you were insulting me?  What's wrong with being gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing. Do you think something is wrong with being gay, homophobe?
Click to expand...


Not at all.  And do you think my support of gays serving openly in the military is indicative of homophobia, or are you just lashing out mindlessly?

Evidence suggests the latter.


----------



## daveman

Ozmar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to bring groups into it, because that will just devolve into posting stories about "a Muslim Soldier did this!" vs. "a gay Soldier did that!"
> 
> On a personal basis, one-on-one, face to face, I'd trust my gay friend John next to me armed.  I would not trust Sunni Man.  Their sexuality/religion have nothing to do with it.  Their character does.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering what planet you two are from, I don't doubt it creeper.
Click to expand...

Yup...just lashing out mindlessly.


----------



## Ozmar

daveman said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't left.  I retire in two months with 20 years of service.
> 
> Oh, you thought you were insulting me?  What's wrong with being gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing. Do you think something is wrong with being gay, homophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  And do you think my support of gays serving openly in the military is indicative of homophobia, or are you just lashing out mindlessly?
> 
> Evidence suggests the latter.
Click to expand...

 Provide this evidence. I support a repeal of DADT. Then you can serve as openly as you want.



daveman said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering what planet you two are from, I don't doubt it creeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...just lashing out mindlessly.
Click to expand...

 Yeah, you should really stop that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pffft.  His wife did all the hard work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know.......according to Gee Ollie (the fat one who's a friend of Laurel), he considers gays to be "defective" in some way.
> 
> Wonder if that still counts as a "success"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey asswipe, please show me where I said that.  Little fuckers like you are the only ones afraid of anything.
Click to expand...


Tell ya what fuckstain.......I'll show you with simple logic.........

You've stated REPEATEDLY that gays are somehow insufficient (therefore "defective" in some way) to serve in the military.

You've also stated in a previous post that one of your children is gay.  Stating that they're gay in light of what you've stated about the capability of gays serving in the military, would indicate that they are somehow "defective" because they are incapable of serving in YOUR military.

You've stated that your "success" is having 7 children.

One of those children (by your standards that you've stated about gays and the military) is "defective".

How can something be a success with a defect?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Ollie this is a simple issue.  Do you or do you not believe gay people are equivalent to straight people in every way except for sexuality?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

SmarterThanHick said:


> Ollie this is a simple issue.  Do you or do you not believe gay people are equivalent to straight people in every way except for sexuality?



I know I am, and FYI. gayness has alotta advantages of straightness lol, but we do tho.


----------



## bodecea

Ozmar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to bring groups into it, because that will just devolve into posting stories about "a Muslim Soldier did this!" vs. "a gay Soldier did that!"
> 
> On a personal basis, one-on-one, face to face, I'd trust my gay friend John next to me armed.  I would not trust Sunni Man.  Their sexuality/religion have nothing to do with it.  Their character does.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering what planet you two are from, I don't doubt it creeper.
Click to expand...


Care to share your military experience with us for comparison?


----------



## bodecea

daveman said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't left.  I retire in two months with 20 years of service.
> 
> Oh, you thought you were insulting me?  What's wrong with being gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing. Do you think something is wrong with being gay, homophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  And do you think my support of gays serving openly in the military is indicative of homophobia, or are you just lashing out mindlessly?
> 
> Evidence suggests the latter.
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to gather that Reading Comprehension evades Ozmar....badly.


----------



## daveman

bodecea said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing. Do you think something is wrong with being gay, homophobe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  And do you think my support of gays serving openly in the military is indicative of homophobia, or are you just lashing out mindlessly?
> 
> Evidence suggests the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to gather that Reading Comprehension evades Ozmar....badly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps English is his second language, or he's recovering from some head trauma.  

Or he's just stupid.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> Ollie this is a simple issue.  Do you or do you not believe gay people are equivalent to straight people in every way except for sexuality?



There is no doubt about that. 

Littlebikerbitch is dreaming things up that I never said.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.......according to Gee Ollie (the fat one who's a friend of Laurel), he considers gays to be "defective" in some way.
> 
> Wonder if that still counts as a "success"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey asswipe, please show me where I said that.  Little fuckers like you are the only ones afraid of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell ya what fuckstain.......I'll show you with simple logic.........
> 
> You've stated REPEATEDLY that gays are somehow insufficient (therefore "defective" in some way) to serve in the military.
> 
> You've also stated in a previous post that one of your children is gay.  Stating that they're gay in light of what you've stated about the capability of gays serving in the military, would indicate that they are somehow "defective" because they are incapable of serving in YOUR military.
> 
> You've stated that your "success" is having 7 children.
> 
> One of those children (by your standards that you've stated about gays and the military) is "defective".
> 
> How can something be a success with a defect?
Click to expand...


Never said that gays were defective child, go tell your lies about someone else.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey, Stupid Fucker Called Ollie..........YOU stated that gays are somehow unfit to serve, and you don't believe that they should be allowed.

Therefore, there is something wrong with them because they are disqualified from military service because of their sexual orientation.

Like I said, just because you know 1 gay person who happens to be a coward that doesn't want to serve in the US Military, doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve.

Got news for you sportcheck..........I've known there were gays in my military since 1983 when I met one and he told me his orientation.  Know what?  At overseas ports that dude was a chick MAGNET and because I hung out with him, I got more ladies than I knew what to do with.

He was also a damn fine sailor.  

Also, I lived with 2 lesbians while stationed in Norfolk.  Know what?  Both were some of the sharpest sailors in their rates, and BOTH had Navy Achievement Medals.

It's only bigoted assholes such as yourself who feel that gays are somehow unfit to serve in the military.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey, Stupid Fucker Called Ollie..........YOU stated that gays are somehow unfit to serve, and you don't believe that they should be allowed.
> 
> Therefore, there is something wrong with them because they are disqualified from military service because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> Like I said, just because you know 1 gay person who happens to be a coward that doesn't want to serve in the US Military, doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve.
> 
> Got news for you sportcheck..........I've known there were gays in my military since 1983 when I met one and he told me his orientation.  Know what?  At overseas ports that dude was a chick MAGNET and because I hung out with him, I got more ladies than I knew what to do with.
> 
> He was also a damn fine sailor.
> 
> Also, I lived with 2 lesbians while stationed in Norfolk.  Know what?  Both were some of the sharpest sailors in their rates, and BOTH had Navy Achievement Medals.
> 
> It's only bigoted assholes such as yourself who feel that gays are somehow unfit to serve in the military.



Wait a minute, Did you just call my son a coward? 

And you can take your achievement medals and place them where the sun don't shine asswipe. You really do not want to compare medals with me. Not that I would brag about them anyway. 

*I'll wait a very short time for the apology to my son.*


----------



## ABikerSailor

You're the one that stated he doesn't think he (or people like him) belong in the military.

Because I know gays who DID serve in the military, that makes that individual a coward.


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> You're the one that stated he doesn't think he (or people like him) belong in the military.
> 
> Because I know gays who DID serve in the military, that makes that individual a coward.



No it doesn't.   Knock the crap off.   The military is not for everyone.   It is one thing to CHOOSE to not serve.   It is another thing to not serve and try to tell others how they should or should not be in the military.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Bikerbitch I think I'll wait just another few moments before I report this. Why? Because you are an ass. I tried to be nice about this but that must be why you remained a Junior NCO, because you only understand things when they are forced upon you by authority.

Now give up the apology asswipe.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie this is a simple issue.  Do you or do you not believe gay people are equivalent to straight people in every way except for sexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt about that.
> 
> Littlebikerbitch is dreaming things up that I never said.
Click to expand...


OK.  So what issues do you think ought to change if this equivalent group happens to just identify their orientation?


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> Bikerbitch I think I'll wait just another few moments before I report this. Why? Because you are an ass. I tried to be nice about this but that must be why you remained a Junior NCO, because you only understand things when they are forced upon you by authority.
> 
> Now give up the apology asswipe.



Nope.  I stated my views without stating directly that it was your son.

You want an apology out of me?  You're gonna have to come to Amarillo and beat it out of me.

Good luck with that.

My personal opinion is that anyone who doesn't serve in the military because they are afraid of what would happen to them is a coward.

I've even stated the same thing back when on the news it was shown that there were 2 Marines turned consiencious objector because they didn't join the military to go to combat, they joined because of the educational benefits.

Anyone who won't serve, or at least try to serve is a coward.  But, you don't have to serve in the military per se.  

There's also the Peace Corps.  

Why do I feel that way?  Simple........the more narrow your view of the world, the less you understand it, and I personally believe that people in this country should ALL travel abroad to other countries.  

Helps a person to get rid of the ugly American syndrome.

And yes, I've been personally stationed in 4 war zones.  Did I quit or get out because I was there for benefits and not the Navy?  Nope.  I knew what I was getting into when I joined and expected it.


----------



## steelpoint

I'm not homosexual, but in my opinion the only people who fully understand homosexuality is homosexuals. By saying that because they like people of the same sex they can't do something which is unrelated to their preference because of their preference is against their consistiutional right of individuality. Therefore, as a rebutal I offer the alternative solution of our country being the leader in this cause and educating other contries about all prefrence of sexuality. However, first that would require educating the masses of Americans on the subject. This unfortunately proves difficult due to ethnic and religious diversity of our country. Such it is that such ignorant comments such as the OP has made are created. P.S. I'm not even 18 and I know this.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie this is a simple issue.  Do you or do you not believe gay people are equivalent to straight people in every way except for sexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt about that.
> 
> Littlebikerbitch is dreaming things up that I never said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.  So what issues do you think ought to change if this equivalent group happens to just identify their orientation?
Click to expand...


Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.


----------



## ABikerSailor

steelpoint said:


> I'm not homosexual, but in my opinion the only people who fully understand homosexuality is homosexuals. By saying that because they like people of the same sex they can't do something which is unrelated to their preference because of their preference is against their consistiutional right of individuality. Therefore, as a rebutal I offer the alternative solution of our country being the leader in this cause and educating other contries about all prefrence of sexuality. However, first that would require educating the masses of Americans on the subject. This unfortunately proves difficult due to ethnic and religious diversity of our country. Such it is that such ignorant comments such as the OP has made are created. P.S. I'm not even 18 and I know this.



You're not even 18 and you know this already?  Good on ya dude.

But......to partially answer your question, did you know that EVERY OTHER NATO COUNTRY allows gays to serve OPENLY in their military?

The US is the only NATO country that doesn't.  

Interestingly enough, none have had problems with it.


----------



## steelpoint

I think Bodecea is ignorant to the fact that Homosexuals are fully functioning humans capable of thought and emotion. On top of all of this is "Is being gay a choice or are you born gay?" and due to the varying degrees of sexuality such as bisexuallity I believe it can be either. Some people choose gay and some people are born gay.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt about that.
> 
> Littlebikerbitch is dreaming things up that I never said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  So what issues do you think ought to change if this equivalent group happens to just identify their orientation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.
Click to expand...



Ah...the Potty Principle.....I remember that one from when they wanted to keep us women off ships.


----------



## ABikerSailor

steelpoint said:


> I think Biker is ignorant to the fact that Homosexuals are fully functioning humans capable of thought and emotion. On top of all of this is "Is being gay a choice or are you born gay?" and due to the varying degrees of sexuality such as bisexuallity I believe it can be either. Some people choose gay and some people are born gay.



OOps, you lost it there sparky.

I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002.  After I checked onto my VERY FIRST SHIP, I found out that one of my friends was gay.  I've never had a problem serving with someone based on their sexual orientation, gender or belief system.  It's not mine to judge, all I'm concerned about is do you know how to do your job competently or not?

Stupid Fucker Called Ollie is the one that thinks gays are unfit to serve.

Keep the sides straight, you'll last longer here.


----------



## steelpoint

Biker, if that's true. That just gives us more of a reason to fight for gay rights. Thanks for the info. I didnt know that.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> steelpoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not homosexual, but in my opinion the only people who fully understand homosexuality is homosexuals. By saying that because they like people of the same sex they can't do something which is unrelated to their preference because of their preference is against their consistiutional right of individuality. Therefore, as a rebutal I offer the alternative solution of our country being the leader in this cause and educating other contries about all prefrence of sexuality. However, first that would require educating the masses of Americans on the subject. This unfortunately proves difficult due to ethnic and religious diversity of our country. Such it is that such ignorant comments such as the OP has made are created. P.S. I'm not even 18 and I know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even 18 and you know this already?  Good on ya dude.
> 
> But......to partially answer your question, did you know that EVERY OTHER NATO COUNTRY allows gays to serve OPENLY in their military?
> 
> The US is the only NATO country that doesn't.
> 
> Interestingly enough, none have had problems with it.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> steelpoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Biker is ignorant to the fact that Homosexuals are fully functioning humans capable of thought and emotion. On top of all of this is "Is being gay a choice or are you born gay?" and due to the varying degrees of sexuality such as bisexuallity I believe it can be either. Some people choose gay and some people are born gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOps, you lost it there sparky.
> 
> I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002.  After I checked onto my VERY FIRST SHIP, I found out that one of my friends was gay.  I've never had a problem serving with someone based on their sexual orientation, gender or belief system.  It's not mine to judge, all I'm concerned about is do you know how to do your job competently or not?
> 
> Stupid Fucker Called Ollie is the one that thinks gays are unfit to serve.
> 
> Keep the sides straight, you'll last longer here.
Click to expand...


Why do you lie so much? That must be another reason you never made it past E6. Never have I said that Gays are unfit to serve. I said they shouldn't serve openly. And I will continue to say so until proven wrong. Which you can't do because you are a proven liar and have zero credibility. If I thought they were unfit to serve I would say to please repeal DADT and replace it with Do Ask and Do tell and do discharge immediately. You sure don't listen well. 
How about the VFW coming out with their statement against repealing DADT? Are they saying that gays are unfit too?


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steelpoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not homosexual, but in my opinion the only people who fully understand homosexuality is homosexuals. By saying that because they like people of the same sex they can't do something which is unrelated to their preference because of their preference is against their consistiutional right of individuality. Therefore, as a rebutal I offer the alternative solution of our country being the leader in this cause and educating other contries about all prefrence of sexuality. However, first that would require educating the masses of Americans on the subject. This unfortunately proves difficult due to ethnic and religious diversity of our country. Such it is that such ignorant comments such as the OP has made are created. P.S. I'm not even 18 and I know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even 18 and you know this already?  Good on ya dude.
> 
> But......to partially answer your question, did you know that EVERY OTHER NATO COUNTRY allows gays to serve OPENLY in their military?
> 
> The US is the only NATO country that doesn't.
> 
> Interestingly enough, none have had problems with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.
Click to expand...


In most cases I've seen, other NATO countries are held up as proof that having gay soldiers / sailors does not spell the end of them as an effective fighting force....as the homophobes claim.


----------



## steelpoint

SFC Ollie said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt about that.
> 
> Littlebikerbitch is dreaming things up that I never said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  So what issues do you think ought to change if this equivalent group happens to just identify their orientation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why latrines have to change it's not like gay people aren't human they're just gay. And as far as transvestites go (I think that's the right word) I have a transvestite friend and part of the subculture is to pick the sex your most like and fill forms out accordingly. But the hole trany thing is a different fight for a different day.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steelpoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not homosexual, but in my opinion the only people who fully understand homosexuality is homosexuals. By saying that because they like people of the same sex they can't do something which is unrelated to their preference because of their preference is against their consistiutional right of individuality. Therefore, as a rebutal I offer the alternative solution of our country being the leader in this cause and educating other contries about all prefrence of sexuality. However, first that would require educating the masses of Americans on the subject. This unfortunately proves difficult due to ethnic and religious diversity of our country. Such it is that such ignorant comments such as the OP has made are created. P.S. I'm not even 18 and I know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even 18 and you know this already?  Good on ya dude.
> 
> But......to partially answer your question, did you know that EVERY OTHER NATO COUNTRY allows gays to serve OPENLY in their military?
> 
> The US is the only NATO country that doesn't.
> 
> Interestingly enough, none have had problems with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.
Click to expand...


I'm stating that all our allies allow gays, nothing more.

If you want reasons WHY gays should be allowed to serve look at Lt. Dan Choi, who was a forward air controller who SPOKE ARABIC!!!!!! 

That meant he could understand the enemy IN A WAR ZONE.  

And, he was fluent, which is why he was so valuable.  Out of our ENTIRE MILITARY, we only have 500 Arabic speaking troops.  When he was discharged for being gay (after several honorable years of service), we lost a valuable asset, making the policy stupid as well as does harm to our military.

There's also a 19 year Air Force pilot (who saved a whole squad by himself in his aircraft, resulting in the Distinguished Flying Cross with combat insignia) who was kicked out because someone saw his e-mails and figured out he was gay.

Know how much it costs to replace a pilot?  Roughly 1.5 million dollars.  Yet another waste.

And there are many stories like that.  Having served with gays, I've noticed that they pay better attention to detail than their straight counterparts.

Attention to detail is what they drill into you from boot camp on.


----------



## steelpoint

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even 18 and you know this already?  Good on ya dude.
> 
> But......to partially answer your question, did you know that EVERY OTHER NATO COUNTRY allows gays to serve OPENLY in their military?
> 
> The US is the only NATO country that doesn't.
> 
> Interestingly enough, none have had problems with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most cases I've seen, other NATO countries are held up as proof that having gay soldiers / sailors does not spell the end of them as an effective fighting force....as the homophobes claim.
Click to expand...


I agree which is why education about LGBT will be an important step on the path to acceptance.


----------



## steelpoint

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even 18 and you know this already?  Good on ya dude.
> 
> But......to partially answer your question, did you know that EVERY OTHER NATO COUNTRY allows gays to serve OPENLY in their military?
> 
> The US is the only NATO country that doesn't.
> 
> Interestingly enough, none have had problems with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm stating that all our allies allow gays, nothing more.
> 
> If you want reasons WHY gays should be allowed to serve look at Lt. Dan Choi, who was a forward air controller who SPOKE ARABIC!!!!!!
> 
> That meant he could understand the enemy IN A WAR ZONE.
> 
> And, he was fluent, which is why he was so valuable.  Out of our ENTIRE MILITARY, we only have 500 Arabic speaking troops.  When he was discharged for being gay (after several honorable years of service), we lost a valuable asset, making the policy stupid as well as does harm to our military.
> 
> There's also a 19 year Air Force pilot (who saved a whole squad by himself in his aircraft, resulting in the Distinguished Flying Cross with combat insignia) who was kicked out because someone saw his e-mails and figured out he was gay.
> 
> Know how much it costs to replace a pilot?  Roughly 1.5 million dollars.  Yet another waste.
> 
> And there are many stories like that.  Having served with gays, I've noticed that they pay better attention to detail than their straight counterparts.
> 
> Attention to detail is what they drill into you from boot camp on.
Click to expand...


I just want to comment that, i don't know how that millitary court work, but if it is like normal court then that case should have been dismissed because it was his private email which is illegal to read (Its like stealling mail)


----------



## steelpoint

Sorry guys I got to go because I need to review my material before my EAGLE SCOUT BOARD OF REVIEW. fight whicha l8r homyz!!!


----------



## Sunni Man

Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?

Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.

And have No business being around normal soldiers.


----------



## steelpoint

Because they're people just like you and they a right too do what they want, plus just because they're gay doesn't mean they're weak willed. Say so would be line saying if your a women you weak willed and we know that's not true.


----------



## Gadawg73

Sunni Man said:


> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.



Something about the Constitution and living in a free country. 
They do it another way in Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia.
My peers require proof when I make absurd claims.
Obviously yours do not.


----------



## kwc57

steelpoint said:


> Sorry guys I got to go because I need to review my material before my EAGLE SCOUT BOARD OF REVIEW. fight whicha l8r homyz!!!



Hope all goes well on your board!!!  Is this your first board or final?  My son has his final next Tuesday evening.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Sunni Man said:


> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.


I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.
Click to expand...


I knew I befriended you for a reason.


----------



## Sunni Man

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something about the Constitution and living in a free country.
Click to expand...

Exactly where in the Constitution is the need for sodomite solders addressed?


----------



## Sunni Man

Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't *evolved* past the 7th century.
Click to expand...


So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't *evolved* past the 7th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?
Click to expand...


Coming from a pervert whose perverted cult of Islam was concocted by a pedophile Mahomet who packed a 6 year old little girl.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

Marc39 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't *evolved* past the 7th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a pervert whose perverted cult of Islam was concocted by a pedophile Mahomet who packed a 6 year old little girl.
Click to expand...


Bam!  On behalf of all proud homos, thank you sir for fuckin this lame ass, closeted troll up!


----------



## Oscar Wao

Sunni Man said:


> So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Sunni Man

Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
Click to expand...

The world would have got along just fine without these any of these perverts.


----------



## 52ndStreet

The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!


----------



## Ozmar

I know... homosexual soldiers are so dangerous!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs-U2OM02w[/ame]

Wait a minute! That was a Mohameddan soldier!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Ozmar said:


> I know... homosexual soldiers are so dangerous!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs-U2OM02w
> 
> Wait a minute! That was a Mohameddan soldier!



And a whole other subject.


----------



## ABikerSailor

52ndStreet said:


> The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
> as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
> and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
> is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
> I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
> Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
> is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
> These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!



Hold on a minute............first question.........have YOU served?

Sunnidiot (Sunni Man) served 1 year in 'Nam.  According to some of his posts, his service is questionable.

How many years did you serve again?

Ya wanna talk about "lowering the standards"?  Ever hear about Reagan's 500 ship Navy?  We had to lower a LOT of standards then.

BTW asshole........speaking as a military retiree who has served in no less than 4 war zones, as well as served with both gay and lesbian service members, what authority do you have that you can point to HONESTLY?

Been my experience that many gay and lesbian service members are better in many ways than those that are straight.  The military deploys to foreign lands, and every service member is an ambassador for the US.  

Wanna care to guess who is the most likely to understand those who are different from them?


----------



## daveman

steelpoint said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm stating that all our allies allow gays, nothing more.
> 
> If you want reasons WHY gays should be allowed to serve look at Lt. Dan Choi, who was a forward air controller who SPOKE ARABIC!!!!!!
> 
> That meant he could understand the enemy IN A WAR ZONE.
> 
> And, he was fluent, which is why he was so valuable.  Out of our ENTIRE MILITARY, we only have 500 Arabic speaking troops.  When he was discharged for being gay (after several honorable years of service), we lost a valuable asset, making the policy stupid as well as does harm to our military.
> 
> There's also a 19 year Air Force pilot (who saved a whole squad by himself in his aircraft, resulting in the Distinguished Flying Cross with combat insignia) who was kicked out because someone saw his e-mails and figured out he was gay.
> 
> Know how much it costs to replace a pilot?  Roughly 1.5 million dollars.  Yet another waste.
> 
> And there are many stories like that.  Having served with gays, I've noticed that they pay better attention to detail than their straight counterparts.
> 
> Attention to detail is what they drill into you from boot camp on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just want to comment that, i don't know how that millitary court work, but if it is like normal court then that case should have been dismissed because it was his private email which is illegal to read (Its like stealling mail)
Click to expand...

If it was on a government email system, it's subject to monitoring.  Every time you log on to a DoD computer, there's a notice and consent banner that says the system is monitored, and use of the system is granting consent to that monitoring.  It's designed for operations security, not catching the gays guys.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Not only that Dave Man, but people ought to be aware that when you join the military, you give up 50-75 percent of your rights as a civvie.


----------



## Gadawg73

52ndStreet said:


> The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
> as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
> and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
> is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
> I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
> Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
> is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
> These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!



If two people love each other why is that love bad?
How does that love affect military service and leadership?
How is love immoral?
How does love make one unfit?
You are unfit as an American citizen. You are anti freedom.
True patriots seek to protect the rights of citizens they may despise the most.
You are weak and do not know and understand the basics of freedom. Please exit the domain of The United States of America at your earliest convenience.
Your milk is weak if something as small as human sexuality affects your judgement. We do not want you amongst the strong and builders of freedom.
IOW, take a fucking hike son. You are too immature, giullible and naive to understand freedom and the support of INDIVIDUAL rights.
We are a nation of MEN, not boys and their religous beliefs.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.


What about the latrines would need to change?  Wait a minute now.  It was ok for all males to use latrines when we don't know who was gay, but suddenly it's different now that people are out?  Are you serious?  The basic bathroom etiquette of "eyes on the road" apply regardless of gender or sexuality.  What about housing needs to change?  Gay and straight men can't be in the same facility?  That's bonkers.  Again, you had no problem with this when no one could mention sexuality but suddenly it's a problem now that people are self-identified?  Ridiculous. Sensitivity training will and SHOULD be changed on this topic, for ALL Americans, not just soldiers, so that people like YOUR OWN SON are not scared about the concept of removing DADT.  But as you said, you don't have the answers, and as you've shown, the answers you do have are crap and not thought out. And yet you still have this opinion.  This comes back to and confirms what I was saying before: not all opinions are equal, and yours is crap based on "I don't know but I can guess!"  Intelligent people base opinions on facts and supporting evidence.  So yes, after your clarification, I am inclined to again believe you are bigoted, by the very definition of the word. 

If you feel I have misinterpreted your stance in some way, please clarify.


----------



## daveman

ABikerSailor said:


> Not only that Dave Man, but people ought to be aware that when you join the military, you give up 50-75 percent of your rights as a civvie.


Yup.  I think it's worth it, or else I wouldn't have stuck around so long.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

High_Gravity said:


> I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.


You're right in thinking the old "if everyone else jumped off a bridge" saying means you shouldn't just blindly follow the pack.  I think the point there was that other countries took the plunge and the resulting evidence is favorable.  So, don't just do it because others are doing it.  Do it because the evidence shows it's perfectly fine.



Sunni Man said:


> Exactly where in the Constitution is the need for sodomite solders addressed?


No where.  And that's the point. 

You know, even for a troll you do say some stupid things that are clearly the result of actual stupidity and not just the trolling.



52ndStreet said:


> The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
> as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
> and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
> is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.



It sounds like you don't understand the concept of morality as it applies to the armed forces.  So what specific part of actually being a soldier is negatively affected by sexual orientation?  I'm not asking for a vague category like "morality".  Give me specifics.  For example, if a soldier is incapable of seeing, that would negatively affect their ability to serve.  If a soldier is actively psychotic and listens to voices telling him to kill friends, that would directly be a negative characteristic for serving.  Clearly you see WHY these things are bad for being a soldier.  

If you want to talk STANDARDS, this is the question you should ask: What part about being gay specifically makes a soldier  incapable of effectively fulfilling their duties?


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the latrines would need to change?  Wait a minute now.  It was ok for all males to use latrines when we don't know who was gay, but suddenly it's different now that people are out?  Are you serious?  The basic bathroom etiquette of "eyes on the road" apply regardless of gender or sexuality.  What about housing needs to change?  Gay and straight men can't be in the same facility?  That's bonkers.  Again, you had no problem with this when no one could mention sexuality but suddenly it's a problem now that people are self-identified?  Ridiculous. Sensitivity training will and SHOULD be changed on this topic, for ALL Americans, not just soldiers, so that people like YOUR OWN SON are not scared about the concept of removing DADT.  But as you said, you don't have the answers, and as you've shown, the answers you do have are crap and not thought out. And yet you still have this opinion.  This comes back to and confirms what I was saying before: not all opinions are equal, and yours is crap based on "I don't know but I can guess!"  Intelligent people base opinions on facts and supporting evidence.  So yes, after your clarification, I am inclined to again believe you are bigoted, by the very definition of the word.
> 
> If you feel I have misinterpreted your stance in some way, please clarify.
Click to expand...


Have you taken time to read this? 10 Problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## steelpoint

Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?
> 
> Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.
> 
> And have No business being around normal soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.
Click to expand...


Alright guys that's kind of inappropriate.


----------



## steelpoint

ABikerSailor said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
> as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
> and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
> is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
> I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
> Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
> is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
> These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute............first question.........have YOU served?
> 
> Sunnidiot (Sunni Man) served 1 year in 'Nam.  According to some of his posts, his service is questionable.
> 
> How many years did you serve again?
> 
> Ya wanna talk about "lowering the standards"?  Ever hear about Reagan's 500 ship Navy?  We had to lower a LOT of standards then.
> 
> BTW asshole........speaking as a military retiree who has served in no less than 4 war zones, as well as served with both gay and lesbian service members, what authority do you have that you can point to HONESTLY?
> 
> Been my experience that many gay and lesbian service members are better in many ways than those that are straight.  The military deploys to foreign lands, and every service member is an ambassador for the US.
> 
> Wanna care to guess who is the most likely to understand those who are different from them?
Click to expand...


Hoorah!!!!!


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I just read your article, and now understand where you're getting your ridiculous ideas.  I'll knock down each of their 10 points individually.  First let me start by saying I don't care about the speculation or unsupported opinion of other people, so any point focusing on "but some percent believed something" is worthless.  The best evidence we have as to whether armed forces can act successfully with openly gay individuals is examining other countries that already do it.  As someone else pointed out, every other NATO country allows sexual identification, without negative consequences arising from it. With that being said, questions that focus on speculation or mere opinion include 1, 3, 4, 8, 9

2: worries that extending equal rights to gays will cost money.  Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?  Yes, offering equality means you need to provide the same things for a previously disenfranchised group.  Or do you think this minority group should be treated as deserving of less than their straight counterparts?  You tell me whether this point in the article is valid.  

It then goes on to speculate about HIV, stating "the military already has more than 1,000 HIV infected personnel and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex".  Do you think the writer purposely or accidentally left out "and many contracted the virus via heterosexual sex?"  Yes, rates are higher in gay men, but that doesn't preclude the fact that about a third of all hiv cases in this country are transmitted from heterosexual acts. REGARDLESS, such medical issues would be present no matter if DADT were preserved or repealed, which makes this yet another useless point.

5 and 6: WHO CARES that no one "accounted for" the fact that the coast guard responded to the survey more than the army.  Are you serious?  Does that author believe the response rate is somehow proof that DADT repeal is bad?  The remainder of this point tries to claim that the survey has flaws. Let's assume for a moment that's true.  Does that mean the opposite of the conclusions drawn from the survey are suddenly correct?  Or does it simply mean that the conclusions drawn from the survey are not representative?

7: appears to claim that the armed forces are bad at dealing with sexual assault, so therefore we shouldn't have any rules that deal with sex or sexuality so they don't need to deal with it because they're bad at dealing with it.  Interesting.  Here's a better solution: GET BETTER AT DEALING WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT.  I find it appalling that someone would believe we might as turn a blind eye to horrible criminal acts because its too awkward and uncomfortable to deal with. 

10: was the point of the survey in the first place: so we can make policy recommendations.

So it looks like there were really 3 points they wanted to make, but didn't want to entitled the article "3 problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report" so they came up with 5 comments on speculation, 1 on why the survey was used in the first place, and 2 of which that just said the same thing. 

Let me know which part of my critique you disagree with.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> I just read your article, and now understand where you're getting your ridiculous ideas.  I'll knock down each of their 10 points individually.  First let me start by saying I don't care about the speculation or unsupported opinion of other people, so any point focusing on "but some percent believed something" is worthless.  The best evidence we have as to whether armed forces can act successfully with openly gay individuals is examining other countries that already do it.  As someone else pointed out, every other NATO country allows sexual identification, without negative consequences arising from it. With that being said, questions that focus on speculation or mere opinion include 1, 3, 4, 8, 9
> 
> 2: worries that extending equal rights to gays will cost money.  Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?  Yes, offering equality means you need to provide the same things for a previously disenfranchised group.  Or do you think this minority group should be treated as deserving of less than their straight counterparts?  You tell me whether this point in the article is valid.
> 
> It then goes on to speculate about HIV, stating "the military already has more than 1,000 HIV infected personnel and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex".  Do you think the writer purposely or accidentally left out "and many contracted the virus via heterosexual sex?"  Yes, rates are higher in gay men, but that doesn't preclude the fact that about a third of all hiv cases in this country are transmitted from heterosexual acts. REGARDLESS, such medical issues would be present no matter if DADT were preserved or repealed, which makes this yet another useless point.
> 
> 5 and 6: WHO CARES that no one "accounted for" the fact that the coast guard responded to the survey more than the army.  Are you serious?  Does that author believe the response rate is somehow proof that DADT repeal is bad?  The remainder of this point tries to claim that the survey has flaws. Let's assume for a moment that's true.  Does that mean the opposite of the conclusions drawn from the survey are suddenly correct?  Or does it simply mean that the conclusions drawn from the survey are not representative?
> 
> 7: appears to claim that the armed forces are bad at dealing with sexual assault, so therefore we shouldn't have any rules that deal with sex or sexuality so they don't need to deal with it because they're bad at dealing with it.  Interesting.  Here's a better solution: GET BETTER AT DEALING WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT.  I find it appalling that someone would believe we might as turn a blind eye to horrible criminal acts because its too awkward and uncomfortable to deal with.
> 
> 10: was the point of the survey in the first place: so we can make policy recommendations.
> 
> So it looks like there were really 3 points they wanted to make, but didn't want to entitled the article "3 problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report" so they came up with 5 comments on speculation, 1 on why the survey was used in the first place, and 2 of which that just said the same thing.
> 
> Let me know which part of my critique you disagree with.



As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal


WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.

"The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units  so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."


Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.
> 
> "The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units  so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."
> 
> 
> Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal



I also want a phased in program over many years.
That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
DADT is bad policy over all.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.
> 
> "The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units  so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."
> 
> 
> Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also want a phased in program over many years.
> That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
> But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
> And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
> DADT is bad policy over all.
Click to expand...


Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it. As it turned out it was a good policy. It allowed gays to serve, now they want to serve openly. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I would follow the law, openly gay today would mean a discharge and any officer who does not act on that is breaking regulations themselves. We all know it's coming, But timing can be everything. Right now is not the time to take the chance that our military can be damaged by such a massive change.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.
> 
> "The potential for damage is there," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "A repeal would absolutely have an impact on combat units  so my concern goes back to their issues of cohesion and the burden on those units."
> 
> 
> Three Service Chiefs Oppose Prompt DADT Repeal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also want a phased in program over many years.
> That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
> But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
> And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
> DADT is bad policy over all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it. As it turned out it was a good policy. It allowed gays to serve, now they want to serve openly. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I would follow the law, openly gay today would mean a discharge and any officer who does not act on that is breaking regulations themselves. We all know it's coming, But timing can be everything. Right now is not the time to take the chance that our military can be damaged by such a massive change.
Click to expand...


You sound like a reasonable man Ollie. My father told a story for years Ollie. As a young 
2nd Lt. in WWII he had to check off on the ammo that was being loaded off of supply ships on one of the islands the 2nd Marines had landed on. His men in the field were complaining that it was not getting to them quick enough. Dad then signed "Lt. Pocheck, USMC" to every paper that ammo came off of until they took the island. Dad laughed for many years with his buddies, "I bet they are still looking for that guy". At a reunion many years ago in Atlanta Ollie of the 2nd Marines they gave him a shirt with "Lt. Charles Pocheck" sewn on it. I have it now!  
Sometimes in the military the rules have to be broken.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also want a phased in program over many years.
> That is what they are speaking about. NOT an immediate change.
> But don't you agree Ollie that in war it is not smart to discharge gay soldiers that are doing their job now?
> And Ollie, you do know that officers in the field are asking that their openly gay soldiers NOT to be discharged now because they need them.
> DADT is bad policy over all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it. As it turned out it was a good policy. It allowed gays to serve, now they want to serve openly. I'm not convinced that is a good idea. But I would follow the law, openly gay today would mean a discharge and any officer who does not act on that is breaking regulations themselves. We all know it's coming, But timing can be everything. Right now is not the time to take the chance that our military can be damaged by such a massive change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a reasonable man Ollie. My father told a story for years Ollie. As a young
> 2nd Lt. in WWII he had to check off on the ammo that was being loaded off of supply ships on one of the islands the 2nd Marines had landed on. His men in the field were complaining that it was not getting to them quick enough. Dad then signed "Lt. Pocheck, USMC" to every paper that ammo came off of until they took the island. Dad laughed for many years with his buddies, "I bet they are still looking for that guy". At a reunion many years ago in Atlanta Ollie of the 2nd Marines they gave him a shirt with "Lt. Charles Pocheck" sewn on it. I have it now!
> Sometimes in the military the rules have to be broken.
Click to expand...


I have never, ever broken any military rules............. (Wouldn't be interested in some land about 45 miles east of Miami Beach would you?)


----------



## hortysir

To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?


----------



## SFC Ollie

hortysir said:


> To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
> You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
> Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?



I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.


----------



## hortysir

SFC Ollie said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
> You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
> Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.
Click to expand...

I mean in the sense that their orientation could potentially used against them by undesirables to garner information.
If they were out of the closet there wouldn't be any blackmail material.


----------



## Sunni Man

hortysir said:


> If they were out of the closet there wouldn't be any blackmail material.



Just another reason why homos have No business being in the military in the first place.


----------



## bodecea

Sunni Man said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they were out of the closet there wouldn't be any blackmail material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another reason why homos have No business being in the military in the first place.
Click to expand...


If one doesn't have anything to hide, how can you black mail him....idiot?


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
> You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
> Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.
Click to expand...


The only reason that they would pull their clearance is because being gay could be used as leverage against the member.

Same with bad credit, marital infidelity, money, gambling, etc.  However, if DADT was repealed, that particular lever would vanish, thereby making our military STRONGER and BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL.

By the way, I don't know how you Army types went into and out of the showers, but in the Navy we required (by peer pressure) to make sure everyone wore their towels to and from the shower.  Why?  Nobody wants to see your junk, and besides that, there's a hygiene factor.

As far as being unworkable to be repealed immediately?  Bullshit.  The UCMJ covers sexual harassment between men and women, why the fuck can't the same be applied to gays that may harass dudes, and lesbians who harass chicks?  And.......as far as teasing the servicemember who's gay?  Sexual harassment applies to that as well, because you can't give someone a bunch of shit about who they're banging and single them out.

Gay service men and women have REPEATEDLY shown that they are capable of serving honorably and with distinction.  If you want to see what kind of negative effect it's gonna have on the armed forces, well...........run a personal awards count to see who has the most, gays or straights?  I'd be willing to bet from the several gay people that I've known while serving this nation, the gays would outscore the straights.  But then again.......I've had inside info ever since I've been enlisted, because awards are counted for advancement exams and placed on the worksheet, as well as knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.

Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, your arguments are utter bullshit.

But then again, I'd expect that from a delivery boy.

PS Genius, wanna know why I retired as an E-6?  Simple........my rate was CREO group D or C the entire time I was in, which means that it was anywhere from 110 percent to 140 percent manned.

When I did make E-6 in Newport RI, I was the ONLY PERSONNELMAN in the entire District 8 PSD system to make it.

Go ahead Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, bring your best points so I can shoot 'em down.

This is fun.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Homosexuality is not love,! it is an abnormal sexually perverted act. That goes against normal human sexual reproductive process. These individuals may be able to perform in the military as soldiers, but the fact still remains that they could at some point be a danger to themselves, or to others in the military because of their homosexual abnormality.These homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the general population, and are prone to display many other mental disorders.


----------



## Gadawg73

52ndStreet said:


> Homosexuality is not love,! it is an abnormal sexually perverted act. That goes against normal human sexual reproductive process. These individuals may be able to perform in the military as soldiers, but the fact still remains that they could at some point be a danger to themselves, or to others in the military because of their homosexual abnormality.These homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the general population, and are prone to display many other mental disorders.



How would you know it is not love.
When did you choose to be gay?


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a point of distinction that Ollie brought up, too many posts back to bother trying to find:
> You said that gays shouldn't serve "openly".
> Wouldn't serving "in the closet" be more of a security risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason that they would pull their clearance is because being gay could be used as leverage against the member.
> 
> Same with bad credit, marital infidelity, money, gambling, etc.  However, if DADT was repealed, that particular lever would vanish, thereby making our military STRONGER and BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL.
> 
> By the way, I don't know how you Army types went into and out of the showers, but in the Navy we required (by peer pressure) to make sure everyone wore their towels to and from the shower.  Why?  Nobody wants to see your junk, and besides that, there's a hygiene factor.
> 
> As far as being unworkable to be repealed immediately?  Bullshit.  The UCMJ covers sexual harassment between men and women, why the fuck can't the same be applied to gays that may harass dudes, and lesbians who harass chicks?  And.......as far as teasing the servicemember who's gay?  Sexual harassment applies to that as well, because you can't give someone a bunch of shit about who they're banging and single them out.
> 
> Gay service men and women have REPEATEDLY shown that they are capable of serving honorably and with distinction.  If you want to see what kind of negative effect it's gonna have on the armed forces, well...........run a personal awards count to see who has the most, gays or straights?  I'd be willing to bet from the several gay people that I've known while serving this nation, the gays would outscore the straights.  But then again.......I've had inside info ever since I've been enlisted, because awards are counted for advancement exams and placed on the worksheet, as well as knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.
> 
> Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, your arguments are utter bullshit.
> 
> But then again, I'd expect that from a delivery boy.
> 
> PS Genius, wanna know why I retired as an E-6?  Simple........my rate was CREO group D or C the entire time I was in, which means that it was anywhere from 110 percent to 140 percent manned.
> 
> When I did make E-6 in Newport RI, I was the ONLY PERSONNELMAN in the entire District 8 PSD system to make it.
> 
> Go ahead Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, bring your best points so I can shoot 'em down.
> 
> This is fun.
Click to expand...


I am not about to compare my military record to yours, I hate seeing children cry.


----------



## Nosmo King

52ndStreet said:


> Homosexuality is not love,! it is an abnormal sexually perverted act. That goes against normal human sexual reproductive process. These individuals may be able to perform in the military as soldiers, but the fact still remains that they could at some point be a danger to themselves, or to others in the military because of their homosexual abnormality.These homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the general population, and are prone to display many other mental disorders.


You sir, are an ignorant homophobic bigot.

Homosexuals commit suicide at higher rates than the general population?  Let's suppose that's true.  Could it be because knuckle dragging morons like yourself bully and berate homosexuals at a higher rate than other segments of the population?

And I had no idea that love had a vital function in the human reproductive process.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.


And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct.  So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change?  I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?

Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else?  Legal benefits?  Rights and privileges?   You have yet to actually address these questions. 



SFC Ollie said:


> Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it.


So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, never did totally understand those S2 types. And I had a very highly compartmental TS clearance. I do know that the first thing that would happen to someone under investigation would be that their clearance would be at least temporarily pulled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason that they would pull their clearance is because being gay could be used as leverage against the member.
> 
> Same with bad credit, marital infidelity, money, gambling, etc.  However, if DADT was repealed, that particular lever would vanish, thereby making our military STRONGER and BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL.
> 
> By the way, I don't know how you Army types went into and out of the showers, but in the Navy we required (by peer pressure) to make sure everyone wore their towels to and from the shower.  Why?  Nobody wants to see your junk, and besides that, there's a hygiene factor.
> 
> As far as being unworkable to be repealed immediately?  Bullshit.  The UCMJ covers sexual harassment between men and women, why the fuck can't the same be applied to gays that may harass dudes, and lesbians who harass chicks?  And.......as far as teasing the servicemember who's gay?  Sexual harassment applies to that as well, because you can't give someone a bunch of shit about who they're banging and single them out.
> 
> Gay service men and women have REPEATEDLY shown that they are capable of serving honorably and with distinction.  If you want to see what kind of negative effect it's gonna have on the armed forces, well...........run a personal awards count to see who has the most, gays or straights?  I'd be willing to bet from the several gay people that I've known while serving this nation, the gays would outscore the straights.  But then again.......I've had inside info ever since I've been enlisted, because awards are counted for advancement exams and placed on the worksheet, as well as knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.
> 
> Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, your arguments are utter bullshit.
> 
> But then again, I'd expect that from a delivery boy.
> 
> PS Genius, wanna know why I retired as an E-6?  Simple........my rate was CREO group D or C the entire time I was in, which means that it was anywhere from 110 percent to 140 percent manned.
> 
> When I did make E-6 in Newport RI, I was the ONLY PERSONNELMAN in the entire District 8 PSD system to make it.
> 
> Go ahead Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, bring your best points so I can shoot 'em down.
> 
> This is fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not about to compare my military record to yours, I hate seeing children cry.
Click to expand...


Hey, *S*tupid *F*ucker *C*alled *Ollie*.............not trying to compare my service record to yours (you'd lose anyway), but rather telling your stupid ass why I was an E-6 when I retired because apparently, you think that telling me I retired as an E-6 like it's a bad thing.

Like I said, my job put me on independent duty in high visibility billets TWICE, which is why I have no regrets.  You on the other hand apparently know you'd fail, which is why you refuse.

But all bullshit about dick measuring aside, wanna refute the points that I made about DADT?

That's right........you can't.

Thanks for playing *S*tupid *F*ucker *C*alled *Ollie*.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.
> 
> 
> 
> And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct.  So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change?  I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?
> 
> Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else?  Legal benefits?  Rights and privileges?   You have yet to actually address these questions.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?
Click to expand...


Yep I admitted that we were wrong about DADT when it was being put in place. And I have also said that I could be wrong now. I've even said I hope I'm wrong. 

Same rights and privileges,  Not when it comes to the military.  Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment. And I'm not so sure that is fair. It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?
 I know that eventually it will happen, but there will be problems and it will require special treatment and changes that I do not have the answers to.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated several times, the survey was so flawed that it is useless either pro or con.
> 
> 
> 
> And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct.  So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change?  I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?
> 
> Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else?  Legal benefits?  Rights and privileges?   You have yet to actually address these questions.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually DADT was not popular when it was introduced, many were concerned over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep I admitted that we were wrong about DADT when it was being put in place. And I have also said that I could be wrong now. I've even said I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> Same rights and privileges,  Not when it comes to the military.  Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment. And I'm not so sure that is fair. It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?
> I know that eventually it will happen, but there will be problems and it will require special treatment and changes that I do not have the answers to.
Click to expand...


Hey Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, ever heard of the UCMJ?  It has sexual harassment covered.

Like I stated before, most guys that I knew in the Navy wore a towel into the shower and put it on before they got out.  Nobody wanted to see your junk, and there was peer pressure to help enforce it.

Separate barracks?  What the fuck are you, born stupid and retarded?

Fuck dude.....that's no way to go through life.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even IF that is true, that still doesn't make your point correct.  So I can't help but wonder why you would point me to it and its potential invalidity when I asked you basic questions about how you think living arrangements and bathrooms would need to change?  I also noticed that you conveniently overlooked this question of mine: Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people?
> 
> Should your son receive the same job benefits as anyone else?  Legal benefits?  Rights and privileges?   You have yet to actually address these questions.
> 
> 
> So you're saying a policy which was disliked by many actually turned out to be beneficial?! Why does the start of that scenario sound so familiar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep I admitted that we were wrong about DADT when it was being put in place. And I have also said that I could be wrong now. I've even said I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> Same rights and privileges,  Not when it comes to the military.  Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment. And I'm not so sure that is fair. It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?
> I know that eventually it will happen, but there will be problems and it will require special treatment and changes that I do not have the answers to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, ever heard of the UCMJ?  It has sexual harassment covered.
> 
> Like I stated before, most guys that I knew in the Navy wore a towel into the shower and put it on before they got out.  Nobody wanted to see your junk, and there was peer pressure to help enforce it.
> 
> Separate barracks?  What the fuck are you, born stupid and retarded?
> 
> Fuck dude.....that's no way to go through life.
Click to expand...


Who the fuck was talking to your ass? Don't you have some filing to do or something?

BTW, I didn't say separate barracks. But then I don't expect you to quote me right anyway.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep I admitted that we were wrong about DADT when it was being put in place. And I have also said that I could be wrong now. I've even said I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> Same rights and privileges,  Not when it comes to the military.  Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment. And I'm not so sure that is fair. *It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?*
> I know that eventually it will happen, but there will be problems and it will require special treatment and changes that I do not have the answers to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, ever heard of the UCMJ?  It has sexual harassment covered.
> 
> Like I stated before, most guys that I knew in the Navy wore a towel into the shower and put it on before they got out.  Nobody wanted to see your junk, and there was peer pressure to help enforce it.
> 
> Separate barracks?  What the fuck are you, born stupid and retarded?
> 
> Fuck dude.....that's no way to go through life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck was talking to your ass? Don't you have some filing to do or something?
> 
> BTW, I didn't say separate barracks. But then I don't expect you to quote me right anyway.
Click to expand...


Hey Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, wanna explain why you said this?

"It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?"

I bolded where I pulled that quote out of your posts............Sounds like separate barracks to me idiot.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Have to take some people by the hand.

First off fuckbreath That's Sergeant First Class to you.

Now a Barracks is a building. Inside that building there are numerous rooms. The majority of those rooms are meant to house 2 soldiers. Those two soldiers share the same quarters.

See how simple that is?


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> Have to take some people by the hand.
> 
> First off fuckbreath That's Sergeant First Class to you.
> 
> Now a Barracks is a building. Inside that building there are numerous rooms. The majority of those rooms are meant to house 2 soldiers. Those two soldiers share the same quarters.
> 
> See how simple that is?



Actually, to me it's Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, the retarded delivery boy.  You'll always be that to me fuckwit.

So, you'd approve of DADT being repealed?  Simple solution, right?  Let them room with other gays, not a problem.

Still not a valid reason for not allowing gays to serve.  BTW, why didn't you respond to the other points about eliminating 1 leverage force from those who serve in sensitive billets?

What about the challenge that I asked you about who do you think has more personal awards, gays or straights.  I'll tell you........it's the gays.  I noticed this little fact when I was doing worksheets for the crew for the Navy Wide Advancement Exam.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're a retarded little bitch who's probably also a coward too.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to take some people by the hand.
> 
> First off fuckbreath That's Sergeant First Class to you.
> 
> Now a Barracks is a building. Inside that building there are numerous rooms. The majority of those rooms are meant to house 2 soldiers. Those two soldiers share the same quarters.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, to me it's Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, the retarded delivery boy.  You'll always be that to me fuckwit.
> 
> So, you'd approve of DADT being repealed?  Simple solution, right?  Let them room with other gays, not a problem.
> 
> Still not a valid reason for not allowing gays to serve.  BTW, why didn't you respond to the other points about eliminating 1 leverage force from those who serve in sensitive billets?
> 
> What about the challenge that I asked you about who do you think has more personal awards, gays or straights.  I'll tell you........it's the gays.  I noticed this little fact when I was doing worksheets for the crew for the Navy Wide Advancement Exam.
> 
> Still doesn't change the fact that you're a retarded little bitch who's probably also a coward too.
Click to expand...


Thousands of possible Navy wide advancements and you handled them and knew from the paperwork which ones were gay and which ones were straight? You are not worthy of being called an NCO you are a fucking asshole liar. And you can bring you punk ass little self over here and show the world how big a coward I am little boy, any time. I'm done talking to you, but not about you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to take some people by the hand.
> 
> First off fuckbreath That's Sergeant First Class to you.
> 
> Now a Barracks is a building. Inside that building there are numerous rooms. The majority of those rooms are meant to house 2 soldiers. Those two soldiers share the same quarters.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, to me it's Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, the retarded delivery boy.  You'll always be that to me fuckwit.
> 
> So, you'd approve of DADT being repealed?  Simple solution, right?  Let them room with other gays, not a problem.
> 
> Still not a valid reason for not allowing gays to serve.  BTW, why didn't you respond to the other points about eliminating 1 leverage force from those who serve in sensitive billets?
> 
> What about the challenge that I asked you about who do you think has more personal awards, gays or straights.  I'll tell you........it's the gays.  I noticed this little fact when I was doing worksheets for the crew for the Navy Wide Advancement Exam.
> 
> Still doesn't change the fact that you're a retarded little bitch who's probably also a coward too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of possible Navy wide advancements and you handled them and knew from the paperwork which ones were gay and which ones were straight? You are not worthy of being called an NCO you are a fucking asshole liar. And you can bring you punk ass little self over here and show the world how big a coward I am little boy, any time. I'm done talking to you, but not about you.
Click to expand...


Largest command I've ever been stationed at was probably 250-275 people (yeah......I took muster for the whole command as well).

Most of them were below 70 people, which is why I knew almost everyone in my command.  Why?  Simple, I saw all of them at least 3 times/week for something or another.

And yeah.........I prepared all their worksheets once a year for the exam.

I understand that you're ignorant of anything outside your own little sphere of influence, but there are others who've had different experiences than yours.

Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, before you decide to call someone a liar, at least do some research before showing everyone how retarded you are.

And, FWIW, yeah.....you are a coward.  YOU are the one demanding an apology for a perceived insult.  I told you if you really wanted it, come to Amarillo and beat it outta me.

All you've got is neg rep and pussy assed cowardly posts.

Fuck off retard, go deliver something already.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> Same rights and privileges,  Not when it comes to the military.


Which means you do NOT believe they should have the same rights, liberties, and privileges.  There's no exceptions here.  Either each group is equivalent and both deserving of being treated equally, or they're not. When you say "same rights and privileges EXCEPT" then they're not really the same rights and privileges, are they?  This is why you are, by definition, a bigot. 



			
				SFC Ollie said:
			
		

> Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment.


Once again you make vague reference to these "special" accommodations and treatment, and yet you continually fail to point out what such things are.  I have asked several times, and you avoid these questions at every single opportunity.  Can you not offer SOME specifics that at least justify your opinion even if its complete unfounded speculation?



			
				SFC Ollie said:
			
		

> It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?


Except, right now gay and straight men in the military are ALREADY SHARING QUARTERS. So why is it you think it would somehow be unfair if sexuality was suddenly known and nothing else changed?  Are you afraid of what would happen to someone if they KNOWINGLY shared a room with a gay man? Oh no, they may like it too much and turn gay!  Really, what do you see happening here?  Have you not shared quarters with your own son before?  Or do you banish him away from your presence at night because he is gay?


Either you're fighting for your son to be an accepted equal member of this society with all the benefits that go along with it, or you're propagating the prejudice.  Time to choose.


----------



## Nosmo King

Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.

Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.

Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same rights and privileges,  Not when it comes to the military.
> 
> 
> 
> Which means you do NOT believe they should have the same rights, liberties, and privileges.  There's no exceptions here.  Either each group is equivalent and both deserving of being treated equally, or they're not. When you say "same rights and privileges EXCEPT" then they're not really the same rights and privileges, are they?  This is why you are, by definition, a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I just don't see it happening without special accommodations and treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you make vague reference to these "special" accommodations and treatment, and yet you continually fail to point out what such things are.  I have asked several times, and you avoid these questions at every single opportunity.  Can you not offer SOME specifics that at least justify your opinion even if its complete unfounded speculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly would not be fair to tell a straight person that they have to share quarters with a gay person. Is this not the same thing as telling a woman she has to share quarters with a man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, right now gay and straight men in the military are ALREADY SHARING QUARTERS. So why is it you think it would somehow be unfair if sexuality was suddenly known and nothing else changed?  Are you afraid of what would happen to someone if they KNOWINGLY shared a room with a gay man? Oh no, they may like it too much and turn gay!  Really, what do you see happening here?  Have you not shared quarters with your own son before?  Or do you banish him away from your presence at night because he is gay?
> 
> 
> Either you're fighting for your son to be an accepted equal member of this society with all the benefits that go along with it, or you're propagating the prejudice.  Time to choose.
Click to expand...


I have answered you to the best of my ability, I have stated I do not have all the answers and you keep on asking for them. Please review the posts if you want verification. I stand against repeal, Why? Because I do. How can I? Because I did my time in uniform and have the common sense to see for myself. Am I going to answer any more ridicules questions? No, I've said all that I can. Sometimes people simply have to agree that they disagree.

But I will point out that the military already strips you of many of your freedoms. It's a sacrifice you have to give up to serve. So gays don't want to sacrifice . tough shit; don't serve then.

And way back when I told you i didn't have the answers you keep asking for. 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3063967-post141.html

Enjoy.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Nosmo King said:


> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.



Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.

 The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.

So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?

Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?

Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?

None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?

I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

SFC Ollie said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
Click to expand...


I can tell you, just cuz 2 of us are in the same room, does not mean we'll start going @ it like rabbits, cmon now....


----------



## SFC Ollie

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you, just cuz 2 of us are in the same room, does not mean we'll start going @ it like rabbits, cmon now....
Click to expand...


Just because a Man and woman are in the same room doesn't mean anything will happen either, but the military is smart enough not to chance it.


----------



## High_Gravity

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you, just cuz 2 of us are in the same room, does not mean we'll start going @ it like rabbits, cmon now....
Click to expand...


I don't get why people think just because you are gay or bi that you automatically want to fuck them.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you, just cuz 2 of us are in the same room, does not mean we'll start going @ it like rabbits, cmon now....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get why people think just because you are gay or bi that you automatically want to fuck them.
Click to expand...


Who said that?


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you, just cuz 2 of us are in the same room, does not mean we'll start going @ it like rabbits, cmon now....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people think just because you are gay or bi that you automatically want to fuck them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
Click to expand...


Well when you said gays need separate quarters, isn't that implying that the gay men will make sexual advances on str8 soldiers in the barracks?


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people think just because you are gay or bi that you automatically want to fuck them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when you said gays need separate quarters, isn't that implying that the gay men will make sexual advances on str8 soldiers in the barracks?
Click to expand...


Do we not separate the Women and men because of sex? Doesn't matter that they may not do anything.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you said gays need separate quarters, isn't that implying that the gay men will make sexual advances on str8 soldiers in the barracks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not separate the Women and men because of sex? Doesn't matter that they may not do anything.
Click to expand...


Your correct, the issue with the barracks is something thats unlike every other civilian job. In the civilian world you can work with a gay co-worker everyday but at the end of the day you each go your own way, but in the Military you actually DO live with your co-workers especially during deployment. But if we are going to have separate barracks for gay and 
str8 soldiers won't that be kind of expensive to build these extra barracks?  should we just give everyone their own apartment than?


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
Click to expand...


Hey Stupid Fucking Coward Ollie...........didn't you state that you'd never served after DADT was put in place? 

I kinda think that makes you less informed than someone who was active duty during that time.

FWIW, the UCMJ covers this already via various articles.  If you get caught "frigging in the rigging" (i.e. having sex onboard the ship) you are disciplined.

Question..........does that 1 gay coward that you know have unrestrained sexual urges and wants to fuck everything in sight that is the same gender?

You should really think before posting your bigoted bullshit.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you said gays need separate quarters, isn't that implying that the gay men will make sexual advances on str8 soldiers in the barracks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we not separate the Women and men because of sex? Doesn't matter that they may not do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your correct, the issue with the barracks is something thats unlike every other civilian job. In the civilian world you can work with a gay co-worker everyday but at the end of the day you each go your own way, but in the Military you actually DO live with your co-workers especially during deployment. But if we are going to have separate barracks for gay and
> str8 soldiers won't that be kind of expensive to build these extra barracks?  should we just give everyone their own apartment than?
Click to expand...


Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. But at least you understand what I am saying.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Stupid Fucking Coward Ollie...........didn't you state that you'd never served after DADT was put in place?
> 
> I kinda think that makes you less informed than someone who was active duty during that time.
> 
> FWIW, the UCMJ covers this already via various articles.  If you get caught "frigging in the rigging" (i.e. having sex onboard the ship) you are disciplined.
> 
> Question..........does that 1 gay coward that you know have unrestrained sexual urges and wants to fuck everything in sight that is the same gender?
> 
> You should really think before posting your bigoted bullshit.
Click to expand...


You know we were having an adult conversation about this, until you opened your pie hole. Now run along child.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we not separate the Women and men because of sex? Doesn't matter that they may not do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your correct, the issue with the barracks is something thats unlike every other civilian job. In the civilian world you can work with a gay co-worker everyday but at the end of the day you each go your own way, but in the Military you actually DO live with your co-workers especially during deployment. But if we are going to have separate barracks for gay and
> str8 soldiers won't that be kind of expensive to build these extra barracks?  should we just give everyone their own apartment than?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. But at least you understand what I am saying.
Click to expand...


I was in the Military and I understand who you bunk with makes a difference on how difficult your deployment can be, I can tell you right now a huge complaint is about room mates with poor hygiene and manners, one of my friends shared a room with a guy who had horrible hygiene, when he took off his boots it smelled like death and people ran for cover. The scumbag also masturbated in the bathroom and left his sperm on the floor, and this guy was str8 and married. My friend got the First Sergeant to get a transfer to the room with me to avoid that guy, I would rather share a room with a gay person than a clown like that with poor hygiene.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Stupid Fucking Coward Ollie...........didn't you state that you'd never served after DADT was put in place?
> 
> I kinda think that makes you less informed than someone who was active duty during that time.
> 
> FWIW, the UCMJ covers this already via various articles.  If you get caught "frigging in the rigging" (i.e. having sex onboard the ship) you are disciplined.
> 
> Question..........does that 1 gay coward that you know have unrestrained sexual urges and wants to fuck everything in sight that is the same gender?
> 
> You should really think before posting your bigoted bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know we were having an adult conversation about this, until you opened your pie hole. Now run along child.
Click to expand...


Hey Stupid Fucking Coward Ollie.........people keep bringing up valid points and the only thing you can offer is "I don't know".

You've said it many times before.

Like I said, does that 1 gay coward that you know want to fuck everything in sight?  Is that what you base your bigoted bullshit views on, what you see them do?

Does the only gay coward that you know want to fuck everything in sight that is the same gender?  Do you fear that somehow your butt is on the line everytime they are in the room with you?

If not, then why do you press those perceptions on others?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your correct, the issue with the barracks is something thats unlike every other civilian job. In the civilian world you can work with a gay co-worker everyday but at the end of the day you each go your own way, but in the Military you actually DO live with your co-workers especially during deployment. But if we are going to have separate barracks for gay and
> str8 soldiers won't that be kind of expensive to build these extra barracks?  should we just give everyone their own apartment than?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. But at least you understand what I am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in the Military and I understand who you bunk with makes a difference on how difficult your deployment can be, I can tell you right now a huge complaint is about room mates with poor hygiene and manners, one of my friends shared a room with a guy who had horrible hygiene, when he took off his boots it smelled like death and people ran for cover. The scumbag also masturbated in the bathroom and left his sperm on the floor, and this guy was str8 and married. My friend got the First Sergeant to get a transfer to the room with me to avoid that guy, I would rather share a room with a gay person than a clown like that with poor hygiene.
Click to expand...


Aint you was military my dude, what branch?  And thank you.


----------



## High_Gravity

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. But at least you understand what I am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the Military and I understand who you bunk with makes a difference on how difficult your deployment can be, I can tell you right now a huge complaint is about room mates with poor hygiene and manners, one of my friends shared a room with a guy who had horrible hygiene, when he took off his boots it smelled like death and people ran for cover. The scumbag also masturbated in the bathroom and left his sperm on the floor, and this guy was str8 and married. My friend got the First Sergeant to get a transfer to the room with me to avoid that guy, I would rather share a room with a gay person than a clown like that with poor hygiene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aint you was military my dude, what branch?  And thank you.
Click to expand...


I was in the Air Force for 7 years.


----------



## Ozmar

Haha, yeah right.


----------



## Nosmo King

SFC Ollie said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
Click to expand...

Did the military 'force' a south Alabama cracker to bunk with an uppity Harlem ****** right after military was integrated?  I would imagine that there were some issues then that would demand attention.

But, so long as each soldier comported himself as a military professional according to his training, stayed within the constructs of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, things have a way of working out.


----------



## High_Gravity

Nosmo King said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the military 'force' a south Alabama cracker to bunk with an uppity Harlem ****** right after military was integrated?  I would imagine that there were some issues then that would demand attention.
> 
> But, so long as each soldier comported himself as a military professional according to his training, stayed within the constructs of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, things have a way of working out.
Click to expand...


When they started integrating the Military alot of whites did refuse to bunk with black soldiers, it took a while to sort all this out. Thats not the same issue now because unless someone tells you that they are gay how do you know? thats clearly not the same issue as race.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Nosmo King said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if the one objection to gays serving in the military is billeting.  There aren't arguments about a homosexual's competence, loyalty and patriotism.  So, it's living arrangements and the fear of getting hit on by one of your own gender.
> 
> Well, the military has been coed for years now.  Women staff officers are not an uncommon site.  the military certainly has had sexual indiscretions among enlisted men and officers alike.  Raise your hand if you are about to google "Tailhook" to catch my drift.
> 
> Deal with promiscuity the same way, be it heterosexual or homosexual.  Fair is fair, same/same.  Surely the Code of Military Justice has set precedent.  Treat sexually unruly teenagers and young adults as you have been doing for years.  Otherwise, denial of recruitment or commission of homosexual Americans is a blatantly un-American thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the military 'force' a south Alabama cracker to bunk with an uppity Harlem ****** right after military was integrated?  I would imagine that there were some issues then that would demand attention.
> 
> But, so long as each soldier comported himself as a military professional according to his training, stayed within the constructs of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, things have a way of working out.
Click to expand...


I don't see the comparisons of the black and white integration with a sexual orientation. Two totally different subjects. I would never have had a problem with the racial integration.


----------



## Nosmo King

SFC Ollie said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?
> 
> Can we bunk 2 gay people in the same room  knowing they could be or become sexuall attracted to each other?
> 
> Can we bunk a Gay male with a straight female?
> 
> None of it is fair. Do we go to private condos?
> 
> I don't have the answers. I do know that when it comes (no matter how many people think it is wrong) It will cause problems and it will not be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the military 'force' a south Alabama cracker to bunk with an uppity Harlem ****** right after military was integrated?  I would imagine that there were some issues then that would demand attention.
> 
> But, so long as each soldier comported himself as a military professional according to his training, stayed within the constructs of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, things have a way of working out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see the comparisons of the black and white integration with a sexual orientation. Two totally different subjects. I would never have had a problem with the racial integration.
Click to expand...

There's a cultural comparison.  Just as many white or black soldiers did not welcome the opportunity to bunk with his racial counterpart, many culturally stunted straights and fearful gays will resent an imposed living arrangement.   It's a matter of letting the military make the necessary accommodations and regulations.  

If promiscuity is the issue, deal with it through channels like any other breech of the rules.  The culturally suspicious will weed themselves out as time goes by.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Stupid Fucker Called Ollie never even served after the implementation of DADT.  He retired around the same time it passed.

No wonder he's got such dinosaur views.


----------



## Ropey

I have been in the Canadian military, and the Israel Defense forces. Canada allowed homosexuals to enter the armed forces in 1992. The Canadian Forces have now issued a new policy detailing how the organization should accommodate transsexual and transvestite troops specifically. Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their target gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.

I saw no issues in either country and both countries have very strong forces, regardless of the sexual orientation.

_Rules set for transsexuals in military_

Openly gay soldiers serve without hindrance in all branches of the military. Discrimination against gay and lesbian soldiers in recruitment, placement and promotion is prohibited in Israel.



> Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are considered the most developed in the Middle East.
> 
> In November 2005, a groundbreaking court decision in Israel ruled that a lesbian spouse could officially adopt a child born to her current partner by artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm donor; this ruling came despite protests by the Orthodox Jewish parliamentary parties (which are a minority and marginalized by Democracy). Common law marriage has already been similarly achieved (which grants most of the official marriage rights to the spouse), but full official same-sex marriage has not yet been sanctioned. However, same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are recognized.
> 
> Israel was the first country in Asia where homosexuals were protected by anti-discrimination laws, and remains the only country in the Middle East to provide such legal protection.
> 
> Out Magazine has named Tel Aviv "the gay capital of the Middle East."


Out (magazine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rdean

Right wingers are so consistent.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Right wingers are so consistent.


Really?  What makes you say that...SFC Ollie's opposition to the repeal of DADT, or my support of it?

I'll give you a few moments to think that over.  Let me know if you need a hand.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Canada allowed homosexuals to enter the armed forces in 1992. The Canadian Forces have now issued a new policy detailing how the organization should accommodate transsexual and transvestite troops specifically. Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their &#8220;target&#8221; gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.


That is exactly the kind of perverted nonsense that the repeal of DADT would lead to.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada allowed homosexuals to enter the armed forces in 1992. The Canadian Forces have now issued a new policy detailing how the organization should accommodate transsexual and transvestite troops specifically. Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their target gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the kind of perverted nonsense that the repeal of DADT would lead to.
Click to expand...


I understand your view Sunni Man.

There's not much for them to do in Islam is there?



> There are five references in the Qur'an which have been cited as referring to gay and lesbian behavior. Some obviously deal with effeminate men and "masculine women." The two main references to homosexual behavior are:
> 
> The Hadith and homosexuality: The Hadith are collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad. Many Hadiths (ahadith) discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between males). Two examples are:
> 
> "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."
> 
> "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)



Clicky

Your point of view is clear Sunni Man.


----------



## daveman

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada allowed homosexuals to enter the armed forces in 1992. The Canadian Forces have now issued a new policy detailing how the organization should accommodate transsexual and transvestite troops specifically. Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their target gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the kind of perverted nonsense that the repeal of DADT would lead to.
Click to expand...

How would radical Islam deal with a transgender woman...cut off her man-made clitoris, or just kill her?


----------



## Sunni Man

Let's just say that we would effect a permanent "cure" for their vile affection.


----------



## Ropey

@ Sunni Man

Neg repping me and calling me a "Faggot Lover" for my view, shows your intent even more than your post. I could care less.



Sunni Man said:


> We would effect a permanent "cure" for their vile affection.


----------



## Gadawg73

daveman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers are so consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What makes you say that...SFC Ollie's opposition to the repeal of DADT, or my support of it?
> 
> I'll give you a few moments to think that over.  Let me know if you need a hand.
Click to expand...


Dave, I believe he means a far right winger. In my book you are a strong fiscal conservative and believe in individual rights without religion dictating those rights.  
Don't mean to label you completely but there is a difference in my world.


----------



## daveman

Sunni Man said:


> Let's just say that we would effect a permanent "cure" for their vile affection.



Yeah, you 7th Century fascists sure do like that solution, don't you?


----------



## daveman

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers are so consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What makes you say that...SFC Ollie's opposition to the repeal of DADT, or my support of it?
> 
> I'll give you a few moments to think that over.  Let me know if you need a hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dave, I believe he means a far right winger. In my book you are a strong fiscal conservative and believe in individual rights without religion dictating those rights.
> Don't mean to label you completely but there is a difference in my world.
Click to expand...

Thank you, but to RDean, everyone to the right of Trotsky is a far-right winger.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> I have answered you to the best of my ability, I have stated I do not have all the answers and you keep on asking for them.


Yes.  I keep asking for support to your opinion because, as you said, it's your opinion.  So we go back to one of my original points in that opinions can be good or bad, and bad opinions are generally marked by lack of support and inability to provide reasoning behind them.  THAT is why you don't have all the answers.  



SFC Ollie said:


> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.


Let's look at that.  Why would it be a problem for males and females to bunk in the same room?  Or do you not have an answer for that too, even though you just said it?



SFC Ollie said:


> So can we force a straight person to bunk with a known Gay person?


We're already forcing straight and gay people to bunk together in the military now.  For some reason you think the world will change if people are known to be gay and they continue to bunk with straight people.  Ridiculous.  



SFC Ollie said:


> Just because a Man and woman are in the same room doesn't mean anything will happen either, but the military is smart enough not to chance it.


Again, what do you think the military is "chancing" if a man and woman are in the same room?  Let's actually run through logic instead of completely unsupported opinion where you throw your hands in the air with a "i don't have the answers but I'll make completely ridiculous opinions about it anyway".  Logic should determine these things, not your method.



SFC Ollie said:


> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers.


Do you even realize the two parts of this sentence are in direct disagreement with one another?  In the first part you are insisting that such a change WILL REQUIRE something, and in the second you show that you should be held unaccountable to support that guess.


----------



## Ropey

> The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding non-heterosexual individuals (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (United Kingdom, France, and Russia) permit gay people to serve openly and two (China and the United States) do not.



Clicky

I believe America needs to move forward on this front. They will, even if the older baby boomers still are a strong voice.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you to the best of my ability, I have stated I do not have all the answers and you keep on asking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I keep asking for support to your opinion because, as you said, it's your opinion.  So we go back to one of my original points in that opinions can be good or bad, and bad opinions are generally marked by lack of support and inability to provide reasoning behind them.  THAT is why you don't have all the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes billeting is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem.
> 
> The military cannot force a male and female to bunk in the same room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at that.  Why would it be a problem for males and females to bunk in the same room?  Or do you not have an answer for that too, even though you just said it?
> 
> 
> We're already forcing straight and gay people to bunk together in the military now.  For some reason you think the world will change if people are known to be gay and they continue to bunk with straight people.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a Man and woman are in the same room doesn't mean anything will happen either, but the military is smart enough not to chance it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what do you think the military is "chancing" if a man and woman are in the same room?  Let's actually run through logic instead of completely unsupported opinion where you throw your hands in the air with a "i don't have the answers but I'll make completely ridiculous opinions about it anyway".  Logic should determine these things, not your method.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize the two parts of this sentence are in direct disagreement with one another?  In the first part you are insisting that such a change WILL REQUIRE something, and in the second you show that you should be held unaccountable to support that guess.
Click to expand...


Do you know that I tend to ignore stupidity? And you are getting very stupid.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Ropey said:


> The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding non-heterosexual individuals (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (United Kingdom, France, and Russia) permit gay people to serve openly and two (China and the United States) do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clicky
> 
> I believe America needs to move forward on this front. They will, even if the older baby boomers still are a strong voice.
Click to expand...


Do you know that in Briton they only permitted gays to serve because of a European court? So they caved in to the rest of Europe.


----------



## Ropey

SFC Ollie said:


> Do you know that in Briton they only permitted gays to serve because of a European court? So they caved in to the rest of Europe.



That's entirely possible SFC, and if asked without research I would tend to agree. Now I will research because you did not give a link. 

They even take their gentry to court for such acts.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you to the best of my ability, I have stated I do not have all the answers and you keep on asking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I keep asking for support to your opinion because, as you said, it's your opinion.  So we go back to one of my original points in that opinions can be good or bad, and bad opinions are generally marked by lack of support and inability to provide reasoning behind them.  THAT is why you don't have all the answers.
> 
> 
> Let's look at that.  Why would it be a problem for males and females to bunk in the same room?  Or do you not have an answer for that too, even though you just said it?
> 
> 
> We're already forcing straight and gay people to bunk together in the military now.  For some reason you think the world will change if people are known to be gay and they continue to bunk with straight people.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Again, what do you think the military is "chancing" if a man and woman are in the same room?  Let's actually run through logic instead of completely unsupported opinion where you throw your hands in the air with a "i don't have the answers but I'll make completely ridiculous opinions about it anyway".  Logic should determine these things, not your method.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize the two parts of this sentence are in direct disagreement with one another?  In the first part you are insisting that such a change WILL REQUIRE something, and in the second you show that you should be held unaccountable to support that guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know that I tend to ignore stupidity? And you are getting very stupid.
Click to expand...


You mean........you tend to ignore people that make YOU look stupid.

Try again Stupid Fucker Called Ollie.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I keep asking for support to your opinion because, as you said, it's your opinion.  So we go back to one of my original points in that opinions can be good or bad, and bad opinions are generally marked by lack of support and inability to provide reasoning behind them.  THAT is why you don't have all the answers.
> 
> 
> Let's look at that.  Why would it be a problem for males and females to bunk in the same room?  Or do you not have an answer for that too, even though you just said it?
> 
> 
> We're already forcing straight and gay people to bunk together in the military now.  For some reason you think the world will change if people are known to be gay and they continue to bunk with straight people.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Again, what do you think the military is "chancing" if a man and woman are in the same room?  Let's actually run through logic instead of completely unsupported opinion where you throw your hands in the air with a "i don't have the answers but I'll make completely ridiculous opinions about it anyway".  Logic should determine these things, not your method.
> 
> 
> Do you even realize the two parts of this sentence are in direct disagreement with one another?  In the first part you are insisting that such a change WILL REQUIRE something, and in the second you show that you should be held unaccountable to support that guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know that I tend to ignore stupidity? And you are getting very stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean........you tend to ignore people that make YOU look stupid.
> 
> Try again Stupid Fucker Called Ollie.
Click to expand...


The person who is really, really, really looking stupid here is you, with your ignorant personal attacks instead of intelligent conversation. I guess Navy NCO's aren't taught that though. But we've grown accustomed to your ignorance and stupidity and have learned that you just don't know any better way to communicate. It's OK, I'm sure you can blame it on someone.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You're the one that can't form a cogent argument against the repeal of DADT.

Not only that, you've never served alongside a gay servicemember under DADT.

I have.

Like I said Stupid Fucker Called Ollie, you don't know of what you speak and your bigotry is blinding you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> Do you know that I tend to ignore stupidity? And you are getting very stupid.


Judging by your completely unsupported opinion quickly followed with your tag line of "I don't have the answers", it appears you tend to ignore intelligence as well. 

So let's recap:  Every other NATO country has successfully allowed gays to serve openly in the military. You oppose it, not because you are able to provide examples of things that would change or go wrong, and not even because you served in the military and can offer key insight into the issue, but ONLY because you are a human being with the capacity to form an opinion, however unsupported that may be.  You want to hinder US policy based on a hunch, essentially. 

And after being thoroughly exposed by me as a hack making blind guesses, you decide it is time that you ignore the conversation and high-tail it out of here.  You are a poor representation of this country's great military if that is what you learned while you served.  Go run and hide now.  Next time you decide to offer your opinion, bring better ammo.


----------



## SFC Ollie

SFC Ollie said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you to the best of my ability, I have stated I do not have all the answers and you keep on asking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I keep asking for support to your opinion because, as you said, it's your opinion.  So we go back to one of my original points in that opinions can be good or bad, and bad opinions are generally marked by lack of support and inability to provide reasoning behind them.  THAT is why you don't have all the answers.
> 
> 
> Let's look at that.  Why would it be a problem for males and females to bunk in the same room?  Or do you not have an answer for that too, even though you just said it?
> 
> 
> We're already forcing straight and gay people to bunk together in the military now.  For some reason you think the world will change if people are known to be gay and they continue to bunk with straight people.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Again, what do you think the military is "chancing" if a man and woman are in the same room?  Let's actually run through logic instead of completely unsupported opinion where you throw your hands in the air with a "i don't have the answers but I'll make completely ridiculous opinions about it anyway".  Logic should determine these things, not your method.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize the two parts of this sentence are in direct disagreement with one another?  In the first part you are insisting that such a change WILL REQUIRE something, and in the second you show that you should be held unaccountable to support that guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know that I tend to ignore stupidity? And you are getting very stupid.
Click to expand...


Why would it be a problem for male and female soldiers to sleep in the same room? You truly are stupid aren't you? Go out among the female population and ask any of them if they would have a problem arriving at a new place of residence and finding out that they were to sleep in the same room as some guy they had never met. Let us know how that works for you.

Yes for many people they will not want to live in the same room as a gay person. No I do not have any numbers, but if you get a true survey my bet is I'm right.

You talk about logic and about males and females sharing quarters............. You have a problem.

"Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. "

No this is not a contradiction at all. When DADT is repealed, and I'm certain that eventually it will be, then there will have to be changes and special treatment. I do not know what all those changes and treatment will consist of.

Now go away child you have much to learn about life, go learn it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I keep asking for support to your opinion because, as you said, it's your opinion.  So we go back to one of my original points in that opinions can be good or bad, and bad opinions are generally marked by lack of support and inability to provide reasoning behind them.  THAT is why you don't have all the answers.
> 
> 
> Let's look at that.  Why would it be a problem for males and females to bunk in the same room?  Or do you not have an answer for that too, even though you just said it?
> 
> 
> We're already forcing straight and gay people to bunk together in the military now.  For some reason you think the world will change if people are known to be gay and they continue to bunk with straight people.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Again, what do you think the military is "chancing" if a man and woman are in the same room?  Let's actually run through logic instead of completely unsupported opinion where you throw your hands in the air with a "i don't have the answers but I'll make completely ridiculous opinions about it anyway".  Logic should determine these things, not your method.
> 
> 
> Do you even realize the two parts of this sentence are in direct disagreement with one another?  In the first part you are insisting that such a change WILL REQUIRE something, and in the second you show that you should be held unaccountable to support that guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you know that I tend to ignore stupidity? And you are getting very stupid*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would it be a problem for male and female soldiers to sleep in the same room? You truly are stupid aren't you? Go out among the female population and ask any of them if they would have a problem arriving at a new place of residence and finding out that they were to sleep in the same room as some guy they had never met. Let us know how that works for you.
> 
> Yes for many people they will not want to live in the same room as a gay person. No I do not have any numbers, but if you get a true survey my bet is I'm right.
> 
> You talk about logic and about males and females sharing quarters............. You have a problem.
> 
> "Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. "
> 
> No this is not a contradiction at all. When DADT is repealed, and I'm certain that eventually it will be, then there will have to be changes and special treatment. I do not know what all those changes and treatment will consist of.
> 
> Now go away child you have much to learn about life, go learn it.
Click to expand...


Speaking of people who have much to learn about life, you'd do well to go learn a lesson or two yourself Stupid Fucker Called Ollie.

You've stated repeatedly that you know nothing about gays, nor do you wish to learn.  There have been many on here, and in the news, who have told you repeatedly that gays serve honorably, and many do with distinction, earning high personal awards.

By the way, many straights have slept in the same room as gays, you just didn't notice they were gay.  I'd be willing to bet some of your Army buddies were gay.

As far as ignoring stupidity?  I personally think it's stupid to quote a post you stated you were going to ignore, and then responding to it.

You're right.  You don't have all the answers.  Shit........I'm surprised that you even have any, but a broken watch is right 2 times a day.

Keep trying ya dumb fuck.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Got to wonder about a Junior NCO who lies so much.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> Got to wonder about a Junior NCO who lies so much.



Yo, chumpsteak, what did I lie about?


----------



## SFC Ollie

> You've stated repeatedly that you know nothing about gays, nor do you wish to learn.



How could I know nothing about gays when I have one in the family who used to live in my house with his partner? Keep making shit up.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> You've stated repeatedly that you know nothing about gays, nor do you wish to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could I know nothing about gays when I have one in the family who used to live in my house with his partner? Keep making shit up.
Click to expand...


You know about gays from the perspective of a family member, not as a military man.

You have no idea about gays that have served, are currently serving, and will probably continue to serve regardless.

It's quite one thing to talk about it from the stance of a disapproving father.

It's quite another to look at it objectively concerning a person's service.  You told us that you'd retired back in 1994 (when DADT was enacted), so therefore, you have zero experience living under the policy and how it affects people living in and around the barracks and the ships.

Try again Stupid Fucking Chump Ollie.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SFC Ollie said:


> Why would it be a problem for male and female soldiers to sleep in the same room? You truly are stupid aren't you? Go out among the female population and ask any of them if they would have a problem arriving at a new place of residence and finding out that they were to sleep in the same room as some guy they had never met. Let us know how that works for you.


The reason I asked the question was not because I thought there was no problem, but because I wanted you to actually provide an answer to the question.  Which you still seem incapable of doing.  So let's try again.  Why do you believe it would be a bad idea for male and female soldiers to sleep in the same room?  I'm asking you to provide your ideas regarding the consequences of that setup. 



SFC Ollie said:


> Yes for many people they will not want to live in the same room as a gay person.


Yes, we've already established you are a bigot and project your bigotry onto others despite no evidence that is the case. The question returns to WHY they will not want to live in the same room.  



SFC Ollie said:


> "Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. "


If you have no support to your point, don't bother making it in the first place.


----------



## ConHog

SmarterThanHick said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be a problem for male and female soldiers to sleep in the same room? You truly are stupid aren't you? Go out among the female population and ask any of them if they would have a problem arriving at a new place of residence and finding out that they were to sleep in the same room as some guy they had never met. Let us know how that works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I asked the question was not because I thought there was no problem, but because I wanted you to actually provide an answer to the question.  Which you still seem incapable of doing.  So let's try again.  Why do you believe it would be a bad idea for male and female soldiers to sleep in the same room?  I'm asking you to provide your ideas regarding the consequences of that setup.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes for many people they will not want to live in the same room as a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we've already established you are a bigot and project your bigotry onto others despite no evidence that is the case. The question returns to WHY they will not want to live in the same room.
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like I said, this will require special treatment and I do not have the answers. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have no support to your point, don't bother making it in the first place.
Click to expand...


There are legitimate concerns to housing gays and straights together etc etc. The question is, do these concerns outweigh the need to get rid of an antiquated, and frankly ignored, policy? In my opinion, no they don't. But pretending like there aren't concerns is just silly.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

straights and gays are already being housed together. that's not the issue.  the issue is what happens when the straight guys KNOW about it.

and while I'd love for you to list the consequences you reference, I'd rather you message them to me so Ollie can think for himself.


----------



## ConHog

SmarterThanHick said:


> straights and gays are already being housed together. that's not the issue.  the issue is what happens when the straight guys KNOW about it.
> 
> and while I'd love for you to list the consequences you reference, I'd rather you message them to me so Ollie can think for himself.



I see no reason to denigrate Ollie here. 

You know exactly what consequences I reference. Can I ask if you've served? I don't ask to insult you or to imply that your opinion isn't valid if you haven't. But rather so I have a better feel for if you've ever been in a military living situation.


----------



## Gadawg73

ConHog said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> straights and gays are already being housed together. that's not the issue.  the issue is what happens when the straight guys KNOW about it.
> 
> and while I'd love for you to list the consequences you reference, I'd rather you message them to me so Ollie can think for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to denigrate Ollie here.
> 
> You know exactly what consequences I reference. Can I ask if you've served? I don't ask to insult you or to imply that your opinion isn't valid if you haven't. But rather so I have a better feel for if you've ever been in a military living situation.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree but not 100%.
Ollie can take it and coming here he knows what to expect.
However, what better person(s) than Ollie and everyone else that was career military to debate this issue with civilly?
I favor the repeal and support gay rights. But I do not believe I will get a 100% following of retired military to follow.
Ollie is one that will come around with time. Sooner than later he will be with us on this one and he will be a very valuable ally at that time.
Watch and see.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I find valuable allies to be people who can support what they're saying, as that tends to lead to more progress being made. Ollie does not possess that trait, but the world does need followers. 

I'm still waiting to see if he will answer.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> straights and gays are already being housed together. that's not the issue.  the issue is what happens when the straight guys KNOW about it.
> 
> and while I'd love for you to list the consequences you reference, I'd rather you message them to me so Ollie can think for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to denigrate Ollie here.
> 
> You know exactly what consequences I reference. Can I ask if you've served? I don't ask to insult you or to imply that your opinion isn't valid if you haven't. But rather so I have a better feel for if you've ever been in a military living situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to agree but not 100%.
> Ollie can take it and coming here he knows what to expect.
> However, what better person(s) than Ollie and everyone else that was career military to debate this issue with civilly?
> I favor the repeal and support gay rights. But I do not believe I will get a 100% following of retired military to follow.
> Ollie is one that will come around with time. Sooner than later he will be with us on this one and he will be a very valuable ally at that time.
> Watch and see.
Click to expand...


No I don't think so. I will accept it when it happens, But I doubt i will support it.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to denigrate Ollie here.
> 
> You know exactly what consequences I reference. Can I ask if you've served? I don't ask to insult you or to imply that your opinion isn't valid if you haven't. But rather so I have a better feel for if you've ever been in a military living situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree but not 100%.
> Ollie can take it and coming here he knows what to expect.
> However, what better person(s) than Ollie and everyone else that was career military to debate this issue with civilly?
> I favor the repeal and support gay rights. But I do not believe I will get a 100% following of retired military to follow.
> Ollie is one that will come around with time. Sooner than later he will be with us on this one and he will be a very valuable ally at that time.
> Watch and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't think so. I will accept it when it happens, But I doubt i will support it.
Click to expand...


It will not be any of us that change your mind.
That will come from the friends and family of those you served with.
You will listen to them and conclude they are right.


----------



## Sunni Man

SmarterThanHick said:


> I find valuable allies to be people who can support what they're saying, as that tends to* lead to more **progress* being made.



How does two soldiers packing each other's fudge lead to * "progress"* ??


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I thought you learned I was a poor trolling target a while ago.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find valuable allies to be people who can support what they're saying, as that tends to* lead to more **progress* being made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does two soldiers packing each other's fudge lead to * "progress"* ??
Click to expand...


Get lost bigot.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find valuable allies to be people who can support what they're saying, as that tends to* lead to more **progress* being made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does two soldiers packing each other's fudge lead to * "progress"* ??
Click to expand...


Because they are human beings. They have been with 'us' since the beginning of man. They have their place and it is progression to give them their rightful place.

I believe that their place is beside the rest of the world.

You have stated what your "Permanent Cure" would be and I reiterate Sunni Man. 

Removing the world from homosexuality removes the world from people. 

Killing homosexuality is killing people.

From this I extend the view that those who want to rid the world of any peoples, are evil minded.

I have the links for what you have said if you want proof of what you have said regarding homosexuality Sunni Man.

They need to be where they should be which is where they have always been.  They just need to be validated as any other worthwhile human being.

You seem to lack that inclusion ability Sunni Man.  

For Personal or Ideological reasons, or both?  Please explain them.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find valuable allies to be people who can support what they're saying, as that tends to* lead to more **progress* being made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does two soldiers packing each other's fudge lead to * "progress"* ??
Click to expand...


Increase the morale of the 2 soldiers?


----------



## ABikerSailor

ConHog said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> straights and gays are already being housed together. that's not the issue.  the issue is what happens when the straight guys KNOW about it.
> 
> and while I'd love for you to list the consequences you reference, I'd rather you message them to me so Ollie can think for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to denigrate Ollie here.
> 
> You know exactly what consequences I reference. Can I ask if you've served? I don't ask to insult you or to imply that your opinion isn't valid if you haven't. But rather so I have a better feel for if you've ever been in a military living situation.
Click to expand...


You know, even though I did push paper in the military, one of the things that was a primary concern was gays in the military and the policy of DADT.

Prior to DADT?  If a person said they were gay, or they were caught participating in gay behavior, they were generally discharged in 24-48 hours.  Matter of fact, on my first ship, there was an Electrician's Mate who had just gone through advanced electronics training (6 year commitment).  He'd been advanced to E-4 and was checking onboard for the next 4 years for his duty station.  As soon as he gave me his transfer package, he stated he was gay.  I asked him if he understood what would happen from that admission, and he said yes.

He was off the ship 24 hours later as a civilian with an honorable discharge.

Saw the same dude 6 months later in Va. Beach, driving a really nice car with a couple of chicks in it with him.  I asked about him being gay, and he stated it was just a way to get out of his enlistment, because some company had just offered him a 50,000/yr job.

After DADT was put in place?  Then there were psych screenings, command reviews and it took about 6 months to put someone out of the military.

Repealing DADT would do a lot of good for the military.  First off, we wouldn't be losing people who simply wanted out.  Second, if gays were able to serve openly, then their SO would be allowed to utilize the ombudsman services provided by the ship to keep in contact with their loved one, as well as be able to be notified by the Red Cross if something happened to their partner back in the States.

The only negative that I can see is that there would be a SMALL attrition rate due to bigoted dinosaurs who wouldn't want to serve with gays, but that would most likely be offset by the sudden influx of gay individuals who actually WANT to be in the military.

Stupid Fucking Chump Ollie never served after DADT was enacted, because he's stated repeatedly that he retired in 1994 (when DADT was put in place).

And..........based on the bigoted way he's posted his homophobic screeds on these boards, I'd be willing to bet that he never knowingly served with, nor is he interested in seeing things from both sides, just his bigoted bullshit.


----------



## High_Gravity

> Prior to DADT? If a person said they were gay, or they were caught participating in gay behavior, they were generally discharged in 24-48 hours. Matter of fact, on my first ship, there was an Electrician's Mate who had just gone through advanced electronics training (6 year commitment). He'd been advanced to E-4 and was checking onboard for the next 4 years for his duty station. As soon as he gave me his transfer package, he stated he was gay. I asked him if he understood what would happen from that admission, and he said yes.
> 
> He was off the ship 24 hours later as a civilian with an honorable discharge.
> 
> Saw the same dude 6 months later in Va. Beach, driving a really nice car with a couple of chicks in it with him. I asked about him being gay, and he stated it was just a way to get out of his enlistment, because some company had just offered him a 50,000/yr job.



I worked in retirements & separations and I discharged a number of gay Airmen at Offutt AFB, from what I understand just admitting you are gay doesn't get you automatically discharged. They had to admit to certain gay acts, get caught commiting a gay act or have evidence against them proving they are gay. If they were in longer than 6 years they were also entitled to severance pay, I discharged a Lesbian female Airman who was in for 8 years, she didn't get kicked out until she got a little kinky at her squadron xmas party and got her secret santa a dildo, and her male room mate turned her in for having sex with a female at their apartment, no idea why he did that, but those were the kinds of things that had to happen for the AF to discharge a gay/lesbian Airman, this was the way it was back in 2003 anyways.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find valuable allies to be people who can support what they're saying, as that tends to* lead to more **progress* being made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does two soldiers packing each other's fudge lead to * "progress"* ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are human beings. They have been with 'us' since the beginning of man. They have their place and it is progression to give them their rightful place.
Click to expand...

Since the beginning of time. 

There has also been rapists, murderers, beastiality, homosexuals, child molesters, and other types of perverts.

But that doesn't mean that we must validate their behavior.

Or as a society embrace their lifestyle as if it were normal.


----------



## Ropey

"They have their place and it is progression to give them their rightful place."

We disagree about their rightful place then it would seem.

I see them as side by side and you see them locked away for life unless they 'change'?



Sunni Man said:


> Let's just say that we would effect a permanent "cure" for their vile affection.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> Prior to DADT? If a person said they were gay, or they were caught participating in gay behavior, they were generally discharged in 24-48 hours. Matter of fact, on my first ship, there was an Electrician's Mate who had just gone through advanced electronics training (6 year commitment). He'd been advanced to E-4 and was checking onboard for the next 4 years for his duty station. As soon as he gave me his transfer package, he stated he was gay. I asked him if he understood what would happen from that admission, and he said yes.
> 
> He was off the ship 24 hours later as a civilian with an honorable discharge.
> 
> Saw the same dude 6 months later in Va. Beach, driving a really nice car with a couple of chicks in it with him. I asked about him being gay, and he stated it was just a way to get out of his enlistment, because some company had just offered him a 50,000/yr job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked in retirements & separations and I discharged a number of gay Airmen at Offutt AFB, from what I understand just admitting you are gay doesn't get you automatically discharged. They had to admit to certain gay acts, get caught commiting a gay act or have evidence against them proving they are gay. If they were in longer than 6 years they were also entitled to severance pay, I discharged a Lesbian female Airman who was in for 8 years, she didn't get kicked out until she got a little kinky at her squadron xmas party and got her secret santa a dildo, and her male room mate turned her in for having sex with a female at their apartment, no idea why he did that, but those were the kinds of things that had to happen for the AF to discharge a gay/lesbian Airman, this was the way it was back in 2003 anyways.
Click to expand...


From 1982 (year I enlisted) until 1994 (the time DADT was enacted), people who admitted to being gay were kicked out within 24-48 hours.

After DADT?  They had to go through the screening process which took roughly 6 months.

All DADT did was buy 'em some time when they were outed.


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> Prior to DADT? If a person said they were gay, or they were caught participating in gay behavior, they were generally discharged in 24-48 hours. Matter of fact, on my first ship, there was an Electrician's Mate who had just gone through advanced electronics training (6 year commitment). He'd been advanced to E-4 and was checking onboard for the next 4 years for his duty station. As soon as he gave me his transfer package, he stated he was gay. I asked him if he understood what would happen from that admission, and he said yes.
> 
> He was off the ship 24 hours later as a civilian with an honorable discharge.
> 
> Saw the same dude 6 months later in Va. Beach, driving a really nice car with a couple of chicks in it with him. I asked about him being gay, and he stated it was just a way to get out of his enlistment, because some company had just offered him a 50,000/yr job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked in retirements & separations and I discharged a number of gay Airmen at Offutt AFB, from what I understand just admitting you are gay doesn't get you automatically discharged. They had to admit to certain gay acts, get caught commiting a gay act or have evidence against them proving they are gay. If they were in longer than 6 years they were also entitled to severance pay, I discharged a Lesbian female Airman who was in for 8 years, she didn't get kicked out until she got a little kinky at her squadron xmas party and got her secret santa a dildo, and her male room mate turned her in for having sex with a female at their apartment, no idea why he did that, but those were the kinds of things that had to happen for the AF to discharge a gay/lesbian Airman, this was the way it was back in 2003 anyways.
Click to expand...


If I bent over a brunette that looked like Monica Lewinsky with a blonde wig on, high heels, a trench coat and doggy styled her in my apartment would I have been discharged?
Hell no. 
No offense but your post is not relevant to the issues at hand.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to DADT? If a person said they were gay, or they were caught participating in gay behavior, they were generally discharged in 24-48 hours. Matter of fact, on my first ship, there was an Electrician's Mate who had just gone through advanced electronics training (6 year commitment). He'd been advanced to E-4 and was checking onboard for the next 4 years for his duty station. As soon as he gave me his transfer package, he stated he was gay. I asked him if he understood what would happen from that admission, and he said yes.
> 
> He was off the ship 24 hours later as a civilian with an honorable discharge.
> 
> Saw the same dude 6 months later in Va. Beach, driving a really nice car with a couple of chicks in it with him. I asked about him being gay, and he stated it was just a way to get out of his enlistment, because some company had just offered him a 50,000/yr job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked in retirements & separations and I discharged a number of gay Airmen at Offutt AFB, from what I understand just admitting you are gay doesn't get you automatically discharged. They had to admit to certain gay acts, get caught commiting a gay act or have evidence against them proving they are gay. If they were in longer than 6 years they were also entitled to severance pay, I discharged a Lesbian female Airman who was in for 8 years, she didn't get kicked out until she got a little kinky at her squadron xmas party and got her secret santa a dildo, and her male room mate turned her in for having sex with a female at their apartment, no idea why he did that, but those were the kinds of things that had to happen for the AF to discharge a gay/lesbian Airman, this was the way it was back in 2003 anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I bent over a brunette that looked like Monica Lewinsky with a blonde wig on, high heels, a trench coat and doggy styled her in my apartment would I have been discharged?
> Hell no.
> No offense but your post is not relevant to the issues at hand.
Click to expand...


Huh? I was discussing with ABikersailor the different ways on how gay service members got discharged before and after DADT was put into effect, thank you but I think yes it is very much relevant.


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked in retirements & separations and I discharged a number of gay Airmen at Offutt AFB, from what I understand just admitting you are gay doesn't get you automatically discharged. They had to admit to certain gay acts, get caught commiting a gay act or have evidence against them proving they are gay. If they were in longer than 6 years they were also entitled to severance pay, I discharged a Lesbian female Airman who was in for 8 years, she didn't get kicked out until she got a little kinky at her squadron xmas party and got her secret santa a dildo, and her male room mate turned her in for having sex with a female at their apartment, no idea why he did that, but those were the kinds of things that had to happen for the AF to discharge a gay/lesbian Airman, this was the way it was back in 2003 anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I bent over a brunette that looked like Monica Lewinsky with a blonde wig on, high heels, a trench coat and doggy styled her in my apartment would I have been discharged?
> Hell no.
> No offense but your post is not relevant to the issues at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? I was discussing with ABikersailor the different ways on how gay service members got discharged before and after DADT was put into effect, thank you but I think yes it is very much relevant.
Click to expand...


What they do in their apartment should not be relevant. It isn't for straights and should not be for gays. 
That is what I meant by being relevant and that is why I stated no offesne to you as I was making my point in reference to what you did.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I bent over a brunette that looked like Monica Lewinsky with a blonde wig on, high heels, a trench coat and doggy styled her in my apartment would I have been discharged?
> Hell no.
> No offense but your post is not relevant to the issues at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I was discussing with ABikersailor the different ways on how gay service members got discharged before and after DADT was put into effect, thank you but I think yes it is very much relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they do in their apartment should not be relevant. It isn't for straights and should not be for gays.
> That is what I meant by being relevant and that is why I stated no offesne to you as I was making my point in reference to what you did.
Click to expand...


Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.


----------



## 52ndStreet

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I was discussing with ABikersailor the different ways on how gay service members got discharged before and after DADT was put into effect, thank you but I think yes it is very much relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their apartment should not be relevant. It isn't for straights and should not be for gays.
> That is what I meant by being relevant and that is why I stated no offesne to you as I was making my point in reference to what you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.
Click to expand...


This is exactly my point. The military holds enlisted soldiers to a higher standard, than lets
say a regular civilian employer. If you sleep with another soldiers wife, you can be brought up on  adultry charges.! So why would the military now be even thinking about letting in openly
homosexual sodomites into the U.S armed forces.!? It goes against the military code of 
ethics. As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is a highly unethical act. Sodomy is still
a crime punishable by death in many countries throughout the world.!
Homosexuals should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces.


----------



## High_Gravity

52ndStreet said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their apartment should not be relevant. It isn't for straights and should not be for gays.
> That is what I meant by being relevant and that is why I stated no offesne to you as I was making my point in reference to what you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. The military holds enlisted soldiers to a higher standard, than lets
> say a regular civilian employer. If you sleep with another soldiers wife, you can be brought up on  adultry charges.! So why would the military now be even thinking about letting in openly
> homosexual sodomites into the U.S armed forces.!? It goes against the military code of
> ethics. As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is a highly unethical act. Sodomy is still
> a crime punishable by death in many countries throughout the world.!
> Homosexuals should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces.
Click to expand...


Well I believe the Military has alot of out dated laws on their books, to me if a Soldier is going through a divorce and goes out with his buddies and has a one night stand, he should not be held accountable for that, it is silly. A friend of mine in the Air Force got in trouble for going out with girls while he was going through a divorce, his soon to be ex wife had already left the area and the divorce was a month away from being final, but since he was still technically married, his First Sergeant insisted on pressing the issue and he faced non judicial punishment. Shit like this is silly and one of the main reasons I got out of the Military to begin with.


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I was discussing with ABikersailor the different ways on how gay service members got discharged before and after DADT was put into effect, thank you but I think yes it is very much relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their apartment should not be relevant. It isn't for straights and should not be for gays.
> That is what I meant by being relevant and that is why I stated no offesne to you as I was making my point in reference to what you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that the same rules apply to straights as gays?


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their apartment should not be relevant. It isn't for straights and should not be for gays.
> That is what I meant by being relevant and that is why I stated no offesne to you as I was making my point in reference to what you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the same rules apply to straights as gays?
Click to expand...


Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.


----------



## rikules

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does two soldiers packing each other's fudge lead to * "progress"* ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are human beings. They have been with 'us' since the beginning of man. They have their place and it is progression to give them their rightful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the beginning of time.
> 
> There has also been rapists, murderers, beastiality, homosexuals, child molesters, and other types of perverts.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that we must validate their behavior.
> 
> Or as a society embrace their lifestyle as if it were normal.
Click to expand...


we should look at ALL of these issues from a LOGICAL and RATIONAL perspective....

"rapists, murderers, child molesters,"

all perform BAD or NEGATIVE acts upon OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT their CONSENT or APPROVAL

these acts should NOT be condoned or accepted and the perpetrators should be punished severely




" beastiality,"

are you with PETA now?

you support HUNTING and KILLING animals but you frown on having sex with them?

lets ask the animals which they would prefer.....sex...or death?


" homosexuals,"

rationally speaking;
homosexuals are mostly decent people
they are MOSTLY very civilized, dress nicely, speak very well, have many talents and strengths, work with us, have careers, own their own businesses, are our friends and family and live in our neighborhoods...


they probably contribute MORE than their fair share to society than most conservatives due, at least in some ways
(they tend to pay more in taxes since they MOSTLY can't get married or have children so they do NOT get the LARGE TAX BREAKS  that conservatives with families get....)


their sexual behavior is CONSENSUAL!

and nobodies business...

people who believe in LESS GOVERNMENT
and FREEDOM
and KEEP THE GOVT OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS
and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

should support gay rights


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the same rules apply to straights as gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.
Click to expand...


Was there an answer in all of that?
If they are treated the same then why DADT?
They are not treated the same and you know it. Quit the BS.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the same rules apply to straights as gays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was there an answer in all of that?
> If they are treated the same then why DADT?
> They are not treated the same and you know it. Quit the BS.
Click to expand...


You know what man fuck you, English is obviously not your first language and you know less than zero about the Military, now go play in traffic bitch.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the way it works in the Military, the Military does have the right to be in your bedroom. If are gay or lesbian and you have sex with a person of the same gender and someone reports you the Military will investigate it, whether you did this in your apartment, the beach, a hotel or whatever. This doesn't just apply to gay people either, if you are married and you cheat on your spouse, you can face court martial for adultry. You can also face charges if you are caught fucking an officer, this isn't like the free world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want, the Military has alot of rules and they pertain to all Military members wherever they are, you cannot hide from Military rules in the saftey of a cozy apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the same rules apply to straights as gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.
Click to expand...


Your 1st Shirt was an asshole. If you are legally separated you are free and clear to play ball.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the same rules apply to straights as gays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your 1st Shirt was an asshole. If you are legally separated you are free and clear to play ball.
Click to expand...


He told me I could not do anything until the divorce was final. And yes, he was a total dick.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 1st Shirt was an asshole. If you are legally separated you are free and clear to play ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told me I could not do anything until the divorce was final. And yes, he was a total dick.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you get those guys sometimes. But then again there were times I had to act like an asshole. My last 2 years it was part of my job description.


----------



## 52ndStreet

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Military gets in your business regardless of your sexuality, right now gay people are now allowed to engage in homosexual acts in the Military but on the same token if a straight Soldier is married and goes out and fucks another woman and people find out, he will be brought up on charges also for adultry. Like I said, this is not the civilian world where you can fuck whoever you want whenever you want. When I was going through a divorce my First Sergeant told me str8 up not to have sex or start a new relationship until my divorce was final which was 6 months away, he made it his business to "check up" on me to make sure I wasn't doing anything with the girls in my squadron, so I had to do my thing with girls off base to avoid suspicion. I used to hang out alot with a girl at work and my superintendent told her to stay away from me because I was still technically married. This is the kind of shit civilians don't understand about the Military. The Military gets in EVERYONES business, not just gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there an answer in all of that?
> If they are treated the same then why DADT?
> They are not treated the same and you know it. Quit the BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what man fuck you, English is obviously not your first language and you know less than zero about the Military, now go play in traffic bitch.
Click to expand...


This Homosexual agenda thing being forced on the Military makes no sense. Like you 
said High grav, if you are heterosexual, and you sleep with another soldiers wife,
they bring you up on adultry charges. But if you are Homosexual sodomite ,sleeping with other grown men, by way of putting your penis up each others anus, they want 
to legalize that kind of perverted activity!?. America is going to hell real fast if you ask me. This is one of the reasons why many Muslim countries hate Americans. They have no more morals.!


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 1st Shirt was an asshole. If you are legally separated you are free and clear to play ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told me I could not do anything until the divorce was final. And yes, he was a total dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you get those guys sometimes. But then again there were times I had to act like an asshole. My last 2 years it was part of my job description.
Click to expand...


Were you a first shirt your last 2 years?


----------



## High_Gravity

52ndStreet said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there an answer in all of that?
> If they are treated the same then why DADT?
> They are not treated the same and you know it. Quit the BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what man fuck you, English is obviously not your first language and you know less than zero about the Military, now go play in traffic bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Homosexual agenda thing being forced on the Military makes no sense. Like you
> said High grav, if you are heterosexual, and you sleep with another soldiers wife,
> they bring you up on adultry charges. But if you are Homosexual sodomite ,sleeping with other grown men, by way of putting your penis up each others anus, they want
> to legalize that kind of perverted activity!?. America is going to hell real fast if you ask me. This is one of the reasons why many Muslim countries hate Americans. They have no more morals.!
Click to expand...


Well the thing is under don't ask don't tell, homosexuals can engage in sex as long as they keep it private and low key. Under don't ask don't tell your supervisor can't jump come up to you and ask you if you are gay, but if someone comes forward with proof that someone is a homosexual an investigation which could lead to a discharge. Back when this law was first put into place people saw it as a good thing to allow homosexuals to serve but now its looked down upon and no one wants it anymore.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> He told me I could not do anything until the divorce was final. And yes, he was a total dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you get those guys sometimes. But then again there were times I had to act like an asshole. My last 2 years it was part of my job description.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you a first shirt your last 2 years?
Click to expand...


Worse, I was Operations Sergeant in a training company and the Senior Instructor at one of the courses.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you get those guys sometimes. But then again there were times I had to act like an asshole. My last 2 years it was part of my job description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a first shirt your last 2 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worse, I was Operations Sergeant in a training company and the Senior Instructor at one of the courses.
Click to expand...


Damn, it was demanding to supervise 1 person in my opinion, I could only imagine having to do all that.


----------

