Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or the like; please stay home.
BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
PRECEIVED asshole PRECEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PRECEIVED him to be gay. Don't come here after that comment and try to tell me you are not on an anti-gay WITCH HUNT!!! We BOTH know you ARE!
"I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by."
Those are weak concerns. Whether you like it or not, it isn't against the law to be gay. Worrying about what kids may or may not see is a worthwhile endeavor... when it is appropriate. Trying to keep kids from seeing legal, normal behavior does not fall into this, IMO. And if a soldier is "disgusted" by the thought of something, he'll just have to get over that.
"I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by."
Those are weak concerns. Whether you like it or not, it isn't against the law to be gay. Worrying about what kids may or may not see is a worthwhile endeavor... when it is appropriate. Trying to keep kids from seeing legal, normal behavior does not fall into this, IMO. And if a soldier is "disgusted" by the thought of something, he'll just have to get over that.
Weak for you but not weak for those in uniform and no soldier should have to be forced to accept that.
If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her. If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.
That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it. ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.
I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered. I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated. But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date. I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.
I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by.
Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
PRECEIVED asshole PRECEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PRECEIVED him to be gay. Don't come here after that comment and try to tell me you are not on an anti-gay WITCH HUNT!!! We BOTH know you ARE!
My perception is my personal take, but it doesn't always equal reality and the only way I would push for an administrative chapter is if the soldiers admitted being gay and or was caught committing homosexual acts, no one is allowed to go after gays.
Faggots claim not to look at the butts and bodies of straight men, but this is refuted by the fact that for example, 50% of the readers of Playgirl magazine are faggots when the magazine's intended audience is heterosexual women. Taking this into account, who's to say that these same faggots will not look at the butts and bodies of straight men in communal showers, eventhough they and their fag loving supporters claim that faggots have no desire to do so?
Why does it seem as though the most professional servicemembers in this forum are soldiers and marines? We have much more strict standards than the other two branches, but airmen and sailors are no less professional, the ones outside of this forum that is.
Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.
"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed. Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit. If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual. What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
So? You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference. Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander. There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason. This is one. Suck it up .... sir.
BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or for that matter openly display your preference; please don't apply. None of the afore mentioned behavior is accepted in the civilian business world, and one shouldn't have to be subjected to it in the armed forces. Take your pick; in the civilian business world, any of that behavior would be considered sexual harassment, an established crime.
You're stereotyping and I disagree.
True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?
This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay. Yup makes perfect sense.
Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?
Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.
"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.
"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed. Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit. If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual. What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
So? You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference. Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander. There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason. This is one. Suck it up .... sir.
So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay. Yup makes perfect sense.
Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?
Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity. Women are defined by gender. Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors. There is no comparison.
"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
A homosexual is defined by who they are attracted to not by their behavior.
Your argument appears to be that if someone wants to talk about their sexuality once they obviously care about it more than being a soldier which is just stupid.
da bass, i Have not personally attacked you in any way, so i will ask you and others, why do israel, and a lot of the other nato nations allow gays to serve openly?
can someone please explain that?
