Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[Flaylo]

Answer my question first.

You're the one who advocates we keep a policy that is costing us troops you tell us why we should keep it.

You're the one that wants to change the policy as well as you're the one that believes people should have to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that are disgusting and immoral.

Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.

And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?

I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Back off. I am every bit as professional as you will EVER be... and I am just as proud of my country, my navy, and my service to it as anyone else.

In this forum you and that other sailor have not been professional, especially that other sailor with his foul mouth and need I bring to your remembrance that thread Charlie Bass opened on ABikerSailor exposing his disregard for abused children?

 

[Flaylo]

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.

bullshit. I never willfully, or even unwittingly, disobeyed any regulation.

You should not be so quick to accuse your seniors of such conduct.

You're not my senior, you are retired and chances are you would have never made the rank you have without the hard work and dedication of NCOs, we are the backbone of the military, officers, except for the ones in combat arms, are mostly chair-borne paper pushers who take the credit for what NCOs do.

 

[Father Time]

You're the one that wants to change the policy as well as you're the one that believes people should have to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that are disgusting and immoral.

Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.

And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?

I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.

Troops being discharged because of a stupid policy is still less troops. That's demonstrable harm. So unless you can show reason to keep it no amount of 'well it doesn't hurt that much' will make it a good rule.

So once again give us a good reason to keep it, because if it only does a small amount of damage then it's still a damaging unneeded rule.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

PERCEIVED asshole PERCEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PERCEIVED 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 have never witchunted a homosexual, it is illegal to do so, I don't initiate administrative action to separate a soldier based on "perceived acts," I base everything off of truthful, substantiated facts, nobody is discharged under DADT for perceived homosexual acts.

 

[Flaylo]

Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.

And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?

I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.

Troops being discharged because of a stupid policy is still less troops. That's demonstrable harm. So unless you can show reason to keep it no amount of 'well it doesn't hurt that much' will make it a good rule.

So once again give us a good reason to keep it, because if it only does a small amount of damage then it's still a damaging unneeded rule.

You haven't shown any demonstrable harm, what you have shown is your one sided homosexual biased agenda and total disregard for servicemembers discharged for reasons other than DADT and it is these discharges that are more numerous, if we take your version of "demonstrable harm" the military should do away with all discharges and thats not how the military works, I don't care about which policies you feel are stupid because what is stupid is subjective. Your statement that DADT is damaging and damaging is flat out untruthful, you're not in the military so how would you know whats damaging? When did you and one sided homosexual biased activist become experts on military readiness?

 

[Father Time]

I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.

Troops being discharged because of a stupid policy is still less troops. That's demonstrable harm. So unless you can show reason to keep it no amount of 'well it doesn't hurt that much' will make it a good rule.

So once again give us a good reason to keep it, because if it only does a small amount of damage then it's still a damaging unneeded rule.

You haven't shown any demonstrable harm, what you have shown is your one sided homosexual biased agenda and total disregard for servicemembers discharged for reasons other than DADT and it is these discharges that are more numerous, if we take your version of "demonstrable harm" the military should do away with all discharges and thats not how the military works, I don't care about which policies you feel are stupid because what is stupid is subjective. Your statement that DADT is damaging and damaging is flat out untruthful, you're not in the military so how would you know whats damaging? When did you and one sided homosexual biased activist become experts on military readiness?

People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.

 

[Flaylo]

People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.

By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.

 

[Flaylo]

By the way Flaylo, stating that your service is so much better than the Navy people on this board, lemmie ask you something......did you see the fucked up way a soldier (namely the retired delivery boy Ollie) treated an officer he KNEW was an officer?

Yeah.....tell me again how much better military bearing the Army has.........if Ollie the Pissed is any representative, glad I didn't become a lobotomized ground pounder.

SFC Ollie has been very professional, he supports the regulations and doesn't let any personal biases he may have influence his decisions on how military policy should be enforced. He has demonstrated care and concern for the health and welfare of all service members as well as unit cohesion.

 

[Father Time]

People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.

By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.

You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?

 

[Father Time]

Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?

 

[Flaylo]

People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.

By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.

You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?

Loss is sometimes addition by substraction and I support military regulations, even the ones I don't agree with because its my job, personal opinion and bias will not affect nor stop me from carrying out policy. Discharges have been put in place for a reason, to preserve the good order, discipline, morale and welfare of servicemembers. You are not in the military so you don't understand.

 

[Flaylo]

Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?

What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.

 

[maineman]

Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?

What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.

the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs. Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125? Did Ollie?

I'll bet not.

can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

 

[Flaylo]

Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?

What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.

the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs. Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125? Did Ollie?

I'll bet not.

can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.

 

[maineman]

What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.

the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs. Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125? Did Ollie?

I'll bet not.

can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.

have YOU ever gotten a blowjob? Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?

and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?

 

[CurveLight]

By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.

You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?

Loss is sometimes addition by substraction and I support military regulations, even the ones I don't agree with because its my job, personal opinion and bias will not affect nor stop me from carrying out policy. Discharges have been put in place for a reason, to preserve the good order, discipline, morale and welfare of servicemembers. You are not in the military so you don't understand.

You can shove that fascist shit.

 

[Flaylo]

the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs. Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125? Did Ollie?

I'll bet not.

can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.

have YOU ever gotten a blowjob? Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?

and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?

What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.

 

[maineman]

I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.

have YOU ever gotten a blowjob? Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?

and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?

What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.

I don't think you really ARE a noncom. I actually can't believe that you have ever served. If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation. And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.

 

[Flaylo]

have YOU ever gotten a blowjob? Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?

and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?

What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.

I don't think you really ARE a noncom. I actually can't believe that you have ever served. If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation. And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.

I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.