Obama's "Dont Ask Dont Tell"

eye95 said:

A lot of folks, even some here, don't like reality. It is still real.

Click to expand...

+1 as always

NRAMARINE said:

The military does not exist to be politically correct. It is not a labratory for grand social experiments, nor is being in the military a civil right. The military's purpose is simple, WIN WARS. The ultimate job of the individual soldier is to kill the enemy. For that to happen clarity of mind and purpose is essential to morale. Speaking as a Marine I can honestly say that what someone does in private is their business. However if you parade a behavior many find immoral and in direct contradiction to the beliefs of most young fighting men you will become a target. Face facts, the job of keeping this country safe is done by young men who are often aggressive and "uber-male". For example,women are just as capable in combat as men. No doubt about it. However men are hardwired to protect women,and will linger over wounded females who cannot be saved, often to the detriment of the mission. The men are the problem, not the women, that's true. But the problem remains, so in the interest of winning the battles, women are often kept out of firefights whenever possible. Whether the problem is gays, or homophobes is irrelevant. The problem remains and this will make it worse.This will serve only to weaken our military. Which I suspect is what this is all about anyway.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the Gunnies will straighten out the homophobes.

Armies throughout history, for thousands of years have functioned quite well while populated with homosexual and bi-sexual males at all levels of the TOE.

Most current armies, with the exception of the US, have openly homosexual personnel serving and have had for centuries in some of the older armies.

I had a person with whom I went to the police academy 30 years ago whom I suspect was of that persuasion. I considered it his business and not mine. We literally trusted each other with our lives. I still would.

Look, I could care less if the guy next to me in the foxhole is gay. If he's a Marine he's my brother, PERIOD. But keep your individual perversions to yourself. What's happening here is that politicians are playing politics with people in combat. This whole thing is a distraction that takes attention away from the objective, winning the war. Distractions are counterproductive and must be removed as efficiently as possible. As I said, this is part of the left's agenda to undermine traditional values, erode morale, therefore weakening the military.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm you can see them doing all of this, however #26 is pertinent to this discussion.

NRAMARINE said:

But the problem remains, so in the interest of winning the battles, women are often kept out of firefights whenever possible. Whether the problem is gays, or homophobes is irrelevant. The problem remains and this will make it worse.This will serve only to weaken our military. Which I suspect is what this is all about anyway.

Click to expand...

No, this will not "make it worses." With a scratch of a pen, an entire class of previously oppressed persons will feel that their country's military finally accepts them as equals.

Considering all the wrongs in the world today. wars, murders,rapes, etc just to name a few. Who is having sex with who rates so low on my list that I don't even think or care about it. There are more important things we should be focusing on if we want to make this a better place to live for all. At least they are willing to serve this great country to help protect our rights and their rights.

I was in the military back in the 80's and we knew who was gay and who wasn't. Not only was there no problems but no one really even cared. They pulled their weight along with the rest of us. Nuff said.

NRAMARINE said:

The military does not exist to be politically correct. It is not a labratory for grand social experiments, nor is being in the military a civil right. The military's purpose is simple, WIN WARS. The ultimate job of the individual soldier is to kill the enemy. For that to happen clarity of mind and purpose is essential to morale. Speaking as a Marine I can honestly say that what someone does in private is their business. However if you parade a behavior many find immoral and in direct contradiction to the beliefs of most young fighting men you will become a target. Face facts, the job of keeping this country safe is done by young men who are often aggressive and "uber-male". For example,women are just as capable in combat as men. No doubt about it. However men are hardwired to protect women,and will linger over wounded females who cannot be saved, often to the detriment of the mission. The men are the problem, not the women, that's true. But the problem remains, so in the interest of winning the battles, women are often kept out of firefights whenever possible. Whether the problem is gays, or homophobes is irrelevant. The problem remains and this will make it worse.This will serve only to weaken our military. Which I suspect is what this is all about anyway.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100% I have several friends who served and I would served with them again because it was not throw in the faces of others soldiers like so many gays do in public. They flaunt it like their something special and make it very well know. It’s one thing when everybody’s in uniform, you’re at work … if this guy’s gay, no big deal, But when he/she walks in with his boyfriend/girlfriend in civilian clothes to the restaurant that you’re having your [unit function] dining-in at, that’s a very different thing.

They are obvious to anyone who has serviced in the military, living in a barracks or serving in a forward area where living conditions with other soldiers are very close and intimate. Military barracks can have two or more soldiers quartered in the same small room, or more people quartered per tent/hut/hooch/open bay.

There is little physical privacy, especially in deployed forward areas. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy of deliberately ignoring military regulations which clearly state homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service, the policy on homosexuality was very simple: it isn’t allowed.

Anything that hinders, gets in the way of or reduces the military’s effectiveness in killing bad guys and destroying their war-making capability is excess baggage, and the military rightfully does everything it can to minimize excess baggage.

Our military doesn’t exist to make people feel good–certainly not people who make a choice to engage in immoral and unhealthy sexual practices. If people want to do that, they can stay at home in the civilian world. America needs her military to be as sharp and ready to strike as possible. We cannot afford to be distracted by such social engineering and accommodation of counterproductive behaviors.

Uber_Olafsun said:

I am waiting to see how they manage housing, showers etc because of this. They very reason they dont bunk males and females is supposed to be that it would be a distraction and could cause problems with sex etc. When I was in the dorms for the Air Force they had a 1 person to a room with a shared shower bath that could be locked from the inside when using it etc so that would not be a problem but in communal showers there could be issues. Just do like starship troopers and have everyone bunk shower etc in the same area and tell them they are adults and behave like such. I am 99% sure there will be a lawsuit of some type about someone who is homosexual in a shower and somebody who is straight saying they stared at my junk and demanding equal protection for their sexual preference and feeling violated. I don't think this is done by a longshot yet.

I have served with gays, had a gay roommate who was in my wedding party etc and have no problem with them serving just like everyone else but logistically this is going to be a nightmare. Or it could be really easy. Say 20 people deploy 10 men 10 women various sexuality. Instead of having 2 tents that hold 20 people each for males and females just have one that they all stay in.

It comes down to privacy and the military is far from allowing anything to be private.

Click to expand...

Um, this (retired) senior NCO happens to know you have already been bunking and showing with gay or bi-sexual people if you've been in open-bay barracks or open-bay showers. Any of 'em hit on you? If they do, there's a recourse. An adult will say "No, thanks, not interested." and expect that to be the end of it. If it goes on, you bring it to the SNCO or the chain of command.

NOTHING needs to happen differently but the following two statements, firmly and forcefully, if necessary:

- There will be no discharges for gay service members simply because they are gay. Individual behaviors will be, as always, dealt with appropriately (i.e. following rules on fraternization and improper command or influence relationships).
- Treat others as you would have them treat you.

End of discussion.

zack991 said:

Agreed 100% I have several friends who served and I would served with them again because it was not throw in the faces of others soldiers like so many gays do in public. They flaunt it like their something special and make it very well know.

Click to expand...

What is "flaunting" it? Having a boyfriend if you're a guy, that you kiss and hold hands with on leave? That you post pictures of in your bunk? That you writer letters to or invite to military dinners? Is that "flaunting" it?

Tawnos said:

What is "flaunting" it? Having a boyfriend if you're a guy, that you kiss and hold hands with on leave? That you post pictures of in your bunk? That you writer letters to or invite to military dinners? Is that "flaunting" it?

Click to expand...

Simple gays in the civilian side act by displaying their lifestyle in ostentatiously manor that they are here and that they are different from everyone else. Which is simply not needed, they do not have to shove it in the faces of so many people whom may or may not disagree with their lifestyle. When I am taking my wife to military functions I am not dressing in a un-civilized manor nor am I am acting in such a way that makes my lifestyle an unwelcome distraction to the unit. My wife does not dress up like a whore or a in a slutty outfit to tell others that I am straight. I am not showing up in reviling cloths or brightly colored shits with words on them to bring attention to my lifestyle. The many gay services members who I am proud to have served with DID NOT ostentatiously force their lifestyle to be accepted by others. My friends did not dress up in wild outfits nor did they ever to act in a femaleness way as in voice and or personality to try to show themselves as any different from the rest of us. The only reason gays act out like this in public is because they want to be noticed as not just another guy/girl. They are trying to make their lifestyle seem more normalized and all their doing is making those who all ready disagree with it disagree with it even more. Many whom disagree with the openly gay lifestyle because they see it as being forced to having their lifestyle shoved in their face verses just acting normal in public and not bringing undue attention to themselves.

zack991 said:

Agreed 100% I have several friends who served and I would served with them again because it was not throw in the faces of others soldiers like so many gays do in public. They flaunt it like their something special and make it very well know. It’s one thing when everybody’s in uniform, you’re at work … if this guy’s gay, no big deal, But when he/she walks in with his boyfriend/girlfriend in civilian clothes to the restaurant that you’re having your [unit function] dining-in at, that’s a very different thing.

They are obvious to anyone who has serviced in the military, living in a barracks or serving in a forward area where living conditions with other soldiers are very close and intimate. Military barracks can have two or more soldiers quartered in the same small room, or more people quartered per tent/hut/hooch/open bay.

There is little physical privacy, especially in deployed forward areas. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy of deliberately ignoring military regulations which clearly state homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service, the policy on homosexuality was very simple: it isn’t allowed.

Anything that hinders, gets in the way of or reduces the military’s effectiveness in killing bad guys and destroying their war-making capability is excess baggage, and the military rightfully does everything it can to minimize excess baggage.

Our military doesn’t exist to make people feel good–certainly not people who make a choice to engage in immoral and unhealthy sexual practices. If people want to do that, they can stay at home in the civilian world. America needs her military to be as sharp and ready to strike as possible. We cannot afford to be distracted by such social engineering and accommodation of counterproductive behaviors.

Click to expand...

My point exactly, I don't care if someone is gay. However making being "openly Gay" legal in the military will encourage some( not all) to throw it in people's faces simply because they can. This will lead to untold conflict in the ranks.

Under "Don't ask, don't tell" it never was illegal to be gay in the military. That is a myth. Certain behaviors were illegal.

It was illegal to be "openly gay". Hence, don't ask, don't tell.

eye95 said:

Under "Don't ask, don't tell" it never was illegal to be gay in the military. That is a myth. Certain behaviors were illegal.

Click to expand...

It in fact protected gays, It required commanders to have more UCMJ violations other than the person being "gay" from being kicked out of the military. Now that protection is gone.

Correct Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 125—Sodomy
Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) With a child under the age of 16.

(a) Article 125—forcible sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (2) below)

(b) Article 134—indecent acts with a child under 16

(c) Article 80—attempts

(2) Forcible sodomy.

(a) Article 125—sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (3) below)

(b) Article 134—assault with intent to commit sodomy

(c) Article 134—indecent assault

(d) Article 80—attempts.

(3) Sodomy.

(a) Article 134—indecent acts with another

(b) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.

(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Don't forget about Art. 133 Conduct unbecoming.

In four years of active duty in the late '80s, I never saw a case of homosexuality (whether suspected or confirmed) that disrupted a unit.

Now, when it comes to heterosexual behavior, that was a problem. You think cohesion, morale, and respect weren't affected when the squadron XO gave his wife VD, which he happened to have acquired from the wife of one of the troop commanders? And she got it from one of her husband's subordinates, or maybe the other way around... it was hard to keep track, since she was screwing everyone except her husband.

Under DADT, a soldier couldn't admit to being gay, even if he wasn't engaging in any prohibited activity. Funny thing though: sodomy is a gender-neutral violation of the UCMJ. I have never heard of a case, and I doubt one exists from the last 40 years, of a heterosexual soldier being prosecuted for openly bragging about getting a blowjob.

zack991 said:

Simple gays in the civilian side act by displaying their lifestyle in ostentatiously manor that they are here and that they are different from everyone else.

Click to expand...

What is so ostentatious? Are you a Christian? Do you ever wear a cross, or shirts that proclaim your belief, or carry a bible, etc? Isn't that "displaying [your] lifestyle ostentatiously"?

Which is simply not needed, they do not have to shove it in the faces of so many people whom may or may not disagree with their lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Lifestyle, interesting choice of words. Did you choose to be straight? Do you consider being straight your "lifestyle"? If not, why do you presume to tell gay people that it's a lifestyle choice?

When I am taking my wife to military functions I am not dressing in a un-civilized manor nor am I am acting in such a way that makes my lifestyle an unwelcome distraction to the unit. My wife does not dress up like a whore or a in a slutty outfit to tell others that I am straight. I am not showing up in reviling cloths or brightly colored shits with words on them to bring attention to my lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Could you provide examples of those who act in such a way? Would you consider it distracting for a gay man and his husband to show up in matching black and white tuxes? What if they danced together, held hands, kissed? At what point does it offend you?

The many gay services members who I am proud to have served with DID NOT ostentatiously force their lifestyle to be accepted by others.

Click to expand...

Why is it so damn hard for you to accept that others are gay?

My friends did not dress up in wild outfits nor did they ever to act in a femaleness way as in voice and or personality to try to show themselves as any different from the rest of us.

Click to expand...

And if that's how they are, and they're not acting out, but simply being who they are?

The only reason gays act out like this in public is because they want to be noticed as not just another guy/girl. They are trying to make their lifestyle seem more normalized and all their doing is making those who all ready disagree with it disagree with it even more.

Click to expand...

Bull.Shiat.

Many whom disagree with the openly gay lifestyle because they see it as being forced to having their lifestyle shoved in their face verses just acting normal in public and not bringing undue attention to themselves.

Click to expand...

Define your terms. What is "acting normal"? What is being done that isn't based on stereotypes?

General George Washington didn't seem to have a problem with homosexuality when he made Friedrich Von Steuben a general in the continental army and trusted him to train his troops.

Friedrich Von Steuben created discipline in the ranks, introduced hygiene and other health standards and played a pivotal role in the American Revolution. He also wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual that stayed in use until the war of 1812.

I have no doubt that allowing openly gay military members will cause some problems within the ranks. Much in the same way integrating blacks and females into the regular military did, it will cause some issues at first, and it will linger for a long time to a smaller degree after the initial wave is over.

However, in much the same way, as the generations pass by, it will become more and more common place and eventually people will come to understand that their fears, however great or small, were pretty much based on unfounded, pumped up hype which was designed to stop the issue from being settled in the first place.

As those who served in a certain period retire out and replacements take over, time will replace the old with the new, and things will roll on.

Much in the way of running in boots, khaki uniforms, the Colt .45, segregated units, horses-drawn carriages, gamma-goats, jungle fatigues, C-rats, WACs, the Army Air Corps, the steel pot helmet, K-Bars, the Dragon, the M-14, the John Wayne bar, the Jeep, and a million other things, this too will pass into history.

While people will continue to argue over whether or not this change will be detrimental to the over all ability for our military to fight and win wars, people will be silently getting over it and moving on around you at the same time.

My suggestion to those who are still serving now (I am retired btw), would be to figure out a way to settle the matter within yourself now and move on. Whether that means dropping your retirement papers and getting out, or ranting and raging about it, it makes no difference. Get over it and settle the matter soon because lives depend on how you will react to the changes.

If you have deep convictions which you must adhere to, then please act on them and do what you must- retire out or simply ETS, and let others who can work within the new system take over. I'm not knocking people who may have religious disagreements to the policy, either. If your convictions are making it impossible to serve any longer, then you must follow them and do what you need to do to remove yourself from a situation you cannot morally be a part of.

But the fact is, gays serving in the military is no longer a legal issue. There's nothing you can do about it. Although it will take several months for the UCMJ and other binding regulations to catch up in each of the service branches, no one will be removed henceforth for being gay. It's here, and it's something everyone who is serving must deal with. The arguments for or against it are over, and now all that is left is how one's personal convictions is going to affect their job performance.

For some, it's a hard pill to swallow. For others, it's a sense of freedom and a realization of a dream they once thought impossible to even think of. Whatever it means, it's here and it's pretty much settled now. There will be a definite time of adjustment, one that I'm sure will cause some severe problems at first, but over time things will settle and people will move on. It's one of the more momentous times of change in our military and I hope that people can figure out the details soon. Too many people who simply want nothing more than to survive out there want and need strong leadership now. In some ways their world has been turned upside down. It's up to NCOs to provide a strong base for the people under their leadership to hold onto- and that means ALL people under their leadership.

Settle the matter within yourself fast, and be the one people can turn to when they need you the most. Put all the junk aside for now and get these people under your span of control home safely.

Carry on.

KBCraig said:

In four years of active duty in the late '80s, I never saw a case of homosexuality (whether suspected or confirmed) that disrupted a unit.

Now, when it comes to heterosexual behavior, that was a problem. You think cohesion, morale, and respect weren't affected when the squadron XO gave his wife VD, which he happened to have acquired from the wife of one of the troop commanders? And she got it from one of her husband's subordinates, or maybe the other way around... it was hard to keep track, since she was screwing everyone except her husband.

Under DADT, a soldier couldn't admit to being gay, even if he wasn't engaging in any prohibited activity. Funny thing though: sodomy is a gender-neutral violation of the UCMJ. I have never heard of a case, and I doubt one exists from the last 40 years, of a heterosexual soldier being prosecuted for openly bragging about getting a blowjob.

Click to expand...

Actually I have seen one case reported in the Navy Times back in the late 80's/early 90's. A Sailor on an aircraft carrier was bragging about a BJ his wife gave him. It was overheard by some officer in his squadron and got sent up the COC. He got demoted and I believe was discharged. The only case I have ever heard of, but yes it has happened.

Anytime you are not used to seeing a sect of society act normal in public, simply because they fear retribution, it will of course be perceived as "flaunting it" ONLY because the person perceiving said "flaunting", is not used to witnessing normal, homosexual acts.

This is the VERY SAME mentality that persisted when desegregation of military branches occurred under the FEPC, implemented under President Truman.


Sorry guys, but your fear is the most unwarranted thing I think I have ever seen.


I have likewise served with numerous soldiers who were homosexual. Probably showered with a few too.

Being secure in your own sexuality will assist you in not feeling uncomfortable around these people. If you are scared otherwise, I would charge it is you who has the problem.

Also, I have seen soldiers act completely "flaming" (The "flaunting", as you put it.) in the barracks and elsewhere, and nobody gave a rats ass.

The only ones who ever started anything, were the idiots who would try to sneak in a sly, "Psstt,...omg man. Did you know so and so is gay!?".

Here's a good response for those guys.

WHO CARES?