Let us end the bickering

[compmanio365]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

Audioautomatica wrote:

hp-hobo-
"does not mean that you deserve to have that honorable discharge... It just means you didn't get caught."
" I guess we can only be brothers in armsif we all shoot the brand of gun you prefer."

Are you serious? You're attacking him because he's gay and doesn't think the gun you own is pretty?

Talk about showing true colors.

You're f*cking kidding me right? How many times do I have to say, I DON"T CARE ABOUT HIS SEXUALITY. When he was in the military, it was against published regulations to be homosexual and it was my sworn duty to report it, much the same as if he was using drugs, selling top secret information or stealing. It doesn't matter if you agree with the regs or not, it's your job. And what he was doing was illegal. Anyone with half a brain understands that.

Show me one time, just once, where I attacked him for being homosexual. You can't do it because I didn't do it. Talk about showing true colors. What color is incredibly stupid? That'd be your shade.

"Sorry, but it's the regs that I have to disarm you forcibly, with that tank back there if necessary. Not my fault, just following orders. I mean, I swore an oath, or something......not sure what that oath means, but I swore it, dammit! Now give us your guns or we'll run you and your house over!"

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

As  I said, my rep is likely ruined on this blog.

Why do you think this? Haven't you noticed any of the fun we've been having over in the CA subforum lately?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Doug's extensive submarine experience clearly gives him a leg-up in this discussion.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I spent fourteen months spanning the Yom Kippur War underwater with three twenty-four hour resupplies on the surface. We had no one out of the closet on board.

We had an observant Mormon as shipmate, funny birthcontrol skivvies and all. We called him Clare 'horsecock.'

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

I spent fourteen months spanning the Yom Kippur War underwater with three twenty-four hour resupplies on the surface. We had no one out of the closet on board.

We had an observant Mormon as shipmate, funny birthcontrol skivvies and all. We called him Clare 'horsecock.'

What does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

It seems to have about as much to do with the discussion as the official US position 30+ years ago on homosexuals in the military. I'm not sure that the term trainwreck even begins to cover it.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Okay children. One of the things that originally attracted me to this board was the general level of intelligence. It looks like I stepped into the middle of the group that is separate from the norm. I'll try to make this very simple for you because it sure appears as though your highest level of achievement is night manager at Mooby's.

Anytime you accept a job that requires more responsibility than making sure you say "want some fries with that?", you have entered into a legal contract. Sometimes verbal, sometimes written, sometimes implied, sometimes a combination of the three. When this gentleman entered military service he swore, simply put, to do as he was told (this was before you were allowed to affirm). It goes something like this;

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That, much like our beloved Second Amendment is pretty clear cut. No wiggle room. During my 23 years I did things that I didn't agree with, that I didn't understand, that I simply didn't want to do.But I still did them because I gave my word that I would.Something a man does, you should try it sometime. A couple of times I f*cked up and paid the price... Stripes, money or both. Now pay attention, because here is the critical difference.

The times I didn't play by the rules were not planned or intentional. I made stupid decisions. He on the other hand knew BEFORE taking that oath that he'd be violating the regs. His violation was intentional. There was no question about it because you were asked several times both verbally and in writing.

As for whether I would do what the government tells me now (confiscating my guns) or not is comparing apples and oranges. For 23 years I worked for the government. Now I am a private citizen and the government is supposed to work for me. My right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I’m unfamiliar with the Amendment that allows you to ignore a binding legal contract. Maybe you can show it to me.

Finally, I’m about fed up with those of you in this thread that don’t have facts to support your opinions and assertions about me, so you go ahead and make them up. I’m still waiting for someone to show me where I attacked anyone for their sexuality or that I’m somehow fearful of homosexuals. Can’t do it. I don’t care about what two consenting adults do in private, and that’s how I’ve lived my life for all of my 51 years.


So kiddies, go ahead and try to find something to whine about now. Facts are facts, and they all back me up. Now get back to work. It's lunchtime and there's a long line of customers waiting for burgers.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Geeze. Okay, HP. Let me tell you that I was "Found out" when it was discovered that I was frequenting the Georgetown Grill and the Pier 9. I was interviewed by the OSI and admitted to being bi. There was lots of talk about waht to do with me and I remained on duty with my police powers intact, but ultimately the decision was made to give me a full honorable discharge (the norm back then was "General under Honorable Conditions") That ought to tell you something about the carachter of my service. And by the way this was in a time when lots of straight boys were claiming to be gay to duck their service obligation.

I was USAF. But tell me, where on a submarine is there enough privacy for a bit of hot cha-cha?? And who would want to?? On a submarine? eeeewwww......

I was gonna make a joke about a "submarine sandwich" but nah...

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

imported post

Alexcabbie (17 November 2008 Monday 04:40) wrote:

Of course I realize that we have atheists amonst us.

I am one.

... our sacred (sorry, atheists; that is just how I see it)

No problem. I have a very high tolerance for metaphor and traditional phrases, or even actual differences of opinion.

I don't feel the need to be a PitA to those who believe differently than I do, so long as they show me a similar courtesy. I even say "Merry Christmas" during the holidays.

The enemies of the 2nd Amendment rejoice to see us argue. Our enemies - who are largely dupes who do not realize that they ate their own worst enemy - love it to read our bitterness toward each other. They realize that ifn they can keep us from hanging together,then eventually they can hang us one at a time from their gallows. And if we keep on bickering, we will even help buld the gallows upon which we shall hang.

That's it. We're scr3w3d.

regards,

GR

 

[Gordie]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

Audioautomatica wrote:

I don't care what you imagine your sworn duties would be.

Anyone who has served this country deserves an honorable discharge, everyone short of rapists I suppose. :quirky



He and I come from vastly different times but I can't imagine homosexuality being so horrbile 'back in the day' that soldiers would go out of the way of their own duties just to report it.

Edit: By duties I mean physical activities. Things more important than telling on someone.


It's a preposterous idea just typing it out, although I suppose it isn't impossible.



Anyhow the point is (was?) he was gay, and a person would have to make the choice to report it; duty or not. I can't imagine someone with gay family members or being gay themselves or anyone comfortable with gay people would make a point of getting someone thrown out of the military over sexuality.

I don't claim to know the social or moral structure of the military past or present as I'm not, never was and never will be related to the military. But if I were, and I had been when he was I wouldn't have reported anything.


Oh and..

hp-hobo said: ", and I liked you better when you were still in your closet."


Or perhaps it was satire that was over my head.

You are obviously and completely without a clue. First you tell me that you don't know what my imagined sworn duties were. Then you say that it may be possible. Then you admit that you haven't served your country in a military capacity. Well I have. Proudly, for over 23 years. My wife still does. My son is about to. Like it or don't little fella, I know just a little bit more about the military than you. If he joined in 1971, homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals were banned from military service. Like it or don't, I don't care. Denying the truth makes it no less the truth. So if he was a homosexual while in the military, the only reason he got his precious Honorable Discharge is because he lied for his entire enlistment. Did he serve honorably? Probably... Except for that one critical detail.

As for my quoted comment above. Anything taken out of context can be twisted however you want it. You done a good job Skippy. You should be proud of yourself. Put in your resume and go to work for the DNC.

Saying that you are duty bound to report people that are doing no harm to anyone is ridiculous. There were people in my squadron that we knew were in "violation of regulations", but they did their jobs and they did them well. Although these people would have been discharged if someone would have turned them in, most of us agreed that they were better to serve with than some of "straight" guys who just followed orders.

Also, the argument that you would have to do something just because it was an order was pretty much destroyed at the Nuremberg trials, "I didn't want to put the nice Jews in the chamber, but I had orders.":what:

I was told in training that if an order was unlawful or unjust, I had no duty to preform it. The catch was that I would have to be prepared to defend that decision later and accept any consequences of that decision.

I also remember hearing about regulations that covered which sexual position between a husband and wife were approved (that's right, only one), would you have reported someone for spicing things up a little. I'm not sure if it's still there but there used to be a regulation that you could only have sex with your spouse, how many single guys and cheaters did you turn in?

As long as nobody gets hurt, and it's between consenting adults, I don't have to agree or disagree with a certain behavior, it's none of my business. There are more important things to worry about. I'm sure that I do things that some would condemn.

The main thing to consider is this, would you turn the support in the fight for your rights away because of some one's sexual preference? We need tolook atthe big picture.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Geeze. Okay, HP. Let me tell you that I was "Found out" when it was discovered that I was frequenting the Georgetown Grill and the Pier 9. I was interviewed by the OSI and admitted to being bi. There was lots of talk about waht to do with me and I remained on duty with my police powers intact, but ultimately the decision was made to give me a full honorable discharge (the norm back then was "General under Honorable Conditions") That ought to tell you something about the carachter of my service. And by the way this was in a time when lots of straight boys were claiming to be gay to duck their service obligation.

I was USAF. But tell me, where on a submarine is there enough privacy for a bit of hot cha-cha?? And who would want to?? On a submarine? eeeewhttp://www......

I was gonna make a joke about a "submarine sandwich" but nah...

Then what you did was get caught, fess up to it and pay your price. Exactly the same as I did with a different situation. I'd call that honorable. Just out of curiosity, what was your AFSC? I'm guessing you were at Langley.

Side note. I ran into two of my homo* friends today at lunch. Mitch and $3, two of the most flamboyant hairdressers (yes, hair dressers) you'll ever meet. I asked them if they thought I was a homophobe. They about choked from laughing. And the irony of the whole thing is that while we were talking about this thread, there was something on the news about some group trying to do away with themilitary's don't ask, don't tell policy.

* Homo is a perfectly acceptable term with the... well... homos I associate with. It's how friends do one another (pun not intended) around here. If someone in this thread is offended by it's use, well then that's entirely your right. And it's my right to not give a damn.

Have a nice day.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Saying that you are duty bound to report people that are doing no harm to anyone is ridiculous. There were people in my squadron that we knew were in "violation of regulations", but they did their jobs and they did them well. Although these people would have been discharged if someone would have turned them in, most of us agreed that they were better to serve with than some of "straight" guys who just followed orders.

Also, the argument that you would have to do something just because it was an order was pretty much destroyed at the Nuremberg trials, "I didn't want to put the nice Jews in the chamber, but I had orders.":what:

I was told in training that if an order was unlawful or unjust, I had no duty to preform it. The catch was that I would have to be prepared to defend that decision later and accept any consequences of that decision.

I also remember hearing about regulations that covered which sexual position between a husband and wife were approved (that's right, only one), would you have reported someone for spicing things up a little. I'm not sure if it's still there but there used to be a regulation that you could only have sex with your spouse, how many single guys and cheaters did you turn in?

As long as nobody gets hurt, and it's between consenting adults, I don't have to agree or disagree with a certain behavior, it's none of my business. There are more important things to worry about. I'm sure that I do things that some would condemn.

The main thing to consider is this, would you turn the support in the fight for your rights away because of some one's sexual preference? We need tolook atthe big picture.

Here's a thought. Try reading the entire thread in context. Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions or sex with someone other than your spouse. They never existed during my career. Making up facts as you go along is the tactic of people who have nothing important or credible to say.

Congratulations.

 

[smccomas]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Saying that you are duty bound to report people that are doing no harm to anyone is ridiculous. There were people in my squadron that we knew were in "violation of regulations", but they did their jobs and they did them well. Although these people would have been discharged if someone would have turned them in, most of us agreed that they were better to serve with than some of "straight" guys who just followed orders.

Also, the argument that you would have to do something just because it was an order was pretty much destroyed at the Nuremberg trials, "I didn't want to put the nice Jews in the chamber, but I had orders.":what:

I was told in training that if an order was unlawful or unjust, I had no duty to preform it. The catch was that I would have to be prepared to defend that decision later and accept any consequences of that decision.

I also remember hearing about regulations that covered which sexual position between a husband and wife were approved (that's right, only one), would you have reported someone for spicing things up a little. I'm not sure if it's still there but there used to be a regulation that you could only have sex with your spouse, how many single guys and cheaters did you turn in?

As long as nobody gets hurt, and it's between consenting adults, I don't have to agree or disagree with a certain behavior, it's none of my business. There are more important things to worry about. I'm sure that I do things that some would condemn.

The main thing to consider is this, would you turn the support in the fight for your rights away because of some one's sexual preference? We need tolook atthe big picture.

Here's a thought. Try reading the entire thread in context. Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions or sex with someone other than your spouse. They never existed during my career. Making up facts as you go along is the tactic of people who have nothing important or credible to say.

Congratulations.

Wrong please read Sect 925 Art 125 of UCMJ Covers sodomy and DOES not discriminate between sex's.

Now as far as sex with someone other than spouse someone else can do the research.

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

imported post

This has basically nothing to do with the OP, but since we've drifted off into "gays in the military" ...

I served in a US Army signal intelligence fixed installation during the late 70s. TS SCI and all that. I can assure you that "don't ask, don't tell" was in full operation there. There weren't very many gay people (both sexes), but anyone who cared (also not many) knew who they were and wasn't concerned. They did their jobs and didn't bother anyone and we all socialized normally (well, maybe not so much on Saturday night ).

The one incident I recall was when they sent the drug dog through our barracks in the middle of the night after there had been a heroin OD in one of the nearby non-intel units. They found no drugs whatsoever (no surprise), but did find quite a few people, uh ... not sleeping in their assigned quarters. I was told by a friend at HQ that all possible combinations were represented. Since the commander was supposedly bucking for a star, nothing was said publicly, and business went on as usual. I'm sure some private counseling took place, but no one was reassigned suddenly ... which did occasionally happen in our line of work (I knew someone who was pulled from his job in the middle of a shift by MPs for ... well, never mind, but it wasn't his sexual orientation).

Don't ask, don't tell. We had it then, with the apparent tacit approval of our commander (though I don't actually know that for a fact).

Sorry for contributing to the thread drift, but it seems to be an accomplished fact by now.

regards,

ex-SGT (E-5) GR
US Army
1975-1979

 

[smccomas]

imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:

This has basically nothing to do with the OP, but since we've drifted off into "gays in the military" ...

I served in a US Army signal intelligence fixed installation during the late 70s. TS SCI and all that. I can assure you that "don't ask, don't tell" was in full operation there. There weren't very many gay people (both sexes), but anyone who cared (also not many) knew who they were and wasn't concerned. They did their jobs and didn't bother anyone and we all socialized normally (well, maybe not so much on Saturday night ).

The one incident I recall was when they sent the drug dog through our barracks in the middle of the night after there had been a heroin OD in one of the nearby non-intel units. They found no drugs whatsoever (no surprise), but did find quite a few people, uh ... not sleeping in their assigned quarters. I was told by a friend at HQ that all possible combinations were represented. Since the commander was supposedly bucking for a star, nothing was said publicly, and business went on as usual. I'm sure some private counseling took place, but no one was reassigned suddenly ... which did occasionally happen in our line of work (I knew someone who was pulled from his job in the middle of a shift by MPs for ... well, never mind, but it wasn't his sexual orientation).

Don't ask, don't tell. We had it then, with the apparent tacit approval of our commander (though I don't actually know that for a fact).

Sorry for contributing to the thread drift, but it seems to be an accomplished fact by now.

regards,

ex-SGT (E-5) GR
US Army
1975-1979

Same here was active duty 87-93 knew several people that were gay (not openly) was not a big deal.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

hp-hobo wrote:

You are obviously and completely without a clue. First you tell me that you don't know what my imagined sworn duties were. Then you say that it may be possible. Then you admit that you haven't served your country in a military capacity. Well I have. Proudly, for over 23 years. My wife still does. My son is about to. Like it or don't little fella, I know just a little bit more about the military than you. If he joined in 1971, homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals were banned from military service. Like it or don't, I don't care. Denying the truth makes it no less the truth. So if he was a homosexual while in the military, the only reason he got his precious Honorable Discharge is because he lied for his entire enlistment. Did he serve honorably? Probably... Except for that one critical detail.

As for my quoted comment above. Anything taken out of context can be twisted however you want it. You done a good job Skippy. You should be proud of yourself. Put in your resume and go to work for the DNC.

Damn that Rosa Parks again.



Just because something is a law, doesn't make it just or right. Stop being a hypocrite. You frequent OC.org and you're going to tell me that all laws are just, right, and ethically correct just because they're laws. Give me a break. :hammer:

If you couldn't comprehend how that Rosa Parks reference applies... He didn't choose to be gay any more than a black person chooses to be black and there isn't anything wrong with either. Just because some bigot idiots made a law that says someone of a particular ethnicity or sexuality can't do something, doesn't make that law right or something that should be followed. Alex and every other homosexual in the military defied an unjust law the same way the blacks defied unjust laws during the civil rights movement. I see no reason why he doesn't deserve an honorable discharge.

And as for the argumentagainst homosexuals in the military. What's the big deal? You afraid they might be looking at you? Grow up. Who cares. Did your creepy ass ever walk down the street and check out a girl? That glance and thought process was unwanted on her part (I'm sure), but I don't see you proposing laws to keep horny straight guys out of public places. Don't be afraid of the big, bad homo buggie man. He isn't real.

I never would have thunk it, but I am in complete agreement with AWD for once!

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

My AFSC was Law Enforcement (check my avatar - it is my badge). I took Basic at Lackland AFB and went through the Security Police academy there, I was stationed at Howard/Albrook in the Panama Canal Zone with the 24th SPS and then at Andrews AFB with the 1002nd SPS (At the time, the 89th SPS was solely detailed to the area asssigned to Air Force One).

The first thing I did upon discharge was apply to the United States Capitol Police, but the 3-digit code on my DD214 doomed that, and the USCP recruiter not only threw me out of his office but also notified every police department tin the area that a gay guy was looking for work. Long story short: Here I am driving a taxicab.

From time to time I wonder what kind of career I would have had in law enforcement; I had wanted to work robbery/homicide. But then I tune into "COPS" and see LEOs dealing with some toothless Gravel Gertie and her inbred common-law spouse who are fighting over a bottle of Old Overcoat and find I am quite happy as a common tradesman. But my respect for LEOs is immense, and a police car in my rear-view mirror is often a welcome sight. Funny how things work out, isn't it??

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

smccomas wrote:

Wrong please read Sect 925 Art 125 of UCMJ Covers sodomy and DOES not discriminate between sex's.

Now as far as sex with someone other than spouse someone else can do the research.

Wrong? Wrong about what? I bet your mother tells you you're so smart.

She's wrong.

Check the definition of sodomy. Anal sex is forbidden;

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Doing a reverse frog squat or a bike pump with my old lady doesn't apply. Words mean things and it's up to you to make sure you know what they mean.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

My AFSC was Law Enforcement (check my avatar - it is my badge). I took Basic at Lackland AFB and went through the Security Police academy there, I was stationed at Howard/Albrook in the Panama Canal Zone with the 24th SPS and then at Andrews AFB with the 1002nd SPS (At the time, the 89th SPS was solely detailed to the area asssigned to Air Force One).

The first thing I did upon discharge was apply to the United States Capitol Police, but the 3-digit code on my DD214 doomed that, and the USCP recruiter not only threw me out of his office but also notified every police department tin the area that a gay guy was looking for work. Long story short: Here I am driving a taxicab.

From time to time I wonder what kind of career I would have had in law enforcement; I had wanted to work robbery/homicide. But then I tune into "COPS" and see LEOs dealing with some toothless Gravel Gertie and her inbred common-law spouse who are fighting over a bottle of Old Overcoat and find I am quite happy as a common tradesman. But my respect for LEOs is immense, and a police car in my rear-view mirror is often a welcome sight. Funny how things work out, isn't it??

I think it sucks that someone who seems to be truly passionate about law enforcement isn't able to participate due to their sexual orientation, whether in the military or civilian world. That's the real crime here.

Have you thought of relocating and trying elsewhere? It's never too late to chase your dream.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Saying that you are duty bound to report people that are doing no harm to anyone is ridiculous. There were people in my squadron that we knew were in "violation of regulations", but they did their jobs and they did them well. Although these people would have been discharged if someone would have turned them in, most of us agreed that they were better to serve with than some of "straight" guys who just followed orders.

Also, the argument that you would have to do something just because it was an order was pretty much destroyed at the Nuremberg trials, "I didn't want to put the nice Jews in the chamber, but I had orders.":what:

I was told in training that if an order was unlawful or unjust, I had no duty to preform it. The catch was that I would have to be prepared to defend that decision later and accept any consequences of that decision.

I also remember hearing about regulations that covered which sexual position between a husband and wife were approved (that's right, only one), would you have reported someone for spicing things up a little. I'm not sure if it's still there but there used to be a regulation that you could only have sex with your spouse, how many single guys and cheaters did you turn in?

As long as nobody gets hurt, and it's between consenting adults, I don't have to agree or disagree with a certain behavior, it's none of my business. There are more important things to worry about. I'm sure that I do things that some would condemn.

The main thing to consider is this, would you turn the support in the fight for your rights away because of some one's sexual preference? We need tolook atthe big picture.

Here's a thought. Try reading the entire thread in context. Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions or sex with someone other than your spouse. They never existed during my career. Making up facts as you go along is the tactic of people who have nothing important or credible to say.

Congratulations.

As smccomas said, Article 125 covers sodomy. NO BJ's FOR YOU! How many people could any veteran bust on that one?

definition of sodomy from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
sod·omy
Pronunciation:
\ˈsä-də-mē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11
Date:
13th century
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex ; also : copulation with an animal
Article 134 has been used to charge people with adultery.

The more restrictive regulations were local regs on our base. The base closed in 1993, wouldn't even begin to know where that stuff would be archived now.

As far as reading the entire thread in context, what is your point? I have read the entire thread.I am curious how turning in a gay guywould makethe military any better. Unlike traitors, thieves, murderers, or drug dealers, they hurt no one.

[It doesn't matter if you agree with the regs or not, it's your job.]

I ask, did you ever report someone for adultery or sodomy?