PDA

View Full Version : Gays In the Military, a Pole



olevetonahill
12/18/2010, 09:02 AM
Gonna do an anonymous Pole here since it looks like the DADT policy is fixing to be repealed according to this Article
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13707311

What Yall think

olevetonahill
12/18/2010, 09:10 AM
By todays standards I really dont see a Prob . Now 42 years ago when I was in the Army , If they openly announced they were the ghey they wouldnt be able to serve cause some arseholes would have beat em so bad they couldnt.

I aint in no way a Bleedin heart but i do know fair. Hell if da wimmens can serve in Combat why not . Course 42 years ago there wernt any wimmens in a combat situation .:pop:

I also know the Ghey aint contagious , :D

SanJoaquinSooner
12/18/2010, 10:57 AM
The DADT policy should be eliminated.

olevetonahill
12/18/2010, 10:58 AM
Appears to be the consensus of Folks so far .

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 11:07 AM
But...but...I thought someone posted like a week ago that it wasn't going to pass! He was all happy about it and stuff!

It was an awkward compromise when it was implemented, but a necessary step, I guess.

olevetonahill
12/18/2010, 11:08 AM
werent me Less I were drunky :eek:

OUHOMER
12/18/2010, 11:22 AM
You know i really don't care, if gays serve openly , or even marry.
i know a few that are up standing folks, But just like everything else there are the few that will ruin it for the others.

The gays i know despise the flaming gays who show up in their dog collars licking their partners leather pants in public.

gives them all a black eye.

plus i wonder whats going to happen when a straight soldier walks in on 2 gays soldiers making out.

just saying

sappstuf
12/18/2010, 12:03 PM
You said gays and then said pole...

http://consequenceofsound.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/beavis.jpg

Collier11
12/18/2010, 12:37 PM
I dont really care, but then again I dont really see the point in them being open about it...in any facet of life actually. What is the purpose of running around and announcing that you are gay? Just live your life and be happy

A Sooner in Texas
12/18/2010, 12:42 PM
I dont really care, but then again I dont really see the point in them being open about it...in any facet of life actually. What is the purpose of running around and announcing that you are gay? Just live your life and be happy


I actually think that's really the point. I doubt that any gays in the military - who follow the discipline and rules of the military - are going to just "announce" that they're gay. But they're not going to hide it, either, other than to keep their private lives private, as any person should do anyway.

OUHOMER
12/18/2010, 12:47 PM
I actually think that's really the point. I doubt that any gays in the military - who follow the discipline and rules of the military - are going to just "announce" that they're gay. But they're not going to hide it, either, other than to keep their private lives private, as any person should do anyway.

I agree, but there will be a small majority that will jump up and and throw it in everybody face. wait and see.....

A Sooner in Texas
12/18/2010, 12:51 PM
I agree, but there will be a small majority that will jump up and and throw it in everybody face. wait and see.....

Maybe, but there likely have been some straight people in the military who have jumped up and thrown it in everybody's face in ways such as sexual harassment or rape. There are idiots everywhere.

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 12:57 PM
I dont really care, but then again I dont really see the point in them being open about it...in any facet of life actually. What is the purpose of running around and announcing that you are gay? Just live your life and be happy


This. Anything else is purely political b.s. with the intention of causing problems. And the problems are potentially deadly.

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 12:58 PM
Maybe, but there likely have been some straight people in the military who have jumped up and thrown it in everybody's face in ways such as sexual harassment or rape. There are idiots everywhere.

Except I don't think there's any reasonable congruency between saying "I'm gay" and sexual harassment and rape.

More like people have been throwing their heterosexuality in each other's faces by talking about picking someone up at the bar for a one night stand.

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 01:04 PM
I dont really care, but then again I dont really see the point in them being open about it...in any facet of life actually. What is the purpose of running around and announcing that you are gay? Just live your life and be happy

Should straight people receive a dishonorable discharge for talking about their wives? I mean, what's the point in being open about their heterosexual lifestyle?

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:07 PM
Should straight people receive a dishonorable discharge for talking about their wives? I mean, what's the point in being open about their heterosexual lifestyle?


Like it or not, being heterosexual is normal.

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 01:11 PM
So?

What does the "normalcy" of your dating/marriage situation have to do with whether you can mention your partner at work?

It's "normal" to date people your own age, but would a 30 year old E5 be dishonorably discharged for talking about hooking up with an 18 year old girl?

Again: what's the point in him talking about it, if there's no point in the gay dude talking about going on a date with his boyfriend?

MR2-Sooner86
12/18/2010, 01:16 PM
Like it or not, being heterosexual is normal.

According to who? The heterosexual lifestyle of being married to to one mate is actually rather new in human culture. The act of having multiple wives and/or men on the side for 'fun' is actually a much older practice.

The
12/18/2010, 01:20 PM
If you've got a problem with what consenting adults do with their genitalias, it says a lot more about you than a lot of you care to imagine.

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:23 PM
According to who? The heterosexual lifestyle of being married to to one mate is actually rather new in human culture. The act of having multiple wives and/or men on the side for 'fun' is actually a much older practice.

We are talking about the United States in the year 2010, right? If you can't figure it out from there I can't help you.

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:24 PM
If you've got a problem with what consenting adults do with their genitalias, it says a lot more about you than a lot of you care to imagine.


You would be amazed what I can do with my genitalia. :)

The
12/18/2010, 01:25 PM
You would be amazed what I can do with my genitalia. :)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:26 PM
So?

What does the "normalcy" of your dating/marriage situation have to do with whether you can mention your partner at work?

It's "normal" to date people your own age, but would a 30 year old E5 be dishonorably discharged for talking about hooking up with an 18 year old girl?

Again: what's the point in him talking about it, if there's no point in the gay dude talking about going on a date with his boyfriend?


You sound like a lawyer, not someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:27 PM
Pics or it didn't happen.


Give me your phone #, I'll Brett Favre you.

The
12/18/2010, 01:27 PM
(405) 297-0130

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:28 PM
You're a cop? :)

The
12/18/2010, 01:29 PM
You're a cop? :)

More like a narc.

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 01:30 PM
You sound like a lawyer, not someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

You sound like a person who can't deal with the knowledge that people are different, not someone with an actual rational position.

Hint: "Ew, that's icky" isn't a rational position.

sooner59
12/18/2010, 01:31 PM
As long as it isn't hurting anyone, I say let people do whatever makes them happy. Do what you want, IDGAS. However, if you are flaming and all weird and obnoxious about it, expect me to be an ***hole because it is irritating. However, if someone is like that, then they would probably be just as irritating as a heterosexual, and I would still act accordingly. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I hate all genders, races, and sexualities equally according to the specific situations when some dooshbag pisses me off. :D

yermom
12/18/2010, 01:33 PM
Froze already said most of what i was going to say :mad:

and most gay people are still in the closet for reasons that have nothing to do with the military anyway...

Collier11
12/18/2010, 01:34 PM
Should straight people receive a dishonorable discharge for talking about their wives? I mean, what's the point in being open about their heterosexual lifestyle?

Is there not a diff between talking about the person you love and flashing your sexuality?

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:36 PM
You sound like a person who can't deal with the knowledge that people are different, not someone with an actual rational position.

Hint: "Ew, that's icky" isn't a rational position.


Right, because that's exactly what I've been saying. :rolleyes:

As someone who has been sexually harrassed in the military by his supervisor, I probably have more pertinent thoughts on this subject than anyone on this board. But go ahead and keep dealing the lib social experiment fake indignation cards, it's not the real world, but it's as close as some of you will ever get to it.

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 01:37 PM
Is there not a diff between talking about the person you love and flashing your sexuality?

I don't know, is there?

Under DADT, at least as I understand it, talking about the person you love could get you a dishonorable discharge if that person happens to be of the wrong sex.

I don't really think that military is being forced to allow people to watch guy on guy porn at their duty station or anything. Maybe I'm wrong.

olevetonahill
12/18/2010, 01:37 PM
As long as it isn't hurting anyone, I say let people do whatever makes them happy. Do what you want, IDGAS. However, if you are flaming and all weird and obnoxious about it, expect me to be an ***hole because it is irritating. However, if someone is like that, then they would probably be just as irritating as a heterosexual, and I would still act accordingly. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I hate all genders, races, and sexualities equally according to the specific situations when some dooshbag pisses me off. :D

:D :D

The
12/18/2010, 01:37 PM
As someone who has been sexually harrassed in the military by his supervisor,


I saw that movie!

yermom
12/18/2010, 01:38 PM
Is there not a diff between talking about the person you love and flashing your sexuality?


"well, last night, me and um 'Chris' went to dinner and looked at houses. 'they' wanted to go antiquing, but i wanted to go to Pottery Barn. and then 'they' made me Johnny Cakes when we got home!"

Frozen Sooner
12/18/2010, 01:38 PM
Right, because that's exactly what I've been saying. :rolleyes:

As someone who has been sexually harrassed in the military by his supervisor, I probably have more pertinent thoughts on this subject than anyone on this board. But go ahead and keep dealing the lib social experiment fake indignation cards, it's not the real world, but it's as close as some of you will ever get to it.

Repealing DADT makes sexual harassment OK? If you were sexually harassed, the person doing it should have been brought up on charges. It doesn't appear that DADT has kept people from being sexually harassed, whatever the sexual preference of the superior.

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:43 PM
Repealing DADT makes sexual harassment OK? If you were sexually harassed, the person doing it should have been brought up on charges. It doesn't appear that DADT has kept people from being sexually harassed, whatever the sexual preference of the superior.


See, you don't understand what it's like being in the military. I never told anyone because you don't do that. You don't rat on your fellow soldiers, shipmates, etc.. And that goes both ways (no pun intended:)), he didn't rat on me when I elbowed him in the face.

The
12/18/2010, 01:46 PM
See, you don't understand what it's like being in the military. I never told anyone because you don't do that. You don't rat on your fellow soldiers, shipmates, etc.. And that goes both ways (no pun intended:)), he didn't rat on me when I elbowed him in the face.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x116/pulsedemon/WombatSpankyGif.gif

yermom
12/18/2010, 01:49 PM
See, you don't understand what it's like being in the military. I never told anyone because you don't do that. You don't rat on your fellow soldiers, shipmates, etc.. And that goes both ways (no pun intended:)), he didn't rat on me when I elbowed him in the face.

that sounds like a very healthy environment

Harry Beanbag
12/18/2010, 01:53 PM
that sounds like a very healthy environment


It's not a country club.

sooner59
12/18/2010, 01:58 PM
YOU!......will quit playing grabass in the showers.

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/61/l_4b28efabefacf6c6ee4500abae91dcdc.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
12/18/2010, 01:58 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1396.snc4/164855_1485358742686_1495429233_31024791_2405269_n .jpg

sappstuf
12/18/2010, 02:49 PM
I don't know, is there?

Under DADT, at least as I understand it, talking about the person you love could get you a dishonorable discharge if that person happens to be of the wrong sex.

I don't really think that military is being forced to allow people to watch guy on guy porn at their duty station or anything. Maybe I'm wrong.

You understand wrong.

They get an administrative separation.

The military discriminates period..

You can be the most patriotic person in the nation, but if you are fat and can't run... Sorry, the military is not for you.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/18/2010, 03:53 PM
Well, the Senate saw how one-sided vet's poll results were and pulled the trigger on DADT.

OUthunder
12/18/2010, 03:56 PM
I voted "yes" only because if someone is shootin at me, I don't care who you like to **** if your saving my life or shootin back at em.

That's my .02.

A Sooner in Texas
12/18/2010, 03:57 PM
Well, the Senate saw how one-sided vet's poll results were and pulled the trigger on DADT.

Good jorb, Vet! :)

GKeeper316
12/18/2010, 04:01 PM
Maybe, but there likely have been some straight people in the military who have jumped up and thrown it in everybody's face.

I blew my straightness in many girls faces in oceanside.

soonerchk
12/18/2010, 04:09 PM
I will never understand why so many people care so much about who other consenting adults choose to have sex with.

VeeJay
12/18/2010, 04:14 PM
I don't oppose the repeal of DADT. However, I do see this as yet another political / social experiment for what it is - and I am not 100% sure the military is the right place for the experimentation.

Time will tell if this was the right thing.

Some will say that America is already on the decline and this is one more push in that direction.

olevetonahill
12/18/2010, 04:19 PM
Well, the Senate saw how one-sided vet's poll results were and pulled the trigger on DADT.

Yup, dont matter what anyone thinks now, cause Obama will sign it .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_in_military

3rdgensooner
12/18/2010, 04:22 PM
Some will say that America is already on the decline and this is one more push in that direction.
Some have said that in virtually every generation since the beginning of civilization.

AlboSooner
12/18/2010, 04:25 PM
I don't think your sexual preference inhibts you from serving in the military. I texted my buddy who has done two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, and he said he doesn't care if the person next to him in the line of duty is gay or whatever.

VeeJay
12/18/2010, 04:54 PM
Some have said that in virtually every generation since the beginning of civilization.

The beginning of civilization started 234 years ago?

Who knew??

3rdgensooner
12/18/2010, 05:26 PM
The beginning of civilization started 234 years ago?

Who knew??Oh I get it, you're being literal. Well done.

Thaumaturge
12/18/2010, 05:48 PM
Patriotic Americans know civilization began with America. It's a thing called American Exceptionalism, and Patriotic Americans live and breathe it.

Flagstaffsooner
12/18/2010, 06:02 PM
Little known fact, Vet wore a cammo tutu in Nam.;)

The
12/18/2010, 06:04 PM
Little known fact, Vet wore a cammo tutu in Nam.;)

Yerp:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk285/rackitt/208005282_e4288eb7a8.jpg

Flagstaffsooner
12/18/2010, 06:39 PM
uh oh its out

StoopTroup
12/18/2010, 07:11 PM
I think there needs to be an all ghey Army assembled via a Draft and once trained we should send them into combat. Once we know how successful they are we can decide.

bonkuba
12/18/2010, 11:53 PM
I think there needs to be an all ghey Army assembled via a Draft and once trained we should send them into combat. Once we know how successful they are we can decide.

HA!

While I believe their lifestyle is disgusting (along with most of America if they are honest and not afraid of the PC crowd).....I guess I cant have a problem with some pole smoker fighting for US.....

On the lighter side....maybe more of 'em will get married now that they can openly broadcast that they are open for business with the foxholes :D

bigfatjerk
12/19/2010, 12:12 AM
Do openly straight people serve in the military? Honestly who cares who you mess with in bed when you are trying to kill people. It shouldn't be an issue either way.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/19/2010, 09:20 AM
Victory!

Proud day to be an American.

soonercoop1
12/19/2010, 10:19 AM
No way no how...no reason to legitimize a lifestyle choice especially a deviant one...all the liberal/progressive POS did was weaken our military today and thus weaken our country...they obviously still don't understand what was behind their historic election defeat or they don't care either way they keep fanning the flames which is certainly not healthy for them electionwise...

bigfatjerk
12/19/2010, 10:57 AM
What's next? Banning people from serving because of race? I'm for more rights, I don't get how anyone could have ever passed something like DADT in the first place.

soonercoop1
12/19/2010, 11:15 AM
What's next? Banning people from serving because of race? I'm for more rights, I don't get how anyone could have ever passed something like DADT in the first place.

So you're for giving rights to a lifestyle choice? How about rights for polygamy? There is absolutely no reason to legitimize a lifestyle choice unless you want to open pandoras box....

bigfatjerk
12/19/2010, 11:18 AM
I have no problem with what anyone does in their own time. I think drugs should be legalized in non public places. To me worrying being thought police is 100% against what this form republicanism should be. We should be for more individual rights not less. Being thought police should be up to the individual to not do something not to some sort of government institution.

soonercoop1
12/19/2010, 11:23 AM
I have no problem with what anyone does in their own time. I think drugs should be legalized in non public places. To me worrying being thought police is 100% against what this form republicanism should be. We should be for more individual rights not less. Being thought police should be up to the individual to not do something not to some sort of government institution.

Agreed that rights are great and we certainly need more freedom not less but there is a very good reason that many of those are not because they have a negative impact on the citizenry....

bigfatjerk
12/19/2010, 11:24 AM
How is being gay really a negative impact? Just cause you think so? I have some very good gay friends, just like I know some very good straight people. I don't see anything wrong with someone being gay.

olevetonahill
12/19/2010, 11:24 AM
I have no problem with what anyone does in their own time. I think drugs should be legalized in non public places. To me worrying being thought police is 100% against what this form republicanism should be. We should be for more individual rights not less. Being thought police should be up to the individual to not do something not to some sort of government institution.

WTF? can some one translate please :confused:

The
12/19/2010, 11:26 AM
PEOPLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM ME ARE SCARY AND NEED TO GO AWAY.

bigfatjerk
12/19/2010, 11:27 AM
All I said is people should worry about what is right and wrong with them. Not any government institution.

Harry Beanbag
12/19/2010, 11:31 AM
All I said is people should worry about what is right and wrong with them. Not any government institution.


Still doesn't make any sense. Keep trying.

The
12/19/2010, 11:32 AM
Still doesn't make any sense. Keep trying.

I want to hear more military sex stories.

I fapped twice to your story yesterday.

texaspokieokie
12/19/2010, 11:38 AM
PEOPLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM ME ARE SCARY AND NEED TO GO AWAY.

every body is different from you.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2010, 11:43 AM
So you're for giving rights to a lifestyle choice? How about rights for polygamy? There is absolutely no reason to legitimize a lifestyle choice unless you want to open pandoras box....

I don't see it as a lifestyle choice issue. It is actually a gender rights issue. For example under DADT, it is OK for Steve to be openly married to Portia, but not for Ellen to be openly married to Portia. The distinguishing difference being Steve is male and Ellen is female. There's an equal protection constitutional issue.

The polygamy rights issue isn't analogous. You can't be married to any set of two or more people no matter what your gender classification is. It applies equally to all people.

Moreover, lifestyle is behavioral. One's orientation is not. Whether gay or straight, a person can totally abstain from sexual behavior. How you feel about something is different than how you act on your feelings.

Thousands of high school teachers are physically attracted to some of their students, but most have the good sense not to act on their feelings.

StanOU
12/19/2010, 11:48 AM
Newsflash!!! Had DADT not been repealed, gays would still be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. This is one issue that has all but been beaten to death and it is time to move forward.

One thing that has me thoroughly perplexed is that most of the people who have engaged me in discussion on this issue and are dead set against gays in the military have themselves never served, have no dog in the fight, and are often the least affected by whatever policy decision is made on this issue. Why is that? Just curious.

MonkeyMouth
12/19/2010, 11:52 AM
Why is this even an issue?

And why the need to even know what a persons sexual orientation is, whether your gay or hetero?

Is this just for homosexuals or does this pertain to the lesbians as well?

StanOU
12/19/2010, 12:00 PM
Why is this even an issue?

And why the need to even know what a persons sexual orientation is, whether your gay or hetero?

Is this just for homosexuals or does this pertain to the lesbians as well?

To answer your last questions, lesbians are female homosexuals so yes, this pertains to them as well.

To address your first two questions, back during the days of my active military service in the waning years of the Cold War, homosexuals were deemed to be a security risk because they could be blackmailed by such personal information. Now that such information is largely considered irrelevant, the ultra-conservative policy ideologs are going to have to find another aberrant character trait on which to train their focus to drum out those they deem undesireable.

StoopTroup
12/19/2010, 12:30 PM
Diana is a ghey bi-sexual who has been leading two lives and wishes to keep it that way. She is a Surgeon and an actively serving Lt. married to Major John McAlester and they have a lovely Home near Ft. Bragg and have 2 wonderful children. She is required to make trips to military places abroad as she is a Specialist Surgeon. She is also married to Col. Lisa Britenstien who loves her and understands that their careers come first and is OK with the fact that Diana must serve a good amount of her time in the US. Lisa and Diana met at a Oktoberfest in Munich and fell instantly in love. They have a nice Condo in Germany and Lisa puts most of her time into working and waiting for the moment Diana and her can be re-united again even for a short time. It's something they have learned to live with and are willing to do for love.

Better get a jerk towel....this is where it gets good.

Diana and Lisa love to take short breaks when they are both in Germany and have been on many trips around Europe. Every time they are together...they are inseparable. They always love the trips to Florence the most but have enjoyed each other in nearly every Country in Europe the last 6 years Diana has been hiding that she is a married Woman. BRB....

OUthunder
12/19/2010, 12:38 PM
Diana is a ghey bi-sexual who has been leading two lives and wishes to keep it that way. She is a Surgeon and an actively serving Lt. married to Major John McAlester and they have a lovely Home near Ft. Bragg and have 2 wonderful children. She is required to make trips to military places abroad as she is a Specialist Surgeon. She is also married to Col. Lisa Britenstien who loves her and understands that their careers come first and is OK with the fact that Diana must serve a good amount of her time in the US. Lisa and Diana met at a Oktoberfest in Munich and fell instantly in love. They have a nice Condo in Germany and Lisa puts most of her time into working and waiting for the moment Diana and her can be re-united again even for a short time. It's something they have learned to live with and are willing to do for love.

Better get a jerk towel....this is where it gets good.

Diana and Lisa love to take short breaks when they are both in Germany and have been on many trips around Europe. Every time they are together...they are inseparable. They always love the trips to Florence the most but have enjoyed each other in nearly every Country in Europe the last 6 years Diana has been hiding that she is a married Woman. BRB....


I love lesbians.

Okla-homey
12/19/2010, 03:03 PM
No biggie.

I don't think much will change for the average Joe in a combat unit either. Here's the thing. Generally, the sort of homosexual male whom you would presume was homosexual from his outward manner and general demeanor very probably has no interest in the military. That means Joe won't see much difference in his barracks or foxhole. Homosexual males whose personalities tend toward the "non-flaming" variety, will probably continue to enlist at historical levels. I don't expect recruiting offices will be flooded with the other kind.

Now, as to female homosexuals, based entirely on what I observed in and around the military for almost 25 years, I'd say we'll probably see some growth in that demographic. In fact, 'twer I to guess, I'd say if there are 10 homosexuals on any military installation, 9 of them are lesbians. Mind you, that's based totally on anecdotal evidence in one branch of the service, over a quarter century career. Current mileage may vary.

The larger issue will be whether people in leadership positions will be capable of treating and promoting openly homosexual troops the same as everyone else. The military is made up of a pretty socially and politically conservative group of folks. That leadership group makes a lot of decisions based on subjective qualities they perceive in their subordinates. The military is also not particularly susceptible to social engineering. It's going to be tough sledding for a while until leadership becomes attuned to trying to treat openly homosexual troops the same as heterosexuals.

Other issues will no surface as well. For example, there will surely be a political push for granting official "dependant" status to serving homosexuals' partners.

There may also be a problem among some of the chaplaincy which, depending on their denominational background, may have problems ministering to openly homosexual couples.

Finally, there will surely be an avalanche of people who were discharged because they were found to be homosexuals seeking to correct their military records so as to remove any stigma that attached based on the character of their discharge.

soonercoop1
12/19/2010, 04:46 PM
I don't see it as a lifestyle choice issue. It is actually a gender rights issue. For example under DADT, it is OK for Steve to be openly married to Portia, but not for Ellen to be openly married to Portia. The distinguishing difference being Steve is male and Ellen is female. There's an equal protection constitutional issue.

The polygamy rights issue isn't analogous. You can't be married to any set of two or more people no matter what your gender classification is. It applies equally to all people.

Moreover, lifestyle is behavioral. One's orientation is not. Whether gay or straight, a person can totally abstain from sexual behavior. How you feel about something is different than how you act on your feelings.

Thousands of high school teachers are physically attracted to some of their students, but most have the good sense not to act on their feelings.

Its completely a lifestyle choice issue...nothing more..

sappstuf
12/19/2010, 04:53 PM
I don't see it as a lifestyle choice issue. It is actually a gender rights issue. For example under DADT, it is OK for Steve to be openly married to Portia, but not for Ellen to be openly married to Portia. The distinguishing difference being Steve is male and Ellen is female. There's an equal protection constitutional issue.

The polygamy rights issue isn't analogous. You can't be married to any set of two or more people no matter what your gender classification is. It applies equally to all people.

Moreover, lifestyle is behavioral. One's orientation is not. Whether gay or straight, a person can totally abstain from sexual behavior. How you feel about something is different than how you act on your feelings.

Thousands of high school teachers are physically attracted to some of their students, but most have the good sense not to act on their feelings.

Sara can marry Tim
Sara cannot marry Mary

Tim can marry Sara
Tim cannot marry John.

The genders are treated exactly the same. There is no gender rights issue.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2010, 05:36 PM
Sara can marry Tim
Sara cannot marry Mary

Tim can marry Sara
Tim cannot marry John.

The genders are treated exactly the same. There is no gender rights issue.

Reporter Sara can cover the WNBA
Reporter Sara cannot cover the NBA

Reporter Tim can cover the NBA
Reporter Tim cannot cover the WNBA.

Do you think Sara and Tim are treated exactly the same with respect to gender?





Look the problem with your example is that Mary is better looking and has more money than either Tim or John who actually are both dicks. And Sara doesn't want to marry a dick.

They are not treated exactly the same unless they have the same set of choices.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2010, 05:42 PM
Its completely a lifestyle choice issue...nothing more..

Is not.

Okla-homey
12/19/2010, 05:43 PM
Sara can marry Tim
Sara cannot marry Mary

Tim can marry Sara
Tim cannot marry John.

The genders are treated exactly the same. There is no gender rights issue.

With all due respect, this issue turns on one simple question. To wit, whether homosexuality is a choice or they way people are born. If it's the latter, I submit that makes it an "immutable characteristc." Immutable characteristics are kinda magical ( legally speaking ) under our Constitution, as amended, and interpreted by SCOTUS the last 60 years or so. Established immutable characteristics are race, religion, national origin, and to a lesser extent for equal-rights purposes, gender and age. You simply can't discriminate based on race, religion or national origin unless you have a very good, as in excellent, reason -- and SCOTUS has hardly heard one it thought was good enough in the past 50 years.

As to gender and age, the reason for such discrimination still has to be good. Just not so good as the reason for discrminating based on race, religion or national origin.
There are winning reasons. They generally involve jobs that place great physical demands on people that women or older people can't hack.

Now, I don't know for sure one way or the other on the "born that way" or "personal choice" question. I know this though, prevailing public opinion comes down on the side of "born that way." And that's why homosexuals will eventually win the right to marry other homosexuals in all 50 states, and that's also why DADT went down.

And hat's off to the homosexual lobby for their effective decades long campaign, because convincing the world folks are born gay has been a major goal for decades because they understood that is THE linchpin for winning equal treatment under the law.

bigfatjerk
12/19/2010, 05:51 PM
Is not.

I would say it's not completely. I believe it's more of how you are brought up and the personality development. I'm not saying if you are gay you are brought up wrong or straight you are brought up wrong. I don't think a person is born being gay or straight though. A person is the sum of their experiences.

soonerchk
12/19/2010, 06:44 PM
to wit, whether homosexuality is a choice or they way people are born.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's not a choice. As several of my gay friends have said, "Why would I choose to live like this when I could choose to live a nice quiet mainstream life?"

sappstuf
12/19/2010, 07:02 PM
Reporter Sara can cover the WNBA
Reporter Sara cannot cover the NBA

Reporter Tim can cover the NBA
Reporter Tim cannot cover the WNBA.

Do you think Sara and Tim are treated exactly the same with respect to gender?

Look the problem with your example is that Mary is better looking and has more money than either Tim or John who actually are both dicks. And Sara doesn't want to marry a dick.

They are not treated exactly the same unless they have the same set of choices.

What about Jane who loves dicks and wants to marry both Tim and John?

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/19/2010, 11:41 PM
Its completely a lifestyle choice issue...nothing more..
Right, lets discharge openly heterosexual soldiers as well. And openly Christian ones. And openly Muslim ones. And open sports fans. Ban all lifestyle choices in the army.

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/19/2010, 11:42 PM
So you're for giving rights to a lifestyle choice? How about rights for polygamy? There is absolutely no reason to legitimize a lifestyle choice unless you want to open pandoras box....
Why the hell not? Why is it the government's job to decide what kind of contracts consenting adults have between each other?

SanJoaquinSooner
12/20/2010, 12:06 AM
What about Jane who loves dicks and wants to marry both Tim and John?


I imagine some people might argue that it's OK, but not based on an equal protection argument. They aren't some folks who can be married to {Tim, John} and others who can't - based on gender or any other characteristic.

OUthunder
12/20/2010, 12:27 AM
This thread is ghey. :D

ouflak
12/20/2010, 05:10 AM
I don't see it as a lifestyle choice issue. It is actually a gender rights issue. ...
.
.
.

Moreover, lifestyle is behavioral. One's orientation is not. Whether gay or straight, a person can totally abstain from sexual behavior. How you feel about something is different than how you act on your feelings.

Thousands of high school teachers are physically attracted to some of their students, but most have the good sense not to act on their feelings.

Curiously though, if any of those high school teachers were open about their attraction, or were actually senseless enough to act on their feelings, they would lose their jobs and perhaps be banned from ever teaching again depending on the circumstances. They might even get jail time and other social restrictions such as not being able to live anywhere around other people. And that's assuming a mutual consensual relationship or simply *talking* about such.

I guess my point is that I really don't think this is a gender issue. The marriage thing, maybe. The military or high school restrictions, not so much. I think it has to do with moral and ethical behaviour in appropriate environments. The military is strict on the subjects of 'fraternizing' amongst soldiers because of the general belief that such fraternizing (whether acceptable in a normal social context or not) might affect military capability. A enlisted soldier is not allowed to be in a relationship with an officer. Such equivalent relationship among classes (rich-poor, old money-new money, hornfan-soonerfan) might be acceptable outside of a military context, but almost never within. The same thing for a relationships with high school teachers and their students. I don't think it's a 'rights' issue.

As someone correctly pointed earlier in this thread. The military is not fair. It is concerned with putting the best fighting force it can possibly field into battle at any given time. Fat and slow? Apathetic and unmotivated? Physically or mentally disabled past a certain extent? Sorry, you're out (yes, I know there are remarkable exceptions to these examples. But the policies are still in place and still enforced).

Personally I was against bans on homosexuals in the military because I felt this introduced an artificial restriction on our ability to field the best fighting force possible (where our enemy might not have such a restriction) and, when considering all of the issues caused by heterosexual fraternizing, I don't think it will make things that much more awkward than they already are. People are still having to get used to the fact the women might back from Afghanistan and Iraq as combat veterans. Who knows how many of those women have had to turn down all sorts of advances from their fellow soldiers during their service?

Still I'm cautious when people think that the military should be a proving ground for civil rights. The Congress and/or President should really only get involved when the issue is to such an extreme that it is clear that the leaders in within the military are incapable of dealing with the situations themselves. I know some excellent soldiers, and good Americans, have been kicked out (or never allowed in) because of homosexuality. But I'm not convinced that that fact degraded the military to such an extent that it couldn't eventually work through this by itself or function properly as is. I may not be seeing the whole picture though....

AlbqSooner
12/20/2010, 07:17 AM
However, if you are flaming and all weird and obnoxious about it, expect me to be an ***hole because it is irritating.

I suspect most heterosexual women feel this way about men who see themselves as 'Playas'. I suspect most homosexual men feel this way about flamers as well.

Okla-homey
12/20/2010, 07:37 AM
Still I'm cautious when people think that the military should be a proving ground for civil rights. The Congress and/or President should really only get involved when the issue is to such an extreme that it is clear that the leaders in within the military are incapable of dealing with the situations themselves.

Truman ended segregation in the military in 1947, about 18 years before desegregation actually occurred in the rest of the US. Just saying.

And FWIW, I don't mind if people want to practice polygamy. With one catch though. I don't like the sick-o polygamy practiced by fundy Mormons that involves middle-aged men marrying girls under 18. If I were Emperor of America, polygamy would be legal, but you could only marry an additional wife if she was within 5 years of your age. I doubt you would see 40 year-old men lining up to marry 10 women between the ages of 35 and 45.

Sooner_Bob
12/20/2010, 09:05 AM
I doubt you would see 40 year-old men lining up to marry 10 women between the ages of 35 and 45.


Could you imagine the mood swings in that house . . . :eek:

yermom
12/20/2010, 09:43 AM
Truman ended segregation in the military in 1947, about 18 years before desegregation actually occurred in the rest of the US. Just saying.

And FWIW, I don't mind if people want to practice polygamy. With one catch though. I don't like the sick-o polygamy practiced by fundy Mormons that involves middle-aged men marrying girls under 18. If I were Emperor of America, polygamy would be legal, but you could only marry an additional wife if she was within 5 years of your age. I doubt you would see 40 year-old men lining up to marry 10 women between the ages of 35 and 45.

meh. why not make that the law for everyone then?

yermom
12/20/2010, 09:46 AM
Curiously though, if any of those high school teachers were open about their attraction, or were actually senseless enough to act on their feelings, they would lose their jobs and perhaps be banned from ever teaching again depending on the circumstances. They might even get jail time and other social restrictions such as not being able to live anywhere around other people. And that's assuming a mutual consensual relationship or simply *talking* about such.

I guess my point is that I really don't think this is a gender issue. The marriage thing, maybe. The military or high school restrictions, not so much. I think it has to do with moral and ethical behaviour in appropriate environments. The military is strict on the subjects of 'fraternizing' amongst soldiers because of the general belief that such fraternizing (whether acceptable in a normal social context or not) might affect military capability. A enlisted soldier is not allowed to be in a relationship with an officer. Such equivalent relationship among classes (rich-poor, old money-new money, hornfan-soonerfan) might be acceptable outside of a military context, but almost never within. The same thing for a relationships with high school teachers and their students. I don't think it's a 'rights' issue.

As someone correctly pointed earlier in this thread. The military is not fair. It is concerned with putting the best fighting force it can possibly field into battle at any given time. Fat and slow? Apathetic and unmotivated? Physically or mentally disabled past a certain extent? Sorry, you're out (yes, I know there are remarkable exceptions to these examples. But the policies are still in place and still enforced).

Personally I was against bans on homosexuals in the military because I felt this introduced an artificial restriction on our ability to field the best fighting force possible (where our enemy might not have such a restriction) and, when considering all of the issues caused by heterosexual fraternizing, I don't think it will make things that much more awkward than they already are. People are still having to get used to the fact the women might back from Afghanistan and Iraq as combat veterans. Who knows how many of those women have had to turn down all sorts of advances from their fellow soldiers during their service?

Still I'm cautious when people think that the military should be a proving ground for civil rights. The Congress and/or President should really only get involved when the issue is to such an extreme that it is clear that the leaders in within the military are incapable of dealing with the situations themselves. I know some excellent soldiers, and good Americans, have been kicked out (or never allowed in) because of homosexuality. But I'm not convinced that that fact degraded the military to such an extent that it couldn't eventually work through this by itself or function properly as is. I may not be seeing the whole picture though....

i'm going to guess that fraternization rules would stay in place.

this isn't a case of experimenting on civil issues in the military like segregation, the military is lagging behind on this one.

ouflak
12/20/2010, 09:51 AM
Truman ended segregation in the military in 1947, about 18 years before desegregation actually occurred in the rest of the US. Just saying.


Yeah but, considering your example, the policy during World War II was to not allow blacks in combat positions in the U.S. Navy. That's a HUGE amount of manpower/resource you're denying your military. Further, WW II exposed many such issues. And nobody back then could really be sure just how many more such wars-to-end-all-wars were still on the horizon. If the admiralty couldn't step up and make the obvious decision in face of stark reality, don't you think the President or Congress should? The example you give was pretty much the only way to go in that context of history.

Do you think that our current military situation warrants such stepping in by Congress or the President? It might. I'm just not so sure. There is no doubt we have some real manpower issues at the moment.

olevetonahill
12/20/2010, 09:51 AM
i'm going to guess that fraternization rules would stay in place.

this isn't a case of experimenting on civil issues in the military like segregation, the military is lagging behind on this one.

Yermom, Bro it aint the Military's job to be PC, its their job to be ready, willing and able to kick anyone's *** that wants to try to **** with the USA.
jes sayin ;)

XingTheRubicon
12/20/2010, 09:52 AM
I wonder what they did to Hennesey after they drove him off in the jeep.

Harry Beanbag
12/20/2010, 09:53 AM
Yermom, Bro it aint the Military's job to be PC, its their job to be ready, willing and able to kick anyone's *** that wants to try to **** with the USA.
jes sayin ;)


Now it'll be ready, willing, and able to lick anyone's ***. ;)

olevetonahill
12/20/2010, 09:55 AM
Now it'll be ready, willing, and able to lick anyone's ***. ;)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

yermom
12/20/2010, 10:19 AM
Yermom, Bro it aint the Military's job to be PC, its their job to be ready, willing and able to kick anyone's *** that wants to try to **** with the USA.
jes sayin ;)

but they also have a duty to support the veteran and their families when they get home

Jello Biafra
12/20/2010, 10:24 AM
If you've got a problem with what consenting adults do with their genitalias, it says a lot more about you than a lot of you care to imagine.

welp, in the past it was more or less a "get out of jail free" card. if you didnt like what was going on and you didnt think you could handle it any more, you made sure someone caught you in the parking lot mouth hugging some dudes pole... poof to the house.

now.... if you wanted to stay in and you were gay, you were worried someone would find out and rat you out. more along the lines of blackmail etc.


now i think it seems to be just a fight for equality. there were dudes in my unit that i made sure i wasn't in the latrine with for extended periods of time. they didnt have to say anything you just know. would i trust them to cover me in a fire fight? you bet.

not all gays are like lamaar from revenge of the nerds.

The
12/20/2010, 10:48 AM
welp, in the past it was more or less a "get out of jail free" card. if you didnt like what was going on and you didnt think you could handle it any more, you made sure someone caught you in the parking lot mouth hugging some dudes pole... poof to the house.

now.... if you wanted to stay in and you were gay, you were worried someone would find out and rat you out. more along the lines of blackmail etc.


now i think it seems to be just a fight for equality. there were dudes in my unit that i made sure i wasn't in the latrine with for extended periods of time. they didnt have to say anything you just know. would i trust them to cover me in a fire fight? you bet.

not all gays are like lamaar from revenge of the nerds.

Good morning, New Stu.

texaspokieokie
12/20/2010, 10:52 AM
I wonder what they did to Hennesey after they drove him off in the jeep.

bet he went to prison.

3rdgensooner
12/20/2010, 10:57 AM
welp, in the past it was more or less a "get out of jail free" card.http://bloggingexperiment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/mash-klinger.jpg

sappstuf
12/20/2010, 11:44 AM
welp, in the past it was more or less a "get out of jail free" card. if you didnt like what was going on and you didnt think you could handle it any more, you made sure someone caught you in the parking lot mouth hugging some dudes pole... poof to the house.

now.... if you wanted to stay in and you were gay, you were worried someone would find out and rat you out. more along the lines of blackmail etc.


now i think it seems to be just a fight for equality. there were dudes in my unit that i made sure i wasn't in the latrine with for extended periods of time. they didnt have to say anything you just know. would i trust them to cover me in a fire fight? you bet.

not all gays are like lamaar from revenge of the nerds.

You are on the money here. In 17 years I have only seen two people forced out on DADT. They were caught in a fan room on a ship in the act. One guy confessed right away that he was gay(hard to mount a defense with a schlong in your mouth I guess), the other guy tried the ol' "I'm not gay, he was sucking my d!ck" defense. Both were put out. You cannot allow that sort of conduct on a ship in close quarters. It is detrimental to good order and discipline. We had to physically seperate the second guy from the rest of the crew because he was becoming violent when people said something to him or even looked at him. Were they harrassing him? Yes. But either you can try to counsel 1100 people not to look at the guy funny or you can get rid of the 1 person that is the problem. Both take away from the mission, but one is much easier.

Every other person, about 15, that I have known wanted out of the military period. DADT was just the ticket to make it happen.

The
12/20/2010, 11:47 AM
You are on the money here. In 17 years I have only seen two people forced out on DADT. They were caught in a fan room on a ship in the act. One guy confessed right away that he was gay(hard to mount a defense with a schlong in your mouth I guess), the other guy tried the ol' "I'm not gay, he was sucking my d!ck" defense. Both were put out. You cannot allow that sort of conduct on a ship in close quarters. It is detrimental to good order and discipline. We had to physically seperate the second guy from the rest of the crew because he was becoming violent when people said something to him or even looked at him. Were they harrassing him? Yes. But either you can try to counsel 1100 people not to look at the guy funny or you can get rid of the 1 person that is the problem. Both take away from the mission, but one is much easier.

Every other person, about 15, that I have known wanted out of the military period. DADT was just the ticket to make it happen.


So, you're saying the seaman was discharged?

sappstuf
12/20/2010, 02:00 PM
So, you're saying the seaman was discharged?

Swallowed up by the man....

Okla-homey
12/20/2010, 02:31 PM
I discharged a guy on th eve of a deployment who advised my first sergeant he was gay. I'll always beleive the kid did it because he didn't want to go.
I was glad my first sergeant didn't say to the kid what he later told me he wanted to say: "prove it" (while unbuttoning his fly) ;)

The
12/20/2010, 02:33 PM
I discharged a guy

http://s3.media.squarespace.com/production/721784/8473241/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/matty-shocked.jpg

Aldebaran
12/20/2010, 02:38 PM
I was glad my first sergeant didn't say to the kid what he later told me he wanted to say: "prove it" (while unbuttoning his fly) ;)


http://alethakuschan.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/dreyfus-without-the-mashed-potatoes.jpg

okie52
12/20/2010, 02:38 PM
Swallowed up by the man....

Thanks goodness it wasn't by a chief petty officer!!!

sappstuf
12/20/2010, 03:50 PM
Thanks goodness it wasn't by a chief petty officer!!!

Chiefs save that stuff for Thai prositutes of which only 50% are men in drag... That is the true Navy way!

okie52
12/20/2010, 04:02 PM
Chiefs save that stuff for Thai prositutes of which only 50% are men in drag... That is the true Navy way!

Anchors aweigh!!!

SC Sooner
12/21/2010, 09:38 AM
My biggest concern about this is the potential for sexual harrassment charges, real or imagined, or maybe reverse charges, and will the military get bogged down internally because of it. It has the potential to destroy careers, regardless of whether the accusations are true or not. Before DADT ended, this was not a problem.

DIB
12/21/2010, 09:52 AM
I don't understand how being able to admit you're gay, instead of being secretly gay is going to suddenly cause these catastrophic problems that people are predicting. They're still gay, whether they admit it or not. All this does is make a segment of our country feel more comfortable about sacrificing their lives for this country.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/21/2010, 10:41 AM
My biggest concern about this is the potential for sexual harrassment charges, real or imagined, or maybe reverse charges, and will the military get bogged down internally because of it. It has the potential to destroy careers, regardless of whether the accusations are true or not. Before DADT ended, this was not a problem.

because if a gay soldier complained about sexual harassment he or she was discharged? So they either had to endure the sexual harassment, or gtfo of the military?

Sounds like a heck of a way to serves one's country

soonerboy_odanorth
12/21/2010, 01:50 PM
Someone explain it to me: Just how does one "serve openly"?

Do they get a special little rainbow ribbon? Gives new meaning to "fruit salad", doesn't it?

Last I checked the military, whatever the branch, wasn't real keen on individuality.

I don't understand the left's obsession with fixin' sh*t that ain't broke, all in the name of "progressivism".

Some people actually have the impression that DADT prevented a gay from serving, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I would argue DADT allowed more gays to serve. The gubment can't ask you about your privates, and you just keep your trap shut about em. Sounds equitable and keeps the waters calm if you ask me (which I know you're not.)

Pandora's box. (I said "box".. heh-heh... heh.)

3rdgensooner
12/21/2010, 01:51 PM
I don't understand the left's obsession with fixin' sh*t that ain't broke, all in the name of "progressivism".
Yeah, civil rights is such a pesky little annoyance.

sappstuf
12/21/2010, 02:05 PM
Yeah, civil rights is such a pesky little annoyance.

There is no right to serve in the military...

If you believe that there is you should be fighting for the fatties to join since they can't.

yermom
12/21/2010, 02:13 PM
Someone explain it to me: Just how does one "serve openly"?

Do they get a special little rainbow ribbon? Gives new meaning to "fruit salad", doesn't it?

Last I checked the military, whatever the branch, wasn't real keen on individuality.

I don't understand the left's obsession with fixin' sh*t that ain't broke, all in the name of "progressivism".

Some people actually have the impression that DADT prevented a gay from serving, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I would argue DADT allowed more gays to serve. The gubment can't ask you about your privates, and you just keep your trap shut about em. Sounds equitable and keeps the waters calm if you ask me (which I know you're not.)

Pandora's box. (I said "box".. heh-heh... heh.)

what happens if Pvt. Gay is married?

3rdgensooner
12/21/2010, 02:20 PM
There is no right to serve in the military...

If you believe that there is you should be fighting for the fatties to join since they can't.Fitness is a BFOQ.

DIB
12/21/2010, 02:24 PM
Someone explain it to me: Just how does one "serve openly"?



It means that gays don't have to lie about who they are.

I am a hard core conservative and I am tired of you fakes pretending like you're conservatives. Individual rights should be paramount. Why, as a conservative, do you want the government to control an individuals right to privacy?

soonerboy_odanorth
12/21/2010, 02:26 PM
what happens if Pvt. Gay is married?

I have no idea. And that's the point. Isn't that their business... outside of their service?

But if you're asking if Pvt. Gay is married, and he gets busted pulling rank with Capt. Homo, then they should both get the book thrown at them accordingly as to the respective charges of infedelity (which I thought still had some weight in the UCMJ.. maybe not though) and fraternization.

yermom
12/21/2010, 02:31 PM
as i was saying in the other thread i was arguing about this, you constantly have to lie about your life if you DADT. you can't appear in public with your SO, etc...

you probably can't even be legally married and reasonably keep that a secret. imagine trying to buy a house, adopt kids, etc... without your employer finding out about your spouse.

what about health insurance, base access, etc.. ?

it's not just about "HEY EVERYONE! LOOK AT ME I'M GAY! ISN'T THAT SPECIAL???"

yermom
12/21/2010, 02:31 PM
please don't quote me on that last part :O

sappstuf
12/21/2010, 02:31 PM
Fitness is a BFOQ.

You can be very fit. You can pass all the physical fitnesses test in the Navy.. But if you are outside the set body fat standards you cannot be in the Navy.

3rdgensooner
12/21/2010, 02:41 PM
You can be very fit. You can pass all the physical fitnesses test in the Navy.. But if you are outside the set body fat standards you cannot be in the Navy.
The military is responsible for the health care and safety of its members. Physical fitness standards make sense in that context.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to DADT.

soonerboy_odanorth
12/21/2010, 02:58 PM
It means that gays don't have to lie about who they are.

I am a hard core conservative and I am tired of you fakes pretending like you're conservatives. Individual rights should be paramount. Why, as a conservative, do you want the government to control an individuals right to privacy?

Want some cheese with that whine?

Did I say I was conservative? You tell me all about it you hard core toughie you. Is overturning DADT generally regarded as part of the Democratic "liberal" agenda or not? I didn't say it was right or wrong. I just said it opens a big ol' can o' worms (that IMO the military doesn't need to be encumbered with). And, I just want to know what's all the hubub... bub.

For both you and 3rdgensooner, what individual or civil rights were being abridged? Again, I don't have the answers, just looking for someone to explain it to me. Can you? You say gays have a right to privacy? Well, the first part of DADT is "Don't Ask". That rather protects their right to privacy if you ask me. Go ahead, argue it. I'm waiting...

No, maybe you're taking the nanny-nanny boo-boo road and are saying they should be able to shout all the way down the parade route "I'm queer and I'm here" and not be mildly rebuked for said transgression. Again... individuality not a prized trait in the military.

Not that you have "the right to privacy" in the military. You don't. In fact, not that you have "civil rights" in the military. You are bound by the UCMJ, or "military rights" as they were, and the stipulations of humane treatment under the Geneva accords.

So again, smite me of my fakery, and just explain it to me so that my feeble simpleton mind can comprehend.

sappstuf
12/21/2010, 02:59 PM
The military is responsible for the health care and safety of its members. Physical fitness standards make sense in that context.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to DADT.

More relevant than you bringing in a civil rights angle to DADT.

Once again, you can be extremely physical fit and get outstanding on all physical fitness testing and still be out of standards and kicked out.

soonerboy_odanorth
12/21/2010, 03:00 PM
below ....

yermom
12/21/2010, 03:03 PM
yes :)

3rdgensooner
12/21/2010, 03:10 PM
More relevant than you bringing in a civil rights angle to DADT.
How so?

soonerboy_odanorth
12/21/2010, 03:11 PM
as i was saying in the other thread i was arguing about this, you constantly have to lie about your life if you DADT. you can't appear in public WITH your SO, etc...

you probably can't even be legally married and reasonably keep that a secret. imagine trying to buy a house, adopt kids, etc... without your employer finding out about your spouse.

what about health insurance, base access, etc.. ?

it's not just about "HEY EVERYONE! LOOK AT ME I'M GAY! ISN'T THAT SPECIAL???"

Is the correction above appropriate?... I had to re-read a couple of times.

I get what you are saying.

I would argue a gay couple CAN buy a house and adopt kids completely independent of military knowledge. The mortgage lender and adoption agency have to verify your employment, your employer doesn't inquire as to why it is being verified.

And as for health insurance, can gay couples outside the military insure each other now? I don't know... just asking.

As for base access? What for? Unless of course by base access you mean "base housing". To that I would say that may not seem fair on the surface, but if you've ever seen base housing you would realize you are probably better off taking your housing allowance and getting a nice appartment instead.

I just am baffled as to why folks think the military should be beholden to any personal lifestyle choice? When you are serving, there is no "personal" in it. The personal is kept just that.... personal, as in separate. My belief against repealing DADT is based on that.... that the personal is being brought into the military, and I just don't think it belongs there. JMO... even if it sucks.

DIB
12/21/2010, 03:14 PM
Want some cheese with that whine?

Did I say I was conservative? You tell me all about it you hard core toughie you. Is overturning DADT generally regarded as part of the Democratic "liberal" agenda or not? I didn't say it was right or wrong. I just said it opens a big ol' can o' worms (that IMO the military doesn't need to be encumbered with). And, I just want to know what's all the hubub... bub.

For both you and 3rdgensooner, what individual or civil rights were being abridged? Again, I don't have the answers, just looking for someone to explain it to me. Can you? You say gays have a right to privacy? Well, the first part of DADT is "Don't Ask". That rather protects their right to privacy if you ask me. Go ahead, argue it. I'm waiting...

No, maybe you're taking the nanny-nanny boo-boo road and are saying they should be able to shout all the way down the parade route "I'm queer and I'm here" and not be mildly rebuked for said transgression. Again... individuality not a prized trait in the military.

Not that you have "the right to privacy" in the military. You don't. In fact, not that you have "civil rights" in the military. You are bound by the UCMJ, or "military rights" as they were, and the stipulations of humane treatment under the Geneva accords.

So again, smite me of my fakery, and just explain it to me so that my feeble simpleton mind can comprehend.

The problem is the "Don't Tell" part forces certain military personal to hide who they are. Why should they have to hide their family/significant other, when straight personal do not. This is not just a case of rights, it is a case of equal treatment. This isn't about treating gays different from straight people. This is simply gays wanting to be treated the same as straight people. I don't understand why it is so important to treat gays differently. If anything, DADT was forcing individuality on to gay servicemen and women, when they would prefer to just be part of the group.

I still don't understand the "can of worms" that is being opened. Maybe I should be opposed to it, but no one has given me a reason other than some form of "you just don't do that in the military."

bigfatjerk
12/21/2010, 03:15 PM
How so?

You aren't going to agree with him because he thinks being gay is completely a choice. And you can't give rights to something you choose to do or something like that. Even if he's right and it's completely a choice. There shouldn't be anything against it anyway.

I think your sexual preferences shouldn't matter in the military at all. DADT to me seems like something only a big government thing can make up to compromise between people that disagree on something. It's stupid and never should have been brought up. The military shouldn't promote anything about having gay people in it for the same reason it shouldn't promote anything about having straight people. The military is there to kill other people. That's it's main purpose.

DIB
12/21/2010, 03:16 PM
Is the correction above appropriate?... I had to re-read a couple of times.

I get what you are saying.

I would argue a gay couple CAN buy a house and adopt kids completely independent of military knowledge. The mortgage lender and adoption agency have to verify your employment, your employer doesn't inquire as to why it is being verified.

And as for health insurance, can gay couples outside the military insure each other now? I don't know... just asking.

As for base access? What for? Unless of course by base access you mean "base housing". To that I would say that may not seem fair on the surface, but if you've ever seen base housing you would realize you are probably better off taking your housing allowance and getting a nice appartment instead.

I just am baffled as to why folks think the military should be beholden to any personal lifestyle choice? When you are serving, there is no "personal" in it. The personal is kept just that.... personal, as in separate. My belief against repealing DADT is based on that.... that the personal is being brought into the military, and I just don't think it belongs there. JMO... even if it sucks.

Why should the Military be beholden to a heterosexual lifestyle "choice?" Shouldn't they be governed by how well the follow the military code of contact, not what gender of person they are banging?

DIB
12/21/2010, 03:22 PM
I guess my point is simple. If sexuality isn't a choice, then the Military shouldn't comment on the validity of hetero vs. homo. If sexuality is a choice, why should the military validate the choice of one over the other? Is there a compelling military interest to treating one group differently than the other?

Aldebaran
12/21/2010, 03:23 PM
What about shopping on base? What about getting on base to attend or participate in the various MWR activities? What about access to the bases family support services when your spouse is deployed? All of these things should be available to gay couples.

And while base housing can suck, it can suck for everyone equally.

DIB
12/21/2010, 03:25 PM
What about shopping on base? What about getting on base to attend or participate in the various MWR activities? What about access to the bases family support services when your spouse is deployed? All of these things should be available to gay couples.

And while base housing can suck, it can suck for everyone equally.

You're just made that you can't shop with your boyfriend at Fort Sill

soonerboy_odanorth
12/21/2010, 03:32 PM
I guess my point is simple. If sexuality isn't a choice, then the Military shouldn't comment on the validity of hetero vs. homo.?

Right. Don't ask, don't tell.


If sexuality is a choice, why should the military validate the choice of one over the other? ?

Right. Don't ask, don't tell.


Is there a compelling military interest to treating one group differently than the other?

Right. Don't ask, don't tell.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. But repealing DADT politicizes and internalizes the argument within the military when it should, IMO, remain well outside.

See, we agree. ;)

DIB
12/21/2010, 03:45 PM
Right. Don't ask, don't tell.



Right. Don't ask, don't tell.



Right. Don't ask, don't tell.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. But repealing DADT politicizes and internalizes the argument within the military when it should, IMO, remain well outside.

See, we agree. ;)


That would be true, if DADT really did what you are implying. It doesn't. The Military focused on the "Don't Tell" portion and forced gay military personal to live there life differently than heterosexual personal. What is this compelling military reason for that?

fadada1
12/21/2010, 04:00 PM
you can't "catch gay"... the same way you can't "fix stupid".

i've been out of the navy for 13+ years now and my views have changed dramatically. having said that, however, at the time and given the area for which i originally went into in the navy, an openly gay man would have been met with a TON of hostility.

now, with a more mature attitude, i'm all for gay men/women serving in the military - openly... it's a personal decision. unfortunately, there will be a HUGE number of ignorant, uneducated, unenlightened individuals who think hanging/working around someone who is gay will cause them to also "turn gay". i'm blessed to have a wife that has gay friends and a gay niece (with many friends who visit). and here's something to think about - THEY ARE JUST LIKE THE REST OF US, BUT HAPPEN TO BE GAY!!!!!

i think 4LIFE has a quote (sorry if it's not exact) - "i'm almost positive i'm not gay, and 100% sure i'm not a poke fan."

we should be proud of anyone willing to serve this country and put their lives on the line to protect our ability to discuss topics such as this.

sappstuf
12/21/2010, 08:36 PM
You aren't going to agree with him because he thinks being gay is completely a choice. And you can't give rights to something you choose to do or something like that. Even if he's right and it's completely a choice. There shouldn't be anything against it anyway.

I think your sexual preferences shouldn't matter in the military at all. DADT to me seems like something only a big government thing can make up to compromise between people that disagree on something. It's stupid and never should have been brought up. The military shouldn't promote anything about having gay people in it for the same reason it shouldn't promote anything about having straight people. The military is there to kill other people. That's it's main purpose.

No, joining the military is completely a choice. If the military doesn't suit your lifestyle for any reason then you are better off doing something else and the military is better off with you not joining.

Everyone that has served in the military has sacrificed part of their lifestyles. Do you care about those lifestyles and sacrifices or is one lifestyle sacrifice more important than all the others?

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/21/2010, 10:14 PM
No, joining the military is completely a choice. If the military doesn't suit your lifestyle for any reason then you are better off doing something else and the military is better off with you not joining.

Everyone that has served in the military has sacrificed part of their lifestyles. Do you care about those lifestyles and sacrifices or is one lifestyle sacrifice more important than all the others?

People give up a lot of things when they join the military, but the straight members never had to give up something that plays a major role in defining them as a person.

sappstuf
12/21/2010, 10:51 PM
People give up a lot of things when they join the military, but the straight members never had to give up something that plays a major role in defining them as a person.

Yeah, I bet your right.

Imagine you are a starting pitcher in MLB. You struck out 15 batters in a single game your rookie year and have won 107 MLB games and your only 22 and getting ready to sign a nice big contract.

Baseball is your life, it defines you.

Then Pearl Harbor is attacked. You become the first MLB player to enlist in the military, specifically the Navy. The Navy tries to give you a cush assignment because you are rather well known by what defines you. But you refuse and take an assignment as a anti-air craft gunner on the USS ALABAMA and serve the next 4 years in combat in the Pacific.

In 1945 with your enlistment up, you return to what you love and what you are defined as... A MLB pitcher. You have your best year in 1946 where you win 26 games. But in 1947 you hurt your knee and are never quite the same.

Then almost 70 years later a guy on the internet says "straight members never had to give up something that plays a major role in defining them as a person."

I wonder what you would say to that person?

But if you don't think that Bob Feller and millions of other heteros haven't given up something so important that it defines them while they serve in the military, then you must be right and I must be wrong.

Quick note.. Bob Feller was one of 37 first ballot Hall of Famers in MLB history. He died on the 15th of December this year.

yermom
12/22/2010, 12:47 AM
Major League Baseball isn't a lifestyle choice. sorry.

Harry Beanbag
12/22/2010, 01:41 AM
There are many confused people in this thread.

1. To talk about the military as a "job" or "place of employment" shows such a fundamental ignorance of reality that your opinion on this matter should be held with such little regard as to be nearly meaningless. It is your life, 24 hours a day.

2. Those of you harping on "civil rights", "individual rights" and "defining characteristics of persons" for service members don't understand how the military operates at all. Boot camp is there to strip away individualism and promote a team environment. It's not brainwashing, more like getting on the same page so to speak.

3. Those of you overly concerned about spouses (gay or nohomo) shopping on base as an important aspect of this discussion have lost. Please log off and turn on Jersey Shore.

That being said, I support the right of homosexuals to serve. They have served in the past, are serving presently, and will serve in the future. I know I served with some.

My issue is with people that don't have the ability to see or comprehend that gays serving openly, whatever that may entail, could and will cause problems that will affect how the military operates.

yermom
12/22/2010, 01:53 AM
i've yet to hear what those problems are other than gays are icky and might sexually harass you

Harry Beanbag
12/22/2010, 02:03 AM
i've yet to hear what those problems are other than gays are icky and might sexually harass you


Acting deliberately obtuse doesn't help in your quest.

yermom
12/22/2010, 02:08 AM
likewise.

denying rights to trivial things like gay spouses might not mean anything to you, but i'm betting there are people on active duty right now that it matters to

i'm just saying serving openly is more than just marching in some pride parade at announce it to everyone

Breadburner
12/22/2010, 02:17 AM
Jess put the soap on a rope.......

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/22/2010, 05:53 AM
I can't believe that someone actually thinks that a person being good at baseball and signing up to serve (an act of nobility), is the same as asking a gay person who wants to serve to not be gay for a while.

A new low on the humanity index.


I would he ok with applying DADT to everyone. No on base housing for wives. No sex period. No visits from girlfriends. Just an asexual blob. That way everyone is treated equally. And if you are caught cavorting with anyone, girlfriend, wife, mistress, fellow service member...BAM discharged.

soonercoop1
12/22/2010, 09:01 AM
Why not have openly gay units serving on the front lines in muslim countries....that should work out nicely...:)

Sooner_Bob
12/22/2010, 09:05 AM
Why not have openly gay units serving on the front lines in muslim countries....that should work out nicely...:)

That would be crazy . . . .

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 09:34 AM
But fun to watch. Think of the footage reporters could get from being embedded with those units. :D

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 09:35 AM
Signing time! Dude is about to ink it up.

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 09:38 AM
Liberman just hugged the POTUS in what looked like an uncomfortable moment IMO.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/22/2010, 09:48 AM
A great day to be an American.

olevetonahill
12/22/2010, 09:54 AM
A great day to be an American.

It aint that big a deal, well I guess it is if yer GHEY so go ahead and celebrate:pop:

olevetonahill
12/22/2010, 09:56 AM
Why not have openly gay units serving on the front lines in muslim countries....that should work out nicely...:)

Better yet, Just use all wimmens units and Make em Fight nekked. Ole Achmed wont be able to look at em and then they can blow his arse away :cool:

sappstuf
12/22/2010, 10:20 AM
Major League Baseball isn't a lifestyle choice. sorry.

I think definitions are always helpful.


the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

Being a MLB pitcher or a NFL player like Pat Tillman was and then join the military is absolutely a sacrifice in their lifestyle. They had to give something up. Being a father and joining the military is giving up part of being a father. In the first 3 years of my son's life, I was gone for 1 of them, I have missed 3 years of his life and 2 of my daughter's that I will never get back.

Being a father defines me. But because I am straight some people on this board believe that I have never had to sacrifice part of who I am. It is one of the dumber statements I have ever heard.

85Sooner
12/22/2010, 10:35 AM
I remember when people who practice homosexuality only wanted to "have the gov OUT of their bedroom". They just wanted to live their lives normally like all other folks. ONCE that was accomplished then came the Gay pride parade, then came school books about "my two mommies" Then came the Gay marriage debate. then came the "gay hate laws". It is not at all an issue of being able to serve in the open, it IS about pushing a social agenda and the US military is NO place for such a task.

Sooner_Bob
12/22/2010, 10:40 AM
Major League Baseball isn't a lifestyle choice. sorry.

I bet a few professional players would strongly disagree with you.

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 10:43 AM
I remember when people who practice homosexuality only wanted to "have the gov OUT of their bedroom". They just wanted to live their lives normally like all other folks. ONCE that was accomplished then came the Gay pride parade, then came school books about "my two mommies" Then came the Gay marriage debate. then came the "gay hate laws". It is not at all an issue of being able to serve in the open, it IS about pushing a social agenda and the US military is NO place for such a task.

I think eventually this will all die down and then they won't all keep trying to convince all of us that everything they do, think and say isn't anymore special than anything anyone else has to say. We are just going through another hurdle they think they need to make.

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 10:46 AM
A great day to be an American.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/oh.jpg

olevetonahill
12/22/2010, 10:46 AM
The Ghey is kinda sorta like the "Race" issue.
The sooner everyone quits making a big deal out of it the sooner most of the Probs will go away.
Its only when they become "VICTIMS" in their mind that major Probs occur

Sooner_Bob
12/22/2010, 10:47 AM
I think eventually this will all die down and then they won't all keep trying to convince all of us that everything they do, think and say isn't anymore special than anything anyone else has to say. We are just going through another hurdle they think they need to make.

I think there are still tons of us who think that "lifestyle choice" is abnormal. As long as "they" keep trying to convince us that what they do and how they live is ok, more special, etc. those hurdles will always be there.

Sooner_Bob
12/22/2010, 10:48 AM
The Ghey is kinda sorta like the "Race" issue.
The sooner everyone quits making a big deal out of it the sooner most of the Probs will go away.
Its only when they become "VICTIMS" in their mind that major Probs occur

Exactamundo . . .

3rdgensooner
12/22/2010, 10:51 AM
I wonder how many gay people are in this thread making a big deal out of this issue.

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 10:52 AM
I think there are still tons of us who think that "lifestyle choice" is abnormal. As long as "they" keep trying to convince us that what they do and how they live is ok, more special, etc. those hurdles will always be there.

I won't disagree with you there but I also know there has also been a change in lots of guys and gals that once they got older...they realized they may not have been Ghey from the Cradle and that they figured out that little voice in their head that kept saying "Procreate!" finally got the best of them.

sappstuf
12/22/2010, 10:54 AM
There are many confused people in this thread.

1. To talk about the military as a "job" or "place of employment" shows such a fundamental ignorance of reality that your opinion on this matter should be held with such little regard as to be nearly meaningless. It is your life, 24 hours a day.

2. Those of you harping on "civil rights", "individual rights" and "defining characteristics of persons" for service members don't understand how the military operates at all. Boot camp is there to strip away individualism and promote a team environment. It's not brainwashing, more like getting on the same page so to speak.

3. Those of you overly concerned about spouses (gay or nohomo) shopping on base as an important aspect of this discussion have lost. Please log off and turn on Jersey Shore.

That being said, I support the right of homosexuals to serve. They have served in the past, are serving presently, and will serve in the future. I know I served with some.

My issue is with people that don't have the ability to see or comprehend that gays serving openly, whatever that may entail, could and will cause problems that will affect how the military operates.

I don't think people on this board understand the 'Mission First' mentality of the military. It is all about completing the mission.

Allowing women to join the military most certainly helped accomplish the mission. When you add 50% of the population to those that can serve, it helps to accomplish the mission.

Desegregation, was a complete waste of resources for the military and took away from the mission. Double training staff to teach two seperate groups is a good example and it once again opened up 10% of the population to serve. So besides being the right thing to do in both cases, it directly helped the military complete the mission.

Allowing gays to serve openly might be the right thing to do, but it does not in any way help complete the mission. We don't keep gays in seperate barracks and seperate units. The number of gays serving is extremely low compared to the overall population and I wouldn't expect any great surge of gays joining the military.

I don't think allowing gays to serve openly helps accomplish the mission in any measurable way and accomplishing the mission is what I am concerned about. It might be nice for the individual to serve openly, but individuality isn't the military's strong point. The best case is that it doesn't affect the mission at all. I hope that is the case, but statements like this in a story this morning doesn't make me hopeful...


Guidelines must be completed that cover a host of questions, from how to educate troops to how sexual orientation should be handled in making barracks assignments.

Prime example of taking away from the mission...

StoopTroup
12/22/2010, 10:56 AM
Now once we start a mandatory service law this will all get even more fun.

Sooner_Bob
12/22/2010, 12:46 PM
I wonder how many gay people are in this thread making a big deal out of this issue.

The sf.com DADT policy is still good.

Right?:gary:

the_ouskull
12/24/2010, 03:07 PM
My issue is with people that don't have the ability to see or comprehend that gays serving openly, whatever that may entail, could and will cause problems that will affect how the military operates.

Until the people so "affected" turn on the lights in their cave and step outside into the light of a Huxley.

The more important "issue" is why anybody with a modicum of sense would give a d*mn about what you think on any topic, much less one that requires intelligent debate. I don't go to Conan O'Brien for hair tips, I don't go to Glenn Beck to learn how to say what I really mean, and I'm not going to Stillwater to find a stocked trophy case. Why on Earth would anybody's final opinion on gays in the military and the "issues" it could create be waiting on your $0.02 to get plugged into the machine?

Why don't you say what you really mean? "I think that, with gays in the military, the non-gay, homophobes are going to have problems with it and act like middle schoolers, which will create even more problems." That's what everybody's dancing around saying. I think that the United States military won't be able to overcome some school yard taunting.

Considering the state of this country and its various systems that are supposed to be preventing a dystopic future, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the U.S. military toppled by a few flat-topped punks who couldn't stop yelling "f*ggot" over and over. At least then, where we've gotten to as a society will be on FULL public display for the rest of the world, instead of hidden in cryptic message board posts, veiled as psuedo-threats regarding the change of any long-standing ways of doing things...

the_ouskull

Okla-homey
12/24/2010, 05:32 PM
It's going to be okay. Look, there won't be any fairies or flamers rushing to sign-up. They aren't inclined to live the military lifestyle or sleep in the mud anyway. Gay men who pretty much play it straight have always been in and they'll now be able to admit it. As to lesbians of the bull variety? Sure. They'll be able to admit it now too. No biggy.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/24/2010, 05:41 PM
As long as we make the playoffs, no one will care.